Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#3547
Jesus is not God
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1487
rating
31
debates
35.48%
won
Description
There are many contradictions in the Bible and Christianity. I would like to state that Jesus is not God. Lets leave it at that.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Jesus is not God. This is the statement I will be going for.
I am a Muslim and we believe that Jesus is not God nor the son of God. He was a Prophet and we love him so much. I will begin to show verses in the Bible that show Jesus is not God and it is down to Con to resolve these quotes.
‘And there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside Me. Look to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.’ (Isaiah 45:21-22, Jonah 3:5-10)
This clearly demonstrates that there is no God beside the Father. God means the creator of all things, the most powerful etc. There cannot be 2 Gods.
The everlasting, one God, in whole or in part, does not die, disintegrate, or decompose: ‘For I the Lord do not change.’ (Malachi 3:6)
This quote clearly demonstrates that God is not broken down into parts. So wipes out the trinity.
‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19)
‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9)
‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9)
So God is not a man, yet Jesus was a man. Now if Jesus is not divine on earth, then how is he God? Because God has to be God always. I will let Con sort this out.
‘a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40)
‘Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22)
‘He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed’ (Acts 17:31)
‘the man Christ Jesus’ (Tim. 2:5)
‘Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22)
‘He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed’ (Acts 17:31)
‘the man Christ Jesus’ (Tim. 2:5)
Jesus was called a man many times.
The Bible says that God is not the son of man.
‘God is not a man nor a son of man’ (Numbers 23:19)
Jesus is called the son of man many times
‘so will the son of man be’ (Matthew 12:40)
‘For the son of man is going to come’ (Matthew 16:27)
‘until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.’ (Matthew 28)
‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority’ (Mark 2:10)
‘because he is the son of man’ (John 5:27)
‘For the son of man is going to come’ (Matthew 16:27)
‘until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.’ (Matthew 28)
‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority’ (Mark 2:10)
‘because he is the son of man’ (John 5:27)
The Bible then says that Jesus denied being good and he said that only God is good which ambiguously denies Jesus as God.
Jesus spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’ (Luke 18:19)
The Bible also says that God is greater than Jesus and this clearly denotes Jesus as not God as there cannot be anyone greater or on the same level as God.
‘My Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28)
‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29)
‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29)
Can the father be greater than Jesus if Jesus is God? I will leave that for Con.
Jesus never told anyone to worship him. Only the father, how canny.
When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.’ (Luke 11:2)
Why should followers ask Jesus of nothing?
‘In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.’ (John 16:23)
Why does the Bible separate the two entities, Jesus and God?
‘that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.’ (John 17:3)
Does God have a God? Why did God worship God?
‘he continued all night in prayer to God.’ (Luke 6:12)
Jesus also prayed how Muslims today pray, same with a lot of other Prophets
‘he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father’ (Matthew 26:39)
If Jesus was God, and God was all powerful, why couldn't Jesus save himself?
‘During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.’ (Hebrews 5:7)
Can Jesus be God, the servant of God and the son of God and the son of man at the same time?
For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God ( Matthew 12:18)
This quote speaks for itself
‘The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.’ (Acts 3:13)
Why couldn't God raise himself? Why was he needed to be raised in the first place?
‘We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus’ (Acts 5:29-30)
Both the Quran and the Bible state that Jesus was the servant of God
‘your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.’ (Acts 4:27)
‘of Your holy servant Jesus.’ (Acts 4:30)
‘I am indeed a servant of God.’ (Quran 19:30)
‘of Your holy servant Jesus.’ (Acts 4:30)
‘I am indeed a servant of God.’ (Quran 19:30)
Why can't God do nothing without the father?
‘The son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing.’ (John 5:19)
‘I can of mine own self do nothing.’ (John 5:30)
Why was God with God?
‘he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.’ (Acts 10:38)
Why did Jesus (apparently God) fail to perform the miracle the first time and had to do it a second time? Is this part of God's attributes?
One time when Jesus tried to heal a blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (Mark 8:22-26).
Why did Jesus not know who touched his clothes?
‘At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?’ (Mark 5:30)
I thought he was God?
‘He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.’ (Mark 6:5)
How can God, the most powerful, get more strengthened?
‘An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him – in the garden of Gethsemane’ (Luke 22:43)
Why did Jesus want the fathers will to be done and not his?
‘not my will but Yours be done.’ (Luke 22:42)
‘I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.’ (John 5:30)
‘For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.’ (John 6:38)
‘I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.’ (John 5:30)
‘For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.’ (John 6:38)
Why did Jesus not want his testimony to be the same with Gods? Why was it seperate?
‘Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.’ (John 14:1)
Can God be more powerful than God?
‘Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.’ (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Can God increase is wisdom when He is already the most wise?
‘And Jesus increased in wisdom.’ (Luke 2:52)
Why did God not have to learn, but Jesus did?
God does not need to learn, but Jesus learned: ‘Although he was a son, he learned obedience’ (Heb. 5:8)
If Jesus was tempted, and God cannot be tempted, is that not a contradiction?
’tempted in every way – just as we are’ (Heb. 4:15)
‘for God cannot be tempted by evil’ (James 1:13)
‘for God cannot be tempted by evil’ (James 1:13)
So Gods teaching is not his but it is Gods? Confusing
‘So Jesus answered them and said, ‘My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me.’ (John 7:16)
Could Jesus not live without the father?
‘I live because of the Father.’ (John 6:57)
There are many Prophets who are referred to as the sons of God
Adam: ‘Adam, which was the son of God.’ (Luke 3:38)
Jacob is God’s son and firstborn: ‘Israel is my son, even my firstborn.’ (Exodus 4:22)
Solomon: ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son.’ (2 Samuel 7:13-14)
Ephraim: ‘for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.’ (Jeremiah 31:9)
Jacob is God’s son and firstborn: ‘Israel is my son, even my firstborn.’ (Exodus 4:22)
Solomon: ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son.’ (2 Samuel 7:13-14)
Ephraim: ‘for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.’ (Jeremiah 31:9)
Con can call this cherry picking quotes but I would like him to explain every single quote that I have presented. Thanks
See you soon, Con
Con
#2
Rayhans absurd level of burden of proof
Rayhan makes a bold claim in this debate. Rayhan claims all Christian theologians, philosophers and scholars throughout Christianity's thousands of years of history and study are wrong in their interpretation of the bible. To know such a thing, must mean he's read ALL Christianity theological theory and even disproven said philosophy of God, wow, impressive, it almost sounds unbelievable. Hence he should have the answers for everything I'm about to say to him. From Thomas Aquinas to Meister Eckhart. He must of debunked every sect of Christianity, which numbers into the dozens.
