Intresting to know why?

[barney 0]

Man and God has a link and that link is the Atma. Hindus knew all along this and that is why we had divine persons such as Adhi Shankara, RamaKrisna Paramamsa, Swami Ramalinga Adigal, Swami Vivakananda and many more to come.

 

Below is an argument between the Christian aspect and the Muslims ignorant thoughts.

 

God is infinite. Matter is finite. God could not become a man.

 

Muslims deny that Jesus could be God in flesh. They affirm that He was a great prophet, but they clearly deny His divinity. One of the reasons is Muslims are taught that God is infinite and that He could not become a finite man. In other words, the infinite God cannot become finite man. They say it doesn't make sense. One Muslim asked me how God who is dependent on nothing, can then become dependent as a man. He said that by definition God is not dependent upon anyone, therefore to become dependent is impossible. Another said that if God became a man, he could not then become a god again because a man cannot become a god.

These questions reveal how Muslims think. They have such a strict idea about God, that they cannot admit the possibility of Him (or part of Him) becoming a man. Any idea of an incarnation becomes ludicrous to them. They claim that it isn't logical.

 

Muslims are also taught that the Bible is corrupted and that only the Qur'an is perfect. So, to quote from the Bible makes little impact on them. Many Muslims have required logical proofs for the theory of the incarnation instead of biblical references. I attempt to oblige them here.

 

The following outline is designed to answer the objections raised by Muslims. In "Premise one," the objections are in bold. The answers to them follow.

 

Premise one: According to Islam, God can do anything.

If this is so, then it necessarily follows that if God can do anything, then he can become a man since that possibility falls under the scope of "God can do anything."

 

This would mean that God stopped being God.

Since God can do anything, according to the premise above, then God could do this without stopping being God. See part "b." in next objection.

If God, in some way, became a man, it does not necessitate that He stop being divine. He could simple add to Himself human nature.

 

This would mean that the infinite God became finite.

Not if a "part" of God entered into a human form. The totality of God could still exist, yet a localized "part" could take the form of a man.

 

Is not the Qur'an the word of Allah? Is not His word a reflection of His character since it proceeds from Him? Is not the infinite word of Allah made to become knowable, readable in a physical form for us to understand? Since this is so, why cannot the Word of God become flesh -- as the Bible says? Why cannot a representation of God (His word) take a physical form (Qur'an) or even a human form (Jesus) -- since God can do anything?

 

This would mean that the independent became dependent.

It would not necessitate that the totality of God became dependent, per point "b." above: a part of God could become man.

 

God can choose to become dependent, in part, as a man. He can make that choice, can he not?

This would mean that the eternal became temporal.

Again, by premise one, God could do it since He can do all things.

 

If God, in some way, became a man by adding human nature to Himself, it would not necessitate that God stop being eternal since His divine nature would be, by nature, eternal as it is retained within the human form.

 

If God became man, then he could not become God again.

 

If only a "part" of God became man, then God would never have ceased being God and the objection is moot.

If God can do all things, then a part of Him can become a man and retain His divine nature and never have stopped being God at all.

 

Why would God need to become a man? Showing He has a need means he is dependent.

 

It is not a need. It is a choice. God is not compelled to do anything -- except be Himself. If He chose to become a man, it would be by His desire, not by His need.

If God can do anything, then He can choose to share in the dependency of a human and not deny his own nature of being God.

Premise two: God cannot do anything, because He cannot do anything that conflicts with His nature. Becoming a man conflicts with His nature.

 

To say God's nature does not permit Him, in some way, to become a man requires that the Muslim establish those aspects of God's nature that negate the possibility of an incarnation, otherwise it is only the Muslim's opinion.

God's nature has to do with essential character and essence of His being like holiness, love, compassion, goodness, patience, etc.

 

There is nothing in holiness, love, compassion, goodness, patience, etc., that would mean God could not become a man.

 

God's attributes are inherent characteristics like eternality, infinity, invisibility, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, speech, creativity, etc.

None of the above attributes negate the possibility of a part of God becoming man.

 

The essential nature of something is not changed if a part of it adds humanity.

 

 

Premise Three: God's nature can be partially seen in His creation.

 

As a painter reveals part of himself, his style, what he is, etc., in his painting, so too, God has revealed part of Himself, His style, and what He is in His creation.

 

The universe is ordered; therefore, God is a God of order.

The universe operates on laws; therefore, God is a God of law.

 

The universe has a beginning; therefore, God is the creator.

 

The universe is immense (functionally infinite); therefore, God is infinite.

