if you believe in Divine simplicity but are still a Trinitarian,you are a modalist.

[Ainnir]

This thread reminds me of Cathy Newman's interview of Jordan Peterson. Someone telling someone else what they believe without having any concept of what they believe.

"You believe there are three gods"

"Nope, don't believe that"

"Well, obviously you're a polytheist"

"Nope, not true"

"How can you say your aren't a polytheist when you clearly believe there are three gods?"

"*sigh*"

/thread

 

[Eamonomae]

so many debunked arguments in this thread.the quran is not eternal in the sence that the literal words are eternal,it is eternal because it is Allah's speech.and his speech is eternal because he exists outside of time.I am not here to promote islam,only to argue against trinitarianism.I know christians hate islam and our prophet(SAWS).

That still creates distinction within God and is thoroughly incompatible with your conception of Absolute Divine Symplicity, and you haven't addressed the Prophet Muhammad's "Satanic verse" polytheism.

 

[Samn!]

the quran is not eternal in the sence that the literal words are eternal,it is eternal because it is Allah's speech.and his speech is eternal because he exists outside of time.

If you can distinguish it, even verbally, from God and it's eternal, then either it's something eternal that's distinct from God or you have multiplicity within God, just like the Trinity. But also, classical Sunni authorities hold the position that the literal words of the Qur'an are themselves eternal, so you don't even know what you're talking about in terms of Islam.

 

[Eamonomae]

Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, and do not take as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared as unlawful, and do not profess the Faith of Truth; (fight them) until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are subdued. Surah 9:29

To be fair, you can just as easily take out similar verses out of context in the Old Testament.

I do think it's a world of difference because in Christianity, the Old Testament is subordinate to the New, whereas all the Quran are equally authoritative in Islam - however, the Old Testament texts aren't any less valid.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

To be fair, you can just as easily take out similar verses out of context in the Old Testament.

I do think it's a world of difference because in Christianity, the Old Testament is subordinate to the New, whereas all the Quran are equally authoritative in Islam - however, the Old Testament texts aren't any less valid.

First of all it literally says to fight Jews and Christians (people of the book) until they either covert, die or pay protection money. In the OT there is nothing about converting people at the point of a sword. There is fighting against pagan nations to secure Israel or kill apostate Jews but not forcing Gentiles to convert.


Seccondly all classical Islamic jurisprudence interprets this as binding to the Ummah. The verses about peace and tolerance were abrogated. Read about Abu Bakr and the early caliphate and tell me with a straight face islam doesn't command violent subjugation of all other religions.

 

[Samn!]

all the Quran are equally authoritative in Islam

In fact, there's abrogating and abrogated (nasikh and mansoukh) verses in the Qur'an, which make it even stranger that it's supposed to be eternal and uncreated.

 

[Deacon Lance]

and this is a poor attempt to discredit my arguments,by attacking my persona.how typical for a christian clergyman.

I did not address your arguments. You made a statement that you learned and grew. Growth and learning take time. You’ve been Muslim for what a few weeks now? Yet you’ve taken it upon yourself to come here and anoint yourself the Muslim apologist of OC.net? Again why would anyone take you seriously or waste their time arguing with you? Next month you’ll be Hindu, or Buddhist, or Unitarian, or Zoroastrian or …

 

[muskogee22]

I did not address your arguments. You made a statement that you learned and grew. Growth and learning take time. You’ve been Muslim for what a few weeks now? Yet you’ve taken it upon yourself to come here and anoint yourself the Muslim apologist of OC.net? Again why would anyone take you seriously or waste their time arguing with you? Next month you’ll be Hindu, or Buddhist, or Unitarian, or Zoroastrian or …

Lol I never said I was here to argue for islam in fact I said I am only here to argue against trinitarian Christianity.I was Muslim for four years as a teenager but my imaan is more firm know that I know the logic behind tawheed.and the incoherency of the trinity.

 

[Katechon]

Well yeah but I meant coherence in a more larger scale. They conveniently removed much of things that seem anyhow complicated in Christianity and dogmatized various miniscule details early on instead of having to deal with councils and schisms several centuries later.

They end up in the same kind of problems they see wrong in the Christian point of view, and resort to special pleading in order to not confront them.

 

[recent convert]

From post #14:

quote:

do not trust Enoch because all christian writings have been tampered with heavily according to scholars.

Such a convenient, unfounded generalization & cop out.

 

[Eamonomae]

First of all it literally says to fight Jews and Christians (people of the book) until they either covert. In the OT there is nothing about converting people at the point of a sword.

I think that's logically implied in the Old Testament due to their heathenry. I mean, if the enemies of Israel submitted themselves before Israel and converted to Judaism, would God spare them? To some extent, it's perhaps more merciful that the Muslims who allow them to convert, than to just kill them and send them to Spiritual Death for both being outside the Covenant and constant violation of the First Commandment.

There is fighting against pagan nations to secure Israel or kill apostate Jews but not forcing Gentiles to convert.

The Muslims literally see themselves as spiritual inheritors of the alleged "Covenant of Ishmael" (I'm not sure if they believe that Christ abrogated the Covenant of Israel), made on behalf of Abraham's first son, with a similar logic to the Covenant of Israel. The Caliphate of the Prophet Muhammad can be properly analogized to the Israelites (especially the Pre-Monarchist, Theocratic Israelites).


The only way that Christians are better is because they believe that the Old Testament violence was but a means to an end to secure a holy nation for the Messiah, rather than a Salvific end in of itself. Yet that doesn't make the Old Testament any less valid.