The everlasting, one God, in whole or in part, does not die, disintegrate, or decompose: ‘For I the Lord do not change.’ (Malachi 3:6)
God is infinite in the Bible, so he indeed cannot be broken down into parts. However, in no Christian sect is Jesus said to be a separate part of God; he IS God. He and the father are one. There is no separation between them. God is not separate. You just think of Jesus as separate from God, but he's not. Hence, your point is nullified as they are one. Jesus is God embodied.
‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19)
‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9)So God is not a man, yet Jesus was a man. Now if Jesus is not divine on earth, then how is he God? Because God has to be God always. I will let Con sort this out.
Jesus was a man, yet he was also God. I can be said to be something, but not that thing in my entirety. You would be correct to say I'm my brain, but I'm MORE than just my brain. In this same sense, Jesus is God, but not God in his entirety. Hence, God is greater than Jesus. To use an analogy, my arm is part of me and part of man. But a man is not an arm and cannot be reduced down to simply being an arm. In this same sense, God is Jesus but MORE than Jesus. Because God is truly infinite, he cannot be reduced to any of your mental boxes, and Jesus is not God in his entirety. Jesus in most if not all Christianity sects is God taking on the limited form of a human temporarily.
Jesus spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’ (Luke 18:19)
Jesus is simply one aspect of God, just like my arm is an aspect of me. But my arm is not greater than me. God in his totality is MORE than Jesus (but Jesus has infinite potential). Many sects of Christianity (such as Quakers) believe Jesus was an ordinary man like me and you, who lost his ego and became one with God and his will. This is why Jesus is a limited version of God (but with infinite potential and hence is still God acting out free will as a mortal). Since you never specified Catholicism, you must also tackle this version of Christianity and the 10 other interpretations. Meister Eckhart, a Christian theologian, developed a similar argument, arguing that because God is infinite, he must be all of reality. not be reality would imply a space God does not occupy, which would mean God is not infinite. Ibn Arabi, the Muslim theologian, created a similar philosophy for God on these lines too.
‘My Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28)
‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29)
I hope I've already answered this with the previous quote. God is greater than Jesus but Jesus is not separate from God. just like you're greater than your arm, but your arm is still part of you and is you. The same applies to God and Jesus in many sects of Christianity and their interpretations. Jesus is a human individualisation of God, a temporarily limited version of himself sent into the world of form (with infinite potential). Having said all this, there's no point in me replying to all of your quotes, as you need to debunk every version of Christianity. every theological viewpoint and sect. I imagine you opened this debate whilst only thinking of Catholicism. I believe I've already offered enough of a bowling ball into your argument to make it unnecessary for me to respond to each and everyone of them or not. There wouldn't be enough characters even if i wanted too.
I will offer you some videos to brush up on your understanding of theology. The first is Ibn Arabi and his philosophy, the second is by Meister Eckhart. I use their arguments as an extension of mine here (although their philosophies are way too complex to type here without taking up all my characters).
Round 2
Pro
#3
Rayhans absurd level of burden of proof
I do not think my level of burden of proof was absurd. It is simple. Jesus is not God. I never said according to the Bible, I never said according to Catholicism, all my statement was is 'Jesus is not God'. The Bible is not the book of Christianity? It is, which is why I quoted every quote from there. Con could disagree with Sunni and Shia and quote things from the Quran, however we all follow the same book. I never thought of a specific sect when I wrote this statement, I just wanted to say that Jesus is not God.
To know such a thing, must mean he's read ALL Christianity theological theory and even disproven said philosophy of God
Do Christians have different interpretations of the Bible? If your own religion's people is interpreting the Bible in many different ways, which one is right? This is a deluded point to say the least. If you are saying there are so much theologians and philosophers that are Christian and they all have different interpretations, then which is right? Because there can only be 1 right one as the Bible is not supposed to be open to interpretation, it is considered to be a divine book.
God is infinite in the Bible, so he indeed cannot be broken down into parts. However, in no Christian sect is Jesus said to be a separate part of God; he IS God. He and the father are one. There is no separation between them. God is not separate. You just think of Jesus as separate from God, but he's not. Hence, your point is nullified as they are one. Jesus is God embodied.
If Jesus comes on earth, and Jesus is God, then where is God? You can't say he is on earth and in the heavens because that makes 2 entities. There are 3 entities. The father, the son and the holy spirit. According to Christians, Jesus is not the father and vice versa. Yet they are all God. This is a contradiction as Jesus and the father are 2 separate entities. If one is on earth and the other is not on earth then the one on earth is separate to the one not on earth. It is common logic. But to say that they are one means Jesus holds as much power as the father does. Simply untrue.
You would be correct to say I'm my brain, but I'm MORE than just my brain.
This analogy plus the arm analogy to later come is inaccurate and absurd. If my brain is removed from me then I will be lifeless. So does that mean that the father relies on Jesus? I thought the father was all powerful? Same with the arm. If my arm gets removed from my body then it will limit me. If both my arms get removed, I cannot do certain stuff. And God is supposed to do everything. Illogical.
Jesus is God, but not God in his entirety.
Jesus has to be God entirely or he is not God full stop. If God is the most powerful, Jesus needs to be the most powerful. This means no one can be more powerful than him. If there is an entity that is more powerful than him then he cannot be the most powerful. Therefore cannot be God. If we are talking about Jesus, there was an entity that was more powerful than him therefore he cannot be God, as God is the most powerful. And yes I am thinking that these are 2 separate entities as Jesus is not the father vice versa. If Jesus is not the father, then he is a separate entity. He cannot be a part of the father physically because it goes back to that brain analogy which leaves you lifeless, something that God cannot be.
