>le heckin Bible and Torah are valid authorities but they are corrupted because they didn't agree with the views I was preaching!!!

I've seen enough Christian vs. Muslim debate videos online that didn't end in the latter entering into an incomprehensible babble or circling around over and over because they couldn't respond to it.

>my jew religion is better than your jew religion

>>18688373
>muslims think allah has a physical body
Mostly rejected
>muslims think the quran is eternal with allah
disputed but yea, so what
>muslims bow before a former pagan shrine
ok, pagans lost, muslims won, now what
>muslims bow before and kiss a stone
Weird but whatever
>muslims adopted pre-islamic polytheistic jinn into their beliefs
yea so did the bible. old gods got turned into demonds

Polytheism biggest non sequitur.

Anyways time to go to church

>>18688373
Also belief in djinn and the fact that the vast majority of Muslims believe that curses and witchcraft are all real and very serious problems. Muhammed himself believed in those things and even today, over 70-80% of Muslims worldwide believe in the existence of magic.

>>18688399
Well yea, if its the logical entailment of their belief this isn't that shocking

>>18688373
>>muslims think allah has a physical body
God walks in the Garden of Eden. Not floats, not materializes, He walks, as in with legs.

File: cube worship.jpg (974 KB, 1080x1149)

974 KB JPG

>>18688373
>muslims think allah has a physical body
That's why it is strange that instead of recognizing the one true living God, the body of Christ formed of its members, they instead worship a cube and seek the destruction of God's children.

At some point the religion of Islam was perverted from its purpose, but it can be made right again or all dark hell-spawned demons can instead be destroyed as they deserve to be.

>>18688717
Based dark hell spawned demons poster

>>18688395
No, he is generally held to have body parts. The general view in Ashari is that they unlike created body parts but that is contested too. Athari harshly reject that.

he Qur’an repeatedly attributes terms to Allah that, when applied to human beings, normally designate body parts. For example, Qur’an 38:75 states that Allah created Adam “with My two hands” (bi-yadayya). The dual form is significant because it literally says “two hands,” rather than simply using the singular word “hand.” Qur’an 48:10 similarly declares that “the hand of Allah is above their hands.” Qur’an 55:27 states that the “face” (wajh) of Allah remains when everything else passes away. Qur’an 20:39 refers to Moses being raised “under My eye,” while Qur’an 11:37 tells Noah to construct the ark “under Our eyes.” Qur’an 68:42 describes a “shin” (sāq) being uncovered on the Day of Judgment.

Here are some.

“[Allah] said, ‘O Iblis, what prevented you from prostrating to what I created with My two hands? Were you arrogant, or were you among the exalted?’”
(Qur’an 38:75)

“Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you are only pledging allegiance to Allah. The hand of Allah is above their hands.”
(Qur’an 48:10)

“Everyone upon it will perish, but the face of your Lord, possessor of majesty and honor, will remain.”
(Qur’an 55:26–27)

“I bestowed upon you love from Me, so that you would be brought up under My eye.”
(Qur’an 20:39)

File: muhammad.png (2.48 MB, 832x1381)

2.48 MB PNG

>>18688720
Islam was a mercy afforded to dark hell-spawned demons, either they can choose to worship and serve the one true living God, the body of Christ formed of its members, or they can be destroyed. That is why you know that the conversion of dark hell-spawned demons to Islam was done with the sword. I personally think they deserve no such mercy, that such mercy is heresy, and that the kingdom of heaven should extend to every corner of the earth and all dark hell-spawned demons, the source of hell itself, be destroyed forever.

“Build the Ark under Our eyes and according to Our revelation.”
(Qur’an 11:37)

On the day when the shin is uncovered and they are called to prostrate, they will not be able.”
(Qur’an 68:42)

“The Most Merciful established Himself over the Throne.”
(Qur’an 20:5)

“Hell will continue saying, ‘Is there more?’ until the Lord of Might places His foot upon it. Then it will say, ‘Enough! Enough! By Your might!’ and its parts will draw together.”
(Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 4848)

>>18688722
>No, he is generally held to have body parts. The general view in Ashari is that they unlike created body parts but that is contested too. Athari harshly reject that.
man you're completely illiterate about what those 2 aqeedas believe. Why you larpin as an imam or sheikh

“Allah, exalted and majestic, will take His heavens and His earths in His hands and say, ‘I am Allah.’ He will close His fingers and open them and say, ‘I am the King.’”
(Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2788b)

Allah is a Giant as well.