 

The universe is comprised of three primary aspects: Space, Time, and Matter.

Space is comprised of height, width, and depth - a trinity - but each aspect is by nature space.

Time is comprised of past, present, and future - a trinity - but each aspect is by nature time.

Matter is comprised of solid, liquid, and gas - a trinity -but each aspect is by nature matter.

 

Therefore, we can conclude from looking at the universe, and God as its creation, that it is possible for God to have a trinitarian aspect to His nature.

 

If it is fair to say that God may indeed be trinitarian in some aspect of His nature, then God could be a plurality and all aspects of this plurality, being of God, would be divine by nature.

 

Since God is self-aware, has a will, can speak, etc., then it follows that the plural aspects of God would share, in some way, those same qualities.

 

If this is possible, then why cannot part of God, since God is a plurality, become a man and add human nature to itself?

 

 

There is no logical reason to declare the impossibility of God being trinitarian or that He, in some way, could become a man.

 

The Bible has declared that God is indeed a Trinity and that Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; etc.).

 

 

 

[Sephiroth 0]

ONLY Muslims can come up with contradicting statements and still consider their religion is perfect. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

Premise one: According to Islam, God can do anything.

 

Statement 1 - God can do anything.

Statement 2 - God cannot become Man.

 

Logical deduction - God cannot do anything He want because He cannot become a Man. Therefore, Muslims lie about their God's nature.

 

Premise two: God cannot do anything, because He cannot do anything that conflicts with His nature. Becoming a man conflicts with His nature.

 

Statement 1 - God can do anything.

Statement 2 - God cannot become Man because it conflict with His nature.

Statement 3 - God's nature is bounded by His own laws WHICH He himself cannot break.

 

Logical Question - If God Himself cannot break free from His OWN laws, then why do Man need to worship such God?

 

It seems to me that Muslims picture Man has a puppet in hands of a puppeteer (God) who is a puppet in hands of another puppeteer (His Laws).

 

Premise Three: God's nature can be partially seen in His creation.

 

Yeah, True. Study of Kaballah is about studying this "Nature" in order to understand God (which we cannot see straight forward). It's like study of an Art to understand the view of an Artist in his era and world he lives in.

 

However, MANY of Islamic Laws are against Laws of Nature. For example - Reincarnation. Islam is against such concept when Nature shows that ALL matter (from the smalls insect to tectonic plates) undergoes some sort of "recycling".

 

Also, as evident by studies of Taoism on Natural order, and also in Kaballah, there is logical explainations for existences of God/s, Spirits etc which is against Islamic beliefs. In that context ... Islam is against Laws of Nature.

 

The Bible has declared that God is indeed a Trinity and that Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; etc.).

 

Unfortunately, disagree. WHY? Because Christianity burdens Man with Original Sin and states that Christians who believe in Jesus is saved.

 

Similar to what Muslims are saying - believe in Muhammad and follow Islam and you will be saved. Both are Placebo - Christians in believing foolish beliefs that they were sinned before and cleansed after they become believers while Muslims who were fed with fears of Hell believes they will go to Heaven and be saved.

[Guest guest]

" God cannot do anything He want because He cannot become a Man."

 

in a sense god is already a man... a man is god without supremacy and without sat, cit, ananda..

 

so god is everything and can be everything.. he simply can be subdued only by his will.. and if he seems to be sometimes under the supremacy of someone else, like his shakti (radha, lakshmi and so on), or his devotees, this happens because he's ultimately IS his shakti and because it happens for his free will

 

so man's nature comes from god's nature.. god,, in some sense, is the PERFECT man..

 

NARAYANA

 

(nara means man... )

[Guest guest]

I am not going to defend ISlam or christianity. they are not worth defending. But I'd like to point out a flaw in your thinking. Man cannot become God. But can God become man? As Krishna describes in the gita, He can 'descend' to that level not out of maya (because he is the master of maya), but to protect dharma. So there is a huge difference between a helpless man who's the child of maya and Krishna who 'appears' as a man to protect dharma in his cosmic play cuz he's the controller of maya.

[Sephiroth 0]

Guest ... I attend to disagree with you that Man can become a God - even with God's will or not.

 

As Krishna describes in the gita, He can 'descend' to that level not out of maya (because he is the master of maya), but to protect dharma. So there is a huge difference between a helpless man who's the child of maya and Krishna who 'appears' as a man to protect dharma in his cosmic play cuz he's the controller of maya.

 

Let's look at this in Mathematical terms. Assume God's Minimum Value (characteristics and Nature) is 1,000 and Man's Maximum Value (characteristic and Nature) is 100.