Jesus in most if not all Christianity sects is God taking on the limited form of a human temporarily.
If God becomes a human and he is 100% God still, then why was Jesus not the most powerful? Nor the most knowing? If you are God you must be 100% God or not God at all. Because if Jesus is 99% God and 1% human, then he is limited. And of course God cannot be limited. God takes on a form of a human, even if it for a short time, it would make God limited. God has to eat to survive, same with drinking, God has to sleep, God has to go to the toilet. Are these the things that God should do?
Jesus is simply one aspect of God, just like my arm is an aspect of me
Flawed concept, go back a couple paragraphs to know why.
This is why Jesus is a limited version of God
This is illogical. If he has infinite potential but cannot carry out that potential then that means he is limited. And a limited version of God is a contradiction as well. God is not limited. So if you are a limited version of God, you are not God at all.
God is greater than Jesus but Jesus is not separate from God.
How can God be greater than God when God is supposed to be the greatest? It just makes it even the more confusing. How can Jesus not be separate from God if he needs to eat to survive, he need to drink to survive. And you still think that Jesus and the father are not separate?
I was hoping to understand the trinity a bit more, however you have left me more confused than I already was.
Con
#4
I do not think my level of burden of proof was absurd. It is simple. Jesus is not God. I never said according to the Bible, I never said according to Catholicism, all my statement was is 'Jesus is not God'. The Bible is not the book of Christianity? It is, which is why I quoted every quote from there. Con could disagree with Sunni and Shia and quote things from the Quran, however we all follow the same book. I never thought of a specific sect when I wrote this statement, I just wanted to say that Jesus is not God.
Then you do believe Jesus cannot be God according to the Bible, since that's where you necessarily get your arguments from.
Do Christians have different interpretations of the Bible? If your own religion's people is interpreting the Bible in many different ways, which one is right? This is a deluded point to say the least. If you are saying there are so much theologians and philosophers that are Christian and they all have different interpretations, then which is right? Because there can only be 1 right one as the Bible is not supposed to be open to interpretation, it is considered to be a divine book.
No two Christians seem to agree on everything. No matter how educated.
If Jesus comes on earth, and Jesus is God, then where is God?
God is INFINITE, OMNIPRESENT. He isn't limited by things such as space or time. To be infinite is to have no boundaries. God is incomprehensible. To have no boundaries means he cannot be comprehended with the mind, as the mind puts things into boxes, polarities, and runs off relativeness. God is not in a "place". God is the place itself. God's being has no end. There is nowhere where he is not. Watch the Ibn arabi video i sent in the previous round, (Muslim scholar).
"You can't say he is on earth and in the heavens because that makes 2 entities"
No it doesn't. My arm is on my keyboard while my eyes are in my skull. Does that make me two, despite two aspects of me being in different places in space and time? Jesus is always attached to God. Just like both my eyes and ears are to me despite being in different places. if you read my debate, "all is one", you might get an interesting response to this question. God is never in a "place". God IS place. To be infinite means God is everything. Nothing exists BUT God.
There are 3 entities. The father, the son and the holy spirit. According to Christians, Jesus is not the father and vice versa.
Entity definition: Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit.
Following this definition, my thumb is an entity. My hair is an entity. Am i my thumb? well yes, but no. It would be right to say my thumb is part of me but it is not me in my totality. It is not greater than the totality of me. So yes, my thumb is me, its part of my being. But its not me in my totality. This is perfectly symmetrical between the relationship of the holy trinity.
If my brain is removed from me then I will be lifeless.
sure... but you're still not JUST your brain. Other aspects of your body are part of you too. You could say your brain is the most important part of you, but my analogy still stands.
So does that mean that the father relies on Jesus?
Of course not. This is a strawman argument. I could have replaced my brain with any other part of my body and it would have made just as much, if not more, sense. In the sense of a human we rely on the brain but God is INFINITE. I'm not sure why you're not getting what that means.
Jesus has to be God entirely or he is not God full stop. If God is the most powerful, Jesus needs to be the most powerful.
Why? That's denying God's infinity. God isn't a man in heaven with a long beard. Jesus IS the most powerful. He is part of God. He's simply temporarily in the theater of life, experiencing what it is to be mortal. When Jesus died, he didn't truly die. Nothing in this world could hurt him. He IS all powerful. When Jesus proclaimed he could move mountains with nothing but a thought if he wished, The only reason he didn't was out of respect for people's free will. That's why he let himself be crucified, he does not deny his own laws.
You're thinking is extremely dualistic in black and white terms, "it's either this or that," but the reality is much different. God won't be limited by your black and white thinking.
God takes on a form of a human, even if it for a short time, it would make God limited.
Not if being limited was simply an unreal illusion which you could overcome at any moment by realising your oneness with the Father (as Jesus taught). God is not limited at all, even if he allows aspects of himself to be embodied as a human. As long as the thing which limits God is simply a pretend or an unreal illusion and has no basis in reality, it is not something which limits God's power except God itself.
God has to eat to survive, same with drinking, God has to sleep, God has to go to the toilet. Are these the things that God should do?
Again with the black and white thinking. God in his most high form does not, but other aspects of himself he lets do these things if they want to experience such a thing. Have you ever thought to think what is right for God, he might not agree with. What you think God is too high and might to experience. He might not agree with? God doesn't think ANYTHING like a human.
This is illogical. If he has infinite potential but cannot carry out that potential then that means he is limited. And a limited version of God is a contradiction as well. God is not limited. So if you are a limited version of God, you are not God at all.
Not if the thing God allows to limit himself is ultimately unreal, and has no basis in reality which he can overcome at any moment by admitting it isn't real.
How can God be greater than God when God is supposed to be the greatest?
I've answered this a million times. My thumb is part of me, but not me in my totality. Therefore, I'm greater than my thumb. Jesus is simply part of the greater body of God. God is infinite. I'm unsure why you think these gotcha's of relativism work against God's infinity. I'm disappointed. Atheists constantly use these ridiculous arguments against Muslims and Christians. And here you are using the same tactics of trying to confine God to finity. Putting a graven image on God, limiting him to what humans can do, such as only being in one place at one time.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Then you do believe Jesus cannot be God according to the Bible, since that's where you necessarily get your arguments from.