“Allah created Adam in his image, sixty cubits in height.”
(Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 6227)

One of the controversial points between Islamic sects is whether Allah wears a green shirt or not and whether he will be putting that green shirt on Muhammad back. It appears in prominently in Ibn ʿAbbās through Ḥammād ibn Salama and appears in Ibn ʿAdī’s al-Kāmil fī al-Ḍuʿafāʾ, al-Bayhaqī’s al-Asmāʾ wa-l-Ṣifāt.

“I saw my Lord, curly-haired and beardless, wearing a green garment.”

Sometimes it is ascribed to people upon dying and then going to Paradise and seeing him reflected on rivers of wine.

“He saw his Lord in the form of a curly-haired, beardless young man, wearing a green garment.”


In Musnad Aḥmad and Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, so a sahih classifed hadith. We have an image of Muhammad being given Allah's shirt after the end of the world.

“The people will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection, and I and my community will be upon a hill, and my Lord, blessed and exalted, will clothe me in a green garment…”

There is also a controversial line of materials that say that Allah has a womb that hangs from his throne. There are a lot of interpretations of this.

“Indeed, the raḥim [womb]is a branch closely intertwined with al-Raḥmān [the Most Merciful]. Allah said: ‘Whoever maintains you, I will maintain him, and whoever cuts you off, I will cut him off.’”
(Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Hadith 5988)

Sometimes it can mean something like rulership or authority and maybe connected to some of Allah's attributes but it gets hard too say that when it is given physical dimension and physically does things.

“Indeed, the raḥim[womb] has a hook by which it takes hold of the ḥujza[waistbelt] of al-Raḥmān. It maintains whoever maintains it and cuts off whoever cuts it off.”

https://dorar.net/h/gruOMNXo?osoul=1&utm_source=
This one is sahih and repeated in multiple collections.

The raḥim [womb]] is suspended from the Throne, saying: ‘Whoever maintains me, Allah maintains him, and whoever cuts me off, Allah cuts him off.’”
(Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Hadith 2555

>>18688395
>Mostly rejected
It is the majority Sunni viewpoint that God has a body. Islam does not teach divine simplicity like Christianity. It's ironic how they want to claim the ultimate unity of the Godhead and yet will go on to say things like these. God is utterly transcendent and simple in Christianity. It is Christianity that believes in the true Unity of God. Muslims are not only guilty of cutting out portions of the Godhead, they are actually guilty of multiplying it! But God is simple, composed of no parts, and is a complete unity and totality, utterly unlike any unity or oneness you and I can conceive of. He is One and Trinity. Amen.

File: questionsonislam.com_ques(...).png (200 KB, 708x1923)

200 KB PNG

>>18689211
>cutting out portions
You're an idiot, nobody says God has separable "parts" lol The Asharis frequently understand them in a manner like pic rel and Atharis affirm them as distinct attributes without ascribing modality
>multiplying it
God having omnipotence and omniscience is not the same thing as saying there are two Gods.
>trinity
>divine simplicity
Also you cannot even cope with that because you believe in actual distinctions between the persons of the godhead. You also believe God is pure act and as such his act of creation is coeternal. That's why Aquinas doesn't know if the universe is eternal or not

>>18689235
just fyi they are begging the question. For example the Ashari view here entails that God having two right hands unlike human hands is not anthromorphism because they simply said so. Unlike other views like Aquinas there can be no analogically predicates like Aquinas. Shia Islam have a view similiar to Aquinas but not uflly the same. The idea is only certain analogies can function. This is also the various Shia aqidah hold that all Sunni aqidah are polytheistic because they multiple attributes with being. This is a mainstream view in Islam. It is intersting Judaism and Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox share a similiar view in which only negative predicates can be ascribed to God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YdAvnR6O-I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY_GA6mbCSg

Basically the various Orthodox traditions of Christianity and Judaism share a belief that one can only describe God in terms of what one is not and one can some sense ascend in knoweldge though seeing that lack of knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iayG1esm0EA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7be4_Ax0D8U

For comparison to the Vishnadvaita Hindu religions qualifed non-dualist theistic religions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRWnQNiB6dQ

This explains the Advaita Vedanta Hindu theistic traditions of which there are only three atrributes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzEvTxbvabw

What makes all these theistic religions is that whatever attributes are there have and are being and the source of reality. This contrasts with non-theistic religions.