That's also notwithstanding the fact that before the Enlightenment, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox felt the Church had a jurisdictional right and duty to suppress heretics and infidels, unless they were significant in number to pose a threat to social stability. In fact, it was only until Nicholas II that Catholics were even allowed to practice the Byzantine Rite within Russia.

In some cases this led to horrendous results - for example, in Russia, St. Gennady of Novgorod's burning of Judaizing heretics and Patriarch Nikon breaking into people's homes to commit iconoclasm against Orthodox icons that were "too Latinized"

 

[biro]

This is getting stranger with every post.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

I think that's logically implied in the Old Testament due to their heathenry. I mean, if the enemies of Israel submitted themselves before Israel and converted to Judaism, would God spare them? To some extent, it's perhaps more merciful that the Muslims who allow them to convert, than to just kill them and send them to Spiritual Death for both being outside the Covenant and constant violation of the First Commandment.



The Muslims literally see themselves as spiritual inheritors of the alleged "Covenant of Ishmael" (I'm not sure if they believe that Christ abrogated the Covenant of Israel), made on behalf of Abraham's first son, with a similar logic to the Covenant of Israel. The Caliphate of the Prophet Muhammad can be properly analogized to the Israelites (especially the Pre-Monarchist, Theocratic Israelites).


The only way that Christians are better is because they believe that the Old Testament violence was but a means to an end to secure a holy nation for the Messiah, rather than a Salvific end in of itself. Yet that doesn't make the Old Testament any less valid.

That's also notwithstanding the fact that before the Enlightenment, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox felt the Church had a jurisdictional right and duty to suppress heretics and infidels, unless they were significant in number to pose a threat to social stability. In fact, it was only until Nicholas II that Catholics were even allowed to practice the Byzantine Rite within Russia.

In some cases this led to horrendous results - for example, in Russia, St. Gennady of Novgorod's burning of Judaizing heretics and Patriarch Nikon breaking into people's homes to commit iconoclasm against Orthodox icons that were "too Latinized"

BTW this was me not Katechon.

God judging the nations is different than personal conversion and blasphemy laws that exist in perpetuum.

Right. And the Caliphate, far from being a small nation like Israel, intends to conquer the world until no one who does not confess the shahada is killed or pays the jizya. I still don't follow you with the OT. I don't see where God says for Israel to invade other territories to convert the gentiles by force.

As far as the enlightenment, I think that policy was an error unique to the Russian church. Can you source a single church father that supports such an idea or any generally accepted council calling for violent persecution of heretics?

 

[Eamonomae]

As far as the enlightenment, I think that policy was an error unique to the Russian church. Can you source a single church father that supports such an idea or any generally accepted council calling for violent persecution of heretics?

The word "Ecumenical" means "Of the civilized world" and was a reference to the Byzantine Empire - carrying on the tradition since Julius Caesar's De Bello Galico that the Roman Empire was civilization, and the outsiders were barbarians. Hence the "Ecumenical" Patriarch of Constantinople (The Imperial Patriarch of Constantinople or the Byzantine Patriarch of Constantinople).

The "Ecumenical Councils" were called that because they became the binding law of the Roman Empire, and they were politically mandated on the citizens.

The oldest code of law from the Byzantine Empire that we have, that I know of, comes from Saint Emperor Justinian, "The Justinian Code", or more specifically, the Corpus Juris Civilis. The very first law in the Codex says that Christianity is the law of the land and all citizens are required to uphold the Church's Faith (that is, the Faith of the Empire).

To this day that's part of the reason why the Oriental Orthodox are so hostile to Chalcedon, because of the (often times bloody) persecution of their Saints. One example is Saint Samuel the Confessor in the Coptic Church, where Byzantine soldiers were visiting monasteries to make sure that the monasteries were complying with Chalcedon. Saint Samuel refused, and when he refused, the Byzantine soldiers beat him up so badly that they punched out his eye.

We also know for a historical fact that censorship of heresies were rampant in the Byzantine Empire too - the fact that so much of Saint Severus of Antioch's writings only exist in fragments is a testament to that.

That's why heresies were such a big deal at the time - if you got an Emperor who was a heretic, have fun with that - he could easily kick out Bishops he didn't like and persecute you if you disagreed with him.

This principle - probably originating from a combination of the Old Testament's texts and Pagan Rome Jurisprudence (There was no separation of Church and State in the Ancient Pagan Roman Empire either, we still have the alleged text of Saint Cyrpian's legal proceeding, before his martyrdom, preserved in the Church's tradition - https://ritabay.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/friday-miscellany-the-trial-of-st-cyprian/ as an example of it)

- continued onwards not only with Russia, but also even when Greece finally got it's independence from the Ottomans after World War I with the whole Calendarist controversy, when Patriarch Meletius IV changed the Old Calendar and made that the binding law of the land. The Old Calendarists still talk about the violent persecutions they went under today.

I don't see where God says for Israel to invade other territories to convert the gentiles by force.

You ever read the Old Testament? After travelling in the Desert for 40 years, the Israelites were told by God to subdue the Canaanites living in the Promised Land, minding their own business. Read Joshua 6-12.

There's no conversion by force, sure. But I see that as such a miniscule issue considering the Old Testament has God commanding religiously motivated conquest and the Christian Empires made the Church the law of the land, essentially legally forcing conversion.

 

[Samn!]

I know the logic behind tawheed

But your idea of tawheed as "eternal, absolutely simple, unconditioned reality" is far less philosophically defensible than the Trinity. It is literally a description of Aristotle's prime matter and, were it to exist, would be incapable of creating anything on its own.