Exactly, however I have not intended to pick things out from the denominations, just the Bible, which is universal correct? There can only be 1 correct interpretation.
No two Christians seem to agree on everything. No matter how educated.
Thank you for agreeing.
God is INFINITE, OMNIPRESENT. He isn't limited by things such as space or time. To be infinite is to have no boundaries. God is incomprehensible. To have no boundaries means he cannot be comprehended with the mind, as the mind puts things into boxes, polarities, and runs off relativeness. God is not in a "place". God is the place itself. God's being has no end. There is nowhere where he is not. Watch the Ibn arabi video i sent in the previous round, (Muslim scholar).
I believe that God is infinite yes. He is not limited to anything, that is why the universe exists. He created the universe as he is a independent, self sufficient entity that has no beginning nor will have an end and is a something, not a nothing. This is the atheists down point however I do not want to stray away from the topic. Now if God is not limited to time and space, and he is on earth, which is limited to time and space, is that not a contradiction? Muslims believe God does things that befit his majesty. For example, a person could say can God cease to exist? OR can God lift a rock that is too heavy for him to lift? As He is God, and he has always existed the cease to exist question is illogical. And so is the rock question. Because as God is the most powerful, there cannot be something more powerful than him. So it is a contradiction to say can God lift a rock that is too heavy, as it is not in his attributes to do this. God can do anything that befits his attributes. It is the same as coming to earth If God is self sufficient, He doesn't need to rely on anything for His existence, then he cannot come onto earth. As he has to eat to survive, making Him not God. Very simple to understand, yet many Christians do not as well as agree on the trinity.
No it doesn't. My arm is on my keyboard while my eyes are in my skull
Illogical argument. If you do not have eyes, then you cannot see what you are typing. So your your sight is dependant on your eyes. If you really want to compare a human to God, so be it, however this is not logical.
Nothing exists BUT God.
There are things that exist that is not God otherwise we can call everything God. We cannot call God's creation God because if you want to do that, then you have to call ALL of his creation God. For example, God forgive me, a fridge is God. This is a disgusting statement but one that you are literally agreeing to. There are things that exist and these things that exist are not God. God created these things. Maybe you meant before the creation of the universe, nothing existed but God. But not now.
Entity definition: Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit.Following this definition, my thumb is an entity. My hair is an entity. Am i my thumb? well yes, but no. It would be right to say my thumb is part of me but it is not me in my totality. It is not greater than the totality of me. So yes, my thumb is me, its part of my being. But its not me in my totality. This is perfectly symmetrical between the relationship of the holy trinity.
This still does not make any sense. My thumb is an entity yes. But without my thumb, I could not hold anything/ I will be more limited than before. If the thumb is part of me, then it relies on me to function. Correct? My impulses, my bones, my blood etc. There cannot be a thumb which is not part of me that functions when it is part of me. This entire analogy does not make any sense. The reason being is because if we take away the heart then the human will die. This is not a strawman argument, it is just facts. So if you want to use this analogy on humans then we can use it on God correct? I do not agree but you do. So if we take away the heart, then I will die. If we take away Jesus, then God will not exist. This is what you are clearly saying and you are clearly misunderstanding it.
sure... but you're still not JUST your brain. Other aspects of your body are part of you too. You could say your brain is the most important part of you, but my analogy still stands.
Yes I am not just my brain, but my brain allows me the capacity to think. And if the brain was not in my head, I could not think which would make me worse off than before. This makes me limited, which is again not an attribute of God.
I could have replaced my brain with any other part of my body and it would have made just as much, if not more, sense. In the sense of a human we rely on the brain but God is INFINITE. I'm not sure why you're not getting what that means.
So if we replace the brain with a heart and does this still make sense? Does the father rely on Jesus? This is true according to you. If we remove the heart, instantly we die. So if we remove Jesus........
Why? That's denying God's infinity. God isn't a man in heaven with a long beard. Jesus IS the most powerful. He is part of God. He's simply temporarily in the theatre of life, experiencing what it is to be mortal. When Jesus died, he didn't truly die. Nothing in this world could hurt him. He IS all powerful. When Jesus proclaimed he could move mountains with nothing but a thought if he wished, The only reason he didn't was out of respect for people's free will. That's why he let himself be crucified, he does not deny his own laws.You're thinking is extremely dualistic in black and white terms, "it's either this or that," but the reality is much different. God won't be limited by your black and white thinking.
This is ignorance. God has infinity. Yes. But when God is on earth, His infinity is no more. He is now a mortal. If Jesus is the most powerful, why could he not save himself from the crucifixion?
'44 And being in an aagony he prayed more earnestly: band his sweat was as it were great drops of cblood falling down to the ground. Luke:22:44
This verse clearly demonstrates that Jesus was not all powerful. He was fearing the alleged 'crucifixion'. If he was the most powerful, why did he say 'let it be your will not mine'? Surely he doesn't want his will to be done as it is not a powerful one. Only Gods will is the most powerful. It truly baffles me how Christians believe in the trinity.
I had a chat with another Christian and he started to waffle about divine simplicity and the church fathers etc. His defining and his arguments were completely different to yours. If Christians cannot agree on the trinity, what chance do Muslims have?
Not if being limited was simply an unreal illusion which you could overcome at any moment by realising your oneness with the Father (as Jesus taught)
There are many prophets in the Bible who are the sons of God. Does this make them God too? Why only Jesus? Did he want people to worship him? It is unfathomable to think this. You cannot say it was an illusion because I am limited right now. Does this mean I am God as well? Of course it doesn't.
I've answered this a million times. My thumb is part of me, but not me in my totality. Therefore, I'm greater than my thumb. Jesus is simply part of the greater body of God. God is infinite. I'm unsure why you think these gotcha's of relativism work against God's infinity. I'm disappointed. Atheists constantly use these ridiculous arguments against Muslims and Christians. And here you are using the same tactics of trying to confine God to finite. Putting a graven image on God, limiting him to what humans can do, such as only being in one place at one time.