 

God can "create" a lower form by using a fraction of His Value (about 100 or more ... even 101) and become a Man, thus appearing to other Man as a perfect Man.

 

Man however, no matter how hard he tries, cannot exceed his physical handicap and go above the Value of 100 (because that is limitation of his mental, physical and spiritual aspects). So, Man can never become God even so he could mimic Him in some ways.

 

True nature of God is beyond Man's capability to understand and what we understand of God comes from what we understand of Nature. What we understood from Nature, however, comes from only a small fraction of what we know from this World, and not other countless worlds out there.

 

Like the example of judging an Artist by his painting, you can only guess and come out with logical deduction of what an artist could be like (based on a single Art), yet there is other arts out there by the same artist, which we need to examine to get further insight but not capable of doing so now.

[barney 0]

1..[Let's look at this in Mathematical terms. Assume God's Minimum Value (characteristics and Nature) is 1,000 and Man's Maximum Value (characteristic and Nature) is 100.]

 

You do not know God's Minimum or man's Maximum Value. Please explian Swami Ramalingam's Value. There are many things you do not know about man's total value of atma sakthi. So making assumption is useless.

 

 

2...[God can "create" a lower form by using a fraction of His Value (about 100 or more ... even 101) and become a Man, thus appearing to other Man as a perfect Man.

 

Man however, no matter how hard he tries, cannot exceed his physical handicap and go above the Value of 100 (because that is limitation of his mental, physical and spiritual aspects). So, Man can never become God even so he could mimic Him in some ways. ]

 

As I have said earlier in my other reply that even if God walks along you as man, you would not reconize HIM. So how would you assess HIS value?

 

3...[ True nature of God is beyond Man's capability to understand and what we understand of God comes from what we understand of Nature. What we understood from Nature, however, comes from only a small fraction of what we know from this World, and not other countless worlds out there.]

 

Yes, you are right because I can understand what you mean here. But that fits only to those who have not discovered themselves and trying to search for God elsewhere. And you my friend is added to that group.

 

4...[ Like the example of judging an Artist by his painting, you can only guess and come out with logical deduction of what an artist could be like (based on a single Art), yet there is other arts out there by the same artist, which we need to examine to get further insight but not capable of doing so now. ]

 

Yes! Here I must give you credit for your correct perception. I know that you cannot be wrong all the time so credit should be given where it is due. So, in your earlier posting[Hmmmmmm] can I say you are contradicting your own statement?

 

I rest my case.

 

I AM IN YOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sephiroth 0]

You do not know God's Minimum or man's Maximum Value. Please explian Swami Ramalingam's Value. There are many things you do not know about man's total value of atma sakthi. So making assumption is useless.

 

And I persume you know God's minumum or maximum value to the point that you can say God and Man have become the same (in terms of value), eh? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

As I have said earlier in my other reply that even if God walks along you as man, you would not reconize HIM. So how would you assess HIS value?

 

Wrong ... we can recognise Him if He comes forward. How? Because His value will be higher than ours, physically superior, mentally superior and spiritually superior.

 

Like small streams which attracted to a larger one due to the force of the flowing water within the stream (which attracted by the Ocean), lesser lifeforms will be attracted to one another continuously to God.

 

Yes, you are right because I can understand what you mean here. But that fits only to those who have not discovered themselves and trying to search for God elsewhere. And you my friend is added to that group.

 

Wrong ... I'm not searching God elsewhere, I'm searching God everywhere. For me, a Logician, God's cause is in everything around us and therefore, by studying the Cause and Effects of things around us, we can determine nature of God to a small extend.

 

It is not so odd or illogical as you may think it is. Newton discovered Laws of Gravity by studying falling object, Einstein and Stephen Hawkings study the Universe by studying forces of Gravity, Magnetism, and such.

 

All this studiest are to determine how the world and universe revolves around and if it is good enough to bring forth a "picture" of the Universe, same principals can be applied in bringing forth a "picture" of God. After all, that is what Kaballah is about.

 

Yes! Here I must give you credit for your correct perception. I know that you cannot be wrong all the time so credit should be given where it is due. So, in your earlier posting[Hmmmmmm] can I say you are contradicting your own statement?

 

Save your credit for yourself ... thank you. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If you did not understand it before (but do so now), it is because you do not accept it.

 

As far as I know, people who do not accept something logical will attend to confuse themselves to safe their own "Self". It is nature of Duality.

[Guest guest]

"Is it a crime, I wonder, if I prayed for this corrupted world to vanish, in exchange for one where no one lies, no one cheats, everyone is happy and say things they meant to say."