>>18689338
You need to get laid. I see you over this board. You post and spam like someone who's never felt the warm embrace of a woman.

>>18689211
>But God is simple, composed of no parts, and is a complete unity and totality, utterly unlike any unity or oneness you and I can conceive of
Lol, pagan Greek philosophy shit that is absolutely nowhere in the Bible

>>18689372
There are huge influencs of Greek philsoophy on the Bible. This is excluding that Second Temple Religion uses the text more ritualistically and then interpets the narratives as reflecting metaphysical reality. Groups like the Sadducees were literaly revamping Greek philsophy. The controversy arose when Judaism was seen as philosophy and when Greek language replaced liturgy languages in the rituals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64DCOM24z5o

>>18689299
>the Ashari view here entails that God having two right hands unlike human hands is not anthromorphism because they simply said so.
No? Tell me do you know the significance of right hands in Arabic?
>In the Quran, the word yamin, which lexically means “right, right hand”, “power-strength, perfection”, “goodness, luck” (Lisanul-Arab, “ymn” item) is attributed to God (az-Zumar, 39/67; al-Haaqqa, 69/45), and the same word is also included in hadith narrations (Musnad, II, 242, 313, 500; Muslim, Imarah, 18; Tirmidhi, Tafsir, 5/3; Ibn Majah, “Muqaddima”, 133; Ibnul-Athir, p. 1010).
>The left hand is not attributed to Allah because the left hand implies incompleteness and weakness. The statements in the hadith that Allah’s two hands are both right hands show this. The statement in the hadith that Allah will hold the earth in one hand and the heavens in the other on the Day of Resurrection also demonstrates this. Scholars of Salafiyya, Abu Hanifa and some kalam scholars like Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari hold this view. (Ibn Khuzayma, I, 193-198; Ash’ari, p. 125-140; Bayhaqi, pp. 416-419; Baydawi, p. 190; Beyâzîzâde, p. 186)
I don't agree with this I am Athari but this is how they interpret it
>polytheistic because they multiple attributes with being
Argument? You can have one indivisible object with multiple different attributes, it's trivial to show even with examples from the natural world

>>18689393
In Shia philosophy the argument goes that having knowledge, power, life, and speech as real and eternal, yet not identical with the divine essence i s a type of polytheism. If these attributes are genuinely distinct and uncreated, the argument goes there are plurality of eternal realities alongside God which is shirk.

The significance dosen't change that Allah has body parts. Note that Ashari interpretation you are pointing to is much closer the Maiturdi theological view which sees them as as stands in for the divine attribtues themselves with the excpetion of the face.

>>18689400
The Shia argument is a lot like the Orthodox Christian and Jewish arguments aganist the idea of analogically predication. The big difference is that the Orthodox Christian and Jewish view hold that the predicates just don't refer to anything and point to imagination's failure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzRJ13OQHPM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSUz_WS14KI

Technically the Ashari view of the Athari is that the Athari is committing shirk by stating that God has a body. While the Athari holds that the Ashari is doing the same thing by ascribing that we can speak of Allah of having a body while saying that the body is unlike that of anything created. That would be actual knoweldge of God and echoing the Eastern Orthodox philosophy, this is only possible if you are God and therefore shirk. Theoretically the Athari also holds they are not doing philosophy but simply going to the Sunnah for this as well.