How am I limiting God? You are and I am just saying that you are. The thumb argument does not make sense either. If I am greater than my thumb and the father is greater than Jesus, how does this make Jesus God? God is the greatest, none can be more greater than Him. This is what we both believe. However you have contradicted yourself. Before you said and I quote 'Jesus IS the most powerful'. Now you are saying and I quote 'Jesus is simply part of the greater body of God'. Who is more greater, Jesus or God? And if you say they are equal in greatness you have contradicted yourself 3 times.
The question I have is this. If I do not believe in the trinity then I go to hell according to Christians. Why is the trinity so hard to fathom if it is the key belief of my religion and impacts my salvation. My salvation relies on believing in the trinity. If Christians cannot agree, then how can I agree? And how can I agree if it is such a hard topic to explain? It is called blind faith. Nowhere did Jesus admit to being God, nowhere did any of the Prophets worship Jesus. Jesus was born out of a woman's womb, so is she the mother of God? Then Jesus died so God died.
This is just an inference here, if there is a man and a woman and the man rapes the girl and murders her and the girl is innocent. The innocent girl does not believe in Jesus and the man does. The man goes to heaven and the girl goes to hell. This is what many Christians have told me and I do not know if it is true or not.
I apologise for anything I have said about God wrongly in this debate as Muslims believe Shirk is the biggest crime a Muslim can commit. I am just going off your beliefs and questioning them
To me, Con has not answered most of the quotes I gave him at the start of the debate then contradicted himself. I am still very confused over something which 'my salvation' depends on.
Thank you for reading my points and this debate,
Vote Pro
Con
#6
Now if God is not limited to time and space, and he is on earth, which is limited to time and space, is that not a contradiction?
Not necessarily, no. I could attack this both from a scientific and biblical angle. God is only limited on Earth in so far as he chooses to forget his oneness with himself (the father). But once he overcomes the unreal illusion of not being the father (because of the ego). He can do the works of God. From a scientific perspective, a Quaker would say God is space and time itself. God is omnipresent, which means He's EVERYTHING nothing which was made was not made through and from his being. God is space, time itself. A Quaker can simply argue for an eternal universe, (energy cannot be created nor destroyed) and could still be consistent with their theological perspective of God.
For example, a person could say can God cease to exist? OR can God lift a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?
The lift a rock argument is an ancient Greek philosophical argument to prove that an omnipotent God is impossible. The answer is quite simple actually; God CAN do both of these things at the same time. Einstein throws a massive curveball at this idea through his theory of general relativity. He found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. And events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another.
He doesn't need to rely on anything for His existence, then he cannot come onto earth. As he has to eat to survive, making Him not God.
I've answered this above. God can come to Earth through people like Jesus. He can live like a human but can transcend this through realising his real identity as God, if he only doesn't believe himself God while embodied through taking on an illusion (such as an ego which creases a sense of "I" separate from God). As soon as he overcomes and realises that this is an unreal illusion which doesn't exist in reality. He begins to exist in the reality of God and becomes one with him. Judging by the fact you're creating arguments so fast; its obvious you never watched the ibn arabi video and meister eckhart videos. Which gives the same answers i do but much better.
Illogical argument. If you do not have eyes, then you cannot see what you are typing. So your your sight is dependant on your eyes. If you really want to compare a human to God, so be it, however this is not logical.
I never said my sight isn't dependant on my eyes. The analogy and only thing which needs to be compared is the fact different parts of me exist in different parts of space-time.
then he cannot come onto earth. As he has to eat to survive, making Him not God. Very simple to understand, yet many Christians do not as well as agree on the trinity.
I don't see why it has to be so black and white. Either one or the other. God in his most heavenly form. He does not need food, yet it wouldn't deny his infinity to let aspects of himself take on unreal illusions which make them temporarily limited through their own free wills. which they can break out of at any moment through realising their oneness with God. Somewhat like if an eagle was saying it couldn't fly, despite having perfectly functional wings. So yes, Jesus was partly of man, as he wasn't wholly without duality or ego, but he still realised his oneness with God. At least in some Christian sects, such as the Quakers. Catholics vehemently disagree with this and believe he was perfect from birth. So once more, it depends on which sect. I personally don't like Catholicism. It is easily the hardest sect of Christianity to defend in a debate like this, so I just won't.
There are things that exist that is not God otherwise we can call everything God. We cannot call God's creation God because if you want to do that, then you have to call ALL of his creation God.
Quakers believe this, and so did Einstein, so do i. Its exceptionally theologically and scientifically sound.
This still does not make any sense. My thumb is an entity yes. But without my thumb, I could not hold anything/ I will be more limited than before. If the thumb is part of me, then it relies on me to function. Correct?
You also rely on your thumb to function as much as you rely on it. There is no separation between you and it. You are it so you're dependant on it as you are yourself.
So if we take away the heart, then I will die. If we take away Jesus, then God will not exist. This is what you are clearly saying and you are clearly misunderstanding it.
Once again, your black and white terms. When I make an analogy, I'm not making an analogy to EVERYTHING. The only commonality in that analogy which is relevant, is the analogy that they're part of our body. No, God won't die without Jesus, just like I won't die if I cut my nails. Red herring argument.
Yes I am not just my brain, but my brain allows me the capacity to think. And if the brain was not in my head, I could not think which would make me worse off than before. This makes me limited, which is again not an attribute of God.
ok...
So if we replace the brain with a heart and does this still make sense? Does the father rely on Jesus? This is true according to you.
If we both agree that God is infinite, why are you assuming I believe God is reliant on Jesus like I am on my heart? this is a strawman argument. They don't have to be 1 to 1 in literally everything. I've also already answered this too, with my finger nail analogy. God is reliant on other aspects of his being like I am, because he's infinite, I'm unsure how that detracts from the other similarities I presented though. The black-and-white fallacy
This is ignorance. God has infinity. Yes. But when God is on earth, His infinity is no more. He is now a mortal. If Jesus is the most powerful, why could he not save himself from the crucifixion?