 

I see a choice. Either pray for a different world as you describe, or unlearn with urgency this skill/habits of perceiving and judging as follows:

-no one lies

-no one cheats

-everyone is happy

-say things they meant to say

 

Try and avoid convincing that

You = these skills+ more skills+ more demands + more judgements + more expectations etc.

[barney 0]

Maybe this will jolt your mind for a second.

 

Interspersed throughout the hymns collected in the Rig Veda are references to a single god or single principle which is the source or the totality of all other divinities and phenomenon in the universe. These originary divinities can be concrete, such as the World Maker (Vishvakarman), or highly abstract, such as Rita, or cosmic order, an idea similar to the Chinese concept of the Tao< or the Great Ultimate. Upanishadic literature tended to talk about this unitary or single divinity, power, or principle to the exclusion of most other gods, so that philosophically Indian thought during the Vedantic period moved towards the One in the dichotomy of the one and the many, approaching in many instances some of the same conclusions Parmenides and the Eleatic philosophers did in ancient Greece.

 

This single, unitary divinity had several aspects and names in the Upanishads, one of the most important of which is Atman, a word that originally meant "breath" or "soul" or "vital principle" (as the word "Atmen" does in German). As a cosmological principle or deity, Atman seems to be something like "universal soul" or "universal spirit." In the Brihad-Aranyaka Upanishad , Atman is explicitly called a Person that created the universe by first splitting himself into male and female halves. In the Chandogya Upanishad, this single god is called Brahman, and is "the One without a second"; this Brahman is not only the principle and creator of all there is, but is also fully present within each individual.

 

This dual conception, Brahman and Atman, gets worked out in the following way. Brahman can be located both in the physical, external world and also in the spiritual and inner world where it is present as Atman, "universal spirit." Now every human being has an undying soul (atman) which, because of samsara, lasts through eternity from life to life; this undying atman is a microcosm of Atman, the universal spirit. By understanding yourself, by coming to know one's own soul, one then arrives at the knowledge of Atman itself; the key to understanding the nature of the one unitary principle of the universe is to see one's (undying) self as identical with that principle: "tat svam asi": That (Atman) is what you are, Svetaketu. (Chandogya Upanishad VI.8.4ff.)

 

Here's the equation: Brahman=Atman=atman. Brahman is the totality of the universe as it is present outside of you;, Atman is the totality of the universe as it is present within you; Brahman is the totality of the world known objectively, Atman is the totality of the world known subjectively.

 

This equation fundamentally underlies the whole of Krishna's teachings concerning dharma in the Baghavad Gita.

 

 

Richard Hooker

 

[Sephiroth 0]

Here's the equation: Brahman=Atman=atman. Brahman is the totality of the universe as it is present outside of you;, Atman is the totality of the universe as it is present within you; Brahman is the totality of the world known objectively, Atman is the totality of the world known subjectively.

 

Good equation ... wrong interpretations.

 

The wrong interpretation comes when you assume that Brahman's "value" is similar to Atman's "value" and this is similar to Atma's "value". It does not ... it follows downward, just like everything else in the Universe.

 

If Brahman's value is 1000, Atman's value is 500 and Atma's value is 10, you will see that Atma and Brahman is not the same or can become the same. One must lost its existence and become part of the other. In this context, Atma can only become Brahman's 1010 in value and not the other way around where Man's value becomes 10 + 1000.

 

In term of Science for example, this concept is clearly showed. In the beginning, the energy which formed the Universe is gathered together in its pure form. Then, energy become matter and anti-matter, each banging into each other in violent chain reactions which gave birth to the universe.

 

Space is formed, time flows, matter condensed as heat is dispersed and becomes colder. Planets formed along with stars and Earth is one of them. Life emerged in the Planet when God blew His breath into it and we are here today.

 

Is the Earth we see today in its pure form of energy as it did before Big Bang? No ... it changed into matter, formed gravity and absorbed matter to form the Planet we see today. In scientific terms (Quantum Physics), the Planet lost its higher level of existences to a lower state which is situable for Life.

 

Rain flows the same way. Heat vaporized the water which raised to the air and forms water particals which rains down again. One matter changed from one form when receive energy (heat - induce water to steam which is higher state in energy form) and climb upward. In colder atmosphere, matter loses energy and revers back to lower state (steam condensed to water particles and rains down).

 

All along, the water do not lose its characteristics, it just loses and gains different forms due to energy ... same way man loses or gains his forms due to Karma.