Didn't I answer this in the very same paragraph? I get the sense you're not even reading my full argument before typing.
This verse clearly demonstrates that Jesus was not all powerful. He was fearing the alleged 'crucifixion'. If he was the most powerful, why did he say 'let it be your will not mine'? Surely he doesn't want his will to be done as it is not a powerful one. Only Gods will is the most powerful. It truly baffles me how Christians believe in the trinity.
He lets it happen because he respects the law of free will. Quakers once more, believe Jesus did have some ego illusions left in him, which is why he was able to embody as God on Earth while not being as high an aspect of God's full being. In fact, Quakers believe it is only when he died on the cross that he fully overcame the ego and attained full union with God. Catholics don't believe this, but once more, this isn't a debate against Catholicism.
There are many prophets in the Bible who are the sons of God. Does this make them God too? Why only Jesus?
Some sects of Christianity believe Jesus was the example to be followed, not the exception like Catholicism spouses. If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move...Matthew 17:20
There are many such quotes like this, which make it appear like everyone is a spiritual child of God and can do the works of Christ, not just Jesus. It is just that only Jesus realised this connection to God.
how am I limiting God? You are and I am just saying that you are. The thumb argument does not make sense either. If I am greater than my thumb and the father is greater than Jesus, how does this make Jesus God? God is the greatest, none can be more greater than HimYou've been saying God cannot be in two different places at once. You've been projecting human qualities on God all though ought this debate. Is your thumb not part of you? if its not, then you're just simply wrong. If it is, my argument is perfectly coherent.The question I have is this. If I do not believe in the trinity then I go to hell according to Christians. Why is the trinity so hard to fathom if it is the key belief of my religion and impacts my salvation. My salvation relies on believing in the trinity. If Christians cannot agree, then how can I agree?
Why don't Shia and Sunnis just agree? Why don't extremists and moderates just agree? Many sects of Christianity literally don't believe in the trinity. Jehovah' witness being one of them. According to which Christians, do you go to hell for not believing in the trinity? Catholics?
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Ill vote for this, but I am leaning towards tie currently.
> where you have to do certain things and you get paradise and if you do not then you get hell
Kumbhipaka (cooked in a pot): A person who cooks beasts and birds alive is cooked alive in boiling oil by Yamadutas here, for as many years as there were hairs on the bodies of their animal victims.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Hinduism)
I do not divert anything.
With terrorism, I state that there is nothing in the book that supports terrorism, unless you think self defence is terrorism.
With oppression of women, I state there is nothing in the book, that oppresses women.
With Miracles, I say there are miracles in the Quran
With contradictions, I address the contradictions. I am not doing anything here, I am hard to debate because people cannot accept the truth, not because I divert it.
Nothing you say can change my mind as its rather void of sense. I dont follow Christianity as i dont agree with all its teachings. Therefore as a pantheist even if i think Jesus is part of God im not a Christian. You're hard to debate rayhan, not because your ideas are so strong but more so because it feels like you flip the board all together and find some way to come up with something which diverts the conversation into another logical fallacy.
I never said there were more creators. I said Hindu's worship the different Gods like they are the creator. Plus Hinduism is not a religion where you have to do certain things and you get paradise and if you do not then you get hell. Hinduism is like Buddhism, it is an ideology, a more philosophical faith rather than a spiritual faith. After you die, depending on karma, you get turned into a different being. It is a little confusing however as I said, Hinduism is a different matter
> All the million of Gods in Hinduism are worshipped. Worshipped to the point of that they created the person worshipping. This is not right, Hinduism is another matter, a polytheistic religion makes no sense. There can only be 1 creator.
there is only one creator in hinduism
and that creator is Brahman
All the million of Gods in Hinduism are worshipped. Worshipped to the point of that they created the person worshipping. This is not right, Hinduism is another matter, a polytheistic religion makes no sense. There can only be 1 creator.
1 creator who is independent
1 creator who has no beginning
1 creator who is self sufficient
1 creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc etc.
You can believe in what you want to believe, but there can only be 1 truth. And that 1 truth will come in the hereafter
> Hinduism is another matter. Brahman is a God but there are millions of other Gods as well, for different purposes, much like the roman or Greek Gods etc.
not exactly
Brahman is the source
all "other" gods are aspects of Brahman
like the characters you encounter inside your dreams
Hinduism is another matter. Brahman is a God but there are millions of other Gods as well, for different purposes, much like the roman or Greek Gods etc. Plus Hinduism is a polytheistic religion, Christianity is claiming to be mono however it is clearly not. But then again, this is a difference of opinion. Nothing that I can say will change yours or Ehyeh's mind. Ehyeh believes in Jesus being God yet is not Christian, not much sense in that.
i'm simply pointing out
that if YOU can create seemingly independent creatures in your dreams
then it shouldn't be difficult to imagine that god can do the same thing
in-fact
Brahman is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality, that is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence.
it is said that the big bang was the beginning of Brahman's dream
and our universe is Brahman's dream
A dream is completely different to life. Jesus existed in life however he had no divinity on his own, only with the help of his father and he was 100% human. Never encouraged people to worship him etc
here's an example of separate without being separate
when you dream
do you encounter other people and or animals in your dream ?
do you consider those people and animals you encounter in your dreams to be your puppets ?
or do you perceive them to be independently-minded creatures ?
"I agree, being omnipotent means to have infinite power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power."
as 3RU7AL said, to be omnipotent you don't need to be infinite in size, as to be infinite in size/space means omnipresence, not omnipotence. Therefore only 1 aspect of God needs to be omnipotent.....I don't know how to phrase it any easier. That means God can be us in a omnipresence sense and it doesn't deny Gods ultimate omnipotence. Even if God were not omnipresent, he could still be omnipotent.
"God is infinite. But not in his creation. The reason being is it would contradict his other attributes. If God is all powerful, He cannot be in his own creation. Therefore, if he is not in his own creation, he has to be outside his creation. We believe that God is closer to us than our jugular vein in spirituality. However as you are talking about a physical aspect of God, this is not supported"
If God exists in us in a spiritual sense but not in a material one, that still means there is a place where God doesn't exist. Which either means my body and the universe don't actually exist, or God is once more, not everywhere, meaning not infinite. What you said is like me saying, "There's a bogeyman in every corner and space in this room." Then you ask, "so is he on the roof?" I say, "no everywhere but the roof." Clearly, there's a contradiction here. He's not everywhere in the room if he's not on the roof.
I've debated this before... I do like to play devil's advocate.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/950-the-bible-teaches-that-jesus-christ-is-god
Omg, yes it means infinite power.
Omnipotent, means infinite power
Meaning, there is no one more powerful than God
Lets just say a raindrop is God. This is believed by Ehyeh. a raindrop is a small aspect of God. First of all, that raindrop would have to have Gods qualities such as omnipotence and omniscience, but it doesn't because the main God which is not in the universe has got these qualities. 2 entities cannot have these qualities. If God who is not in this universe has these qualities then nothing else can have them. It is so simple
> This is just not possible and cannot work. Power is nothing to do with typing. Bad example. Infinite power in other terms means more power than anything else. If something has more power than another thing, that another thing cannot be the most powerful.
OMNIPOTENT = ALL POWER
god retains all power at all times
nothing can move (like the fingernail) without god's will
without god's specific intentional action, everything would instantly vanish
god is not only the sole creator and sole substance of all things, god is also the active sustainer of those things
no event can contradict the will of god
there is no other will
only the will of god
This is just not possible and cannot work. Power is nothing to do with typing. Bad example. Infinite power in other terms means more power than anything else. If something has more power than another thing, that another thing cannot be the most powerful.
I just cannot believe why people are not understanding this. Basic, basic understanding.
Do you not understand?
I agree, being omnipotent means to have infinite power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power. So God needs to have the most power, no one can have more power than Him. This is what it means if you break it down. Now, there cannot be 1 aspect of him which is not omnipotent. If 1 aspect is not omnipotent, then something would be more powerful than that 1 aspect. This contradicts Gods omnipotence so that 1 aspect cannot be omnipotent. This is basic logic,
All the aspects of God need to be omnipotent, and the ones that are not, are not God. This is basic logic,
I do not mix up omnipotence with omniscience etc. I know the difference. But omnipotence is just 1 example. I could apply what I just said in my last paragraph with omniscience as well, however omnipotence is the more used term. You are the one contradicting things. So simple to understand yet they are 'deaf dumb and blind' to understand
> Not necessarily. If God has infinite power, He is the only one that has that power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power as one has to have more than the other, basic logic. Now if an entity has infinite power, it has more than anyone else. Thus being the most powerful. Thus if 1 aspect is not the most powerful, then that 1 aspect is God because then there would be something more powerful than that 1 aspect. Again, basic logic
just because a being has a specific ability, does not mean that every part of that being must also have that ability
for example
you can presumably read and type
but that does not mean that you hair can read and type
it does not mean that your feet can read and type
we are like god's fingernails
the fingernails think they are typing, but that's only because they don't understand they are a very small part of a much larger motivation system
You seem to conflate omnipotence with omniscience and omnipresence, putting all 3 into omnipotence. I'm not even going to get into how silly (imo) your argument against god being omnipresent is. Its a direct contradiction to be infinite but not in everything at once.
Rayhan, being omnipotent means to have infinite power. Omni present means to be EVERYWHERE. Since they are different words for different things it means they dont necessarily exist together. Therefore not all aspects of God have to be omnipresent and omnipotent at the same time to be omnipotent. That doesnt make sense. God is omnipotent if even only 1 aspect of him is that.
Based.
It does not matter about the substance of the shapes, matters about the shapes themselves. If I slice a person in half, the top of the head would be the beginning, and the bottom of the belly would be the end. Then we move on to the other shape. The top of the pelvis would be the beginning and the bottom of the feet would be the end. Or vice versa. It does not matter about the substance, the shape itself
God is infinite. But not in his creation. The reason being is it would contradict his other attributes. If God is all powerful, He cannot be in his own creation. Therefore, if he is not in his own creation, he has to be outside his creation. We believe that God is closer to us than our jugular vein in spirituality. However as you are talking about a physical aspect of God, this is not supported
Not necessarily. If God has infinite power, He is the only one that has that power. 2 entities cannot have infinite power as one has to have more than the other, basic logic. Now if an entity has infinite power, it has more than anyone else. Thus being the most powerful. Thus if 1 aspect is not the most powerful, then that 1 aspect is God because then there would be something more powerful than that 1 aspect. Again, basic logic
You've previously said God is infinite, now you dont believe hes omnipresent? how do you reason that?
Omnipotent simply means to have infinite power, to be "all powerful" is a mistranslation.
not all of God needs to be "all powerful" to be omnipotent, only one aspect of himself needs to be INFINITELY powerful to fulfill the omnipotent criteria. There's a reason why there's a distinction between omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience
> It would mean that God had a beginning.
not necessarily
the cosmos (and everything within the cosmos) had a "beginning" but the energy that gives substance to the higgs bosons that interact with the quarks and atoms that comprise everything you see and hear and touch and smell, that energy does not have a "beginning"
the shapes have a beginning
the substance of those shapes does not necessarily have a beginning
How have i contradicted myself? can you show me in any reality, where a chair and paint are wholly physically distinct to the senses, from touch, to sight, to smell etc?
What? That just supports my point, If God is not omnipotent in 1 aspect, then that 1 aspect is not God. Because there is something that is more powerful than that 1 aspect. it is just basic english
omnipotent
ŏm-nĭp′ə-tənt
adjective
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in ability; all-powerful; almighty.
Having unlimited power of a particular kind.
Based on the definition of omnipotent, God can have aspects of himself which are not all powerful, if there is one aspect of himself which is all powerful.
God is not omnipresent. I do not believe that. So it is not a fact of dodging a question, it is a fact of you being too ignorant of looking at my answers and interpreting that Rayhan does not believe that God is omnipresent
However you have just contradicted yourself with the paint analogy. Lets say the paint and the floor were made from the same materials. 1 primary materiel with the rest being secondary and changeable. If the paint is then spilled on the floor, you can basically say according to your logic that the paint is falling on the paint and it is not a boundary. I will give an example on your perspective of God. God is a chair and God is the floor. Both chair and floor are made from 100% wood or 99% wood. You can then say that the chair and the floor have no boundary as they are both the same. So the chair is God and floor is God. There is no valuation of God here
> We create something's identity based on geometry, for instance if i splash paint of the floor, i recognise the paint is separate from the floor because there's clear boundaries of where the red paint is and where the floor is due to shape and colour distinctness and texture distinctness. Just read my all is one argument. Geometry is an illusion, or simply because distinctness between objects exist doesn't mean they're not one.
another example would be a red ball
would we say "you are holding a hollow sphere of red paint that contains a foam spheroid" ?
or do we (arbitrarily) combine the "two things" and simply identify them as "a red ball"
You think very black and white rayhan. I think God is infinite, i think God net gains through a sense of separation from himself. Whether you see this as limiting is up too you, i personally don't as i believe all aspects of him return to infinity once they let the unreal illusions die. Your still wholly incapable of answering my question ive been asking you, constantly dodging it.
If God is omnipresent, how is he seperate from the universe?
We create something's identity based on geometry, for instance if i splash paint of the floor, i recognise the paint is separate from the floor because there's clear boundaries of where the red paint is and where the floor is due to shape and colour distinctness and texture distinctness. Just read my all is one argument. Geometry is an illusion, or simply because distinctness between objects exist doesn't mean they're not one.
also can you write your comments in 1 comment pls, it is kinda hard if I send a message and you send another 1. just make all your points in one comment
Of course every aspect of God has to be all powerful. If one aspect of God is not all powerful, then it is weak. And if it is weak, then it is not God as God is all powerful. It his God's nature to be all powerful however you do not think like this
So there is a whole, lets assume it is a block of cheese. I half the block of cheese, cook a half and eat it and poo it out. The block of cheese is in the sewage system. The block of cheese has decomposed and has now become my poo. Does that block of cheese in the sewage system still have the same attributes, properties, smell, taste as the one in the fridge?
I don't see why every aspect of God has to be all powerful in every moment. With certain theories of time, it remains true that all those arguments you just said are incorrect as they rely on a linear sense of time. All eventually will collapse and go back to God in almost all beliefs, even pantheist ones, once more then attaining limitlessness in his ultimate being. You say God can only do things which make himself more powerful, have you ever thought to consider there is a lesson or something valuable in a sense of separation from itself something which makes him more powerful than if he chose not to create this way? The idea that for something to be perfect must mean it cannot grow anymore, is wrong. As to be infinite means to always be transcending always going up more. God is like maths, simply endless but always going up. Therefore it can be justified that there could be things God gains from creating the universe and embodying as everything inside it.
God is not split into parts, as the sense of "I" we have doesn't exist. I've said this before, but separation as a whole is an illusion. Read my "all is one" debate. The believe that things can even be subtracted into parts from the whole, is WRONG. Scientifically.
If you both believe that God is everything,
If God is a droplet of water, if God is a grain of sand, and there are billions and trillions and more and if God is a star and there are billions of stars and if God is a person, there are billions of people etc etc. This basically means that God is split into parts. Illogical. The reason why is very very simple. It would mean that God had a beginning. If God is infinite, and you break God into parts, then each part has a beginning and an end to the next part. And of course you guys both believe that God has no beginning and no end.
If God is a droplet of water, if God is a grain of sand, how do we know if that is God? By this I mean what attributes is God like that the grain of sand has? Is the grain of sand omnipotent? If God is all powerful, there cannot be something more powerful than Him. So a grain of sand is not all powerful, which means it is not God. Basic.
> No. He used his will to make the materiel.
(EITHER) god's will is part of god (OR) god's will is part of something else
god's will is the materiel
also, when god took part of itself and made the cosmos, that was not "subtracting" anything from anything
the total substance and power of god remained constant
the same before
and the same after
You hurt yourself, God in his higher form doesn't suffer the way you do even if he is you. When you suffer doesn't mean God does, as he has a different perspective on your suffering. He has more knowledge of the events, as he directly sees them through you but has higher knowledge of those events and different morals and a different "I" so he doesn't feel the way you do, even if part of him is you. i believe God experiences through us. If you disagree, show how God can be omnipresent but separate from the universe at the same time.
You believe what you want to believe but don't say I did not warn you.
I am not as intellectual as you so many of these big words you are presenting are not in my vocab.
Realistically, if I am hurting myself, am I hurting myself or am I hurting God?
It seems abnormal because you have an ego a sense of "I". This is a normal experience for most people, but most philosophers realise the "I" doesnt actually exist.... at least in the way we like to imagine it. "you" as in who you believe you are, doesnt really exist.
God is you, so if you hurt another you're really hurting yourself. Although many would say you cannot consider yourself part of God till you realise your union with him, only then can you act in tandem with Gods true will. Essentially we do evil because we have egos, or take on the illusions of not being one, or God. Yet because this is simply unreal, if we overcome it we become one with Gods mind, therefore act as he would. So you don't act as God or the higher form of you would act, as you can only act the way you do in ignorance. But God is still these other parts of the universe too, although they could be said to have free will or God allows aspects of himself to feel separate from himself simply for the experience it. If you think this limits God, you have no way of proving this, as it relies of a certain theory of a linear time and many other assumptions you must presume.
No. He used his will to make the materiel. Not pieces of him. This is illogical, because if God is infinite, there cannot be pieces of him. This would make him finite. For example, reduce his power. And you may say, He is God, he does whatever he wants. He does stuff that befits his attributes. If he makes himself weaker and he is omnipotent then that is going against his attributes. Illogical
> There is no material to make things out of. He created the materiel to make it. It never existed and then it did. Because He is that independent entity that created it.
god made the materiel from the only available resource
god made the materiel out of god
pieces of god
It is not a threat, a warning.
If I kill myself, am I killing God? If I kill people, am I killing God? This is wrong according to the Bible. If I spit a chewing gum out, am I spitting out God? This entire philosophy is just abnormal