File: Screenshot 2026-09-14 at (...).png (154 KB, 543x1637)

154 KB PNG

>>18689400
>If these attributes are genuinely distinct and uncreated, the argument goes there are plurality of eternal realities alongside God which is shirk.
Why do they have to be identical (incomprehensible and contradictory position btw) and separable from God? Let's say you have a red object, do you think redness is an actual thing that floats somewhere separate from the object?
>The significance dosen't change that Allah has body parts.
What do you mean? their description there is not even physical
>the Ashari view of the Athari is that the Athari is committing shirk by stating that God has a body
We don't use terms Allah hasn't revealed and "body" is not one of them so that's just a strawman

The Jewish view also rejects all types of Islam as a type of polytheism as well. The reason because God's essence is not simple enough. From their view it allows a plruality of attributes which divide being. The idea is that by saying the attributes that God is wise are true in Islam, becomes a polytheism that introduces partialism. This is from there view is a difference in degree than kind in polytheism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3r3I8y4yNE

>>18689414
>be muslim
>do or think literally anything
>NOOOOO BRO YOU CANT DO THAT ITS SHIRK

>>18689428
In classical theism, God’s essential attributes must be identical with and therefore cannot be separable from, for God to be God, means God is simply God or derives from God's being. So God's goodness is not because of anything, God's goodness is simply because God is God. God is doing what God does so to speak. Anything composed of distinct constituents depends upon those constituents for what it is. Think here the Tiantai Buddhist claim all things are conditioned and even concepts rely upon other concepts which from their view attacks the very concept of classical theism itself btw. From a classical theist view If God were an underlying subject to which knowledge, goodness, or power were added, God would depend upon properties more fundamental than himself and would no longer be the absolutely independent first cause. Theologians of various religions with have this model of God have to reconcile who God is with that model.

In Catholic theology, they says that God does not merely possess goodness and knowledge but is his goodness and knowledge. Shia theology similarly teaches that God’s attributes differ conceptually, knowledge does not mean the same thing as power, but refer to one indivisible divine reality; treating them as additional eternal realities would introduce composition and potentially a “multiplicity of eternals.” In Jewish theology, this concern leads to an even more restrictive negative theology: statements such as “God is wise” primarily deny ignorance or identify God as the cause of wisdom rather than describe a distinct quality residing in God. They are the most strict unless you rule out the possbility fo the concept.

This explains Maimonides explanation in detail.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/#FunOri

This is on Tiantai just for comparison sake. They are ultimately metaphysically antifoundational.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-tiantai/

>>18689428
>Why do they have to be identical (incomprehensible and contradictory position btw) and separable from God? Let's say you have a red object, do you think redness is an actual thing that floats somewhere separate from the object?
Your first mistake is comparing God's properties with created properties. God's properties are predicated analogically because he is simple, uncommon, and completely immaterial and transcendent. God is simply identical with all his properties because his essence is undivided and just is God. Contingent beings have multiples properties and accidents ascribed to them, like red is to an apple. God has no accidents. If God had accidents, then surely we could compare him to something. But God is incomparable with creatures in that sense because he is not just another being, but he is just being, and being cannot be compared to anything else because it is not a genus. Being though is the origin of genus, for sameness and difference, for universals and accidents, for properties and differentiae.

>>18689443
>uncommon
*uncoumpound

>>18689443
I should mention that it is possible that they are using a totally different model of God. It is possible that you changing model entirely. Which some Athari , Dvaita Vedantins and Christians do as well. Which is they become personalists. God is not understood as beynond being or grounding being but in like a scale with us. From a classical theist view this may be a huge mess up and makes God not really God anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxmY2n3LS8M&list=PLtKNX4SfKpzWk7MGZlItnr1TJ2NKOuolk

File: Screenshot 2026-09-14 at (...).png (123 KB, 947x501)

123 KB PNG

>>18689432
Jews don't consider Muslims to be polytheists but they consider that to be true for Christians so much so churches are forbidden to pray in

>>18689454
Sorta. Reform jews take that position more often. Conserative Jews who follow Maimonides use the above argument. Orthodox Jews have a very different set up at times some Maimonides and some have a panentheist model of God rather than classical one and have a whole different approach to thinking about these things.

>>18689442
>they says that God does not merely possess goodness and knowledge but is his goodness and knowledge
Yes I know and it's nonsense, these words have no meaning now. God's wrath = God's love = God. What does that even mean lol? When God is angry with a disobedient nation in scripture he is being exactly the same as he is when he is happy with his chosen.
>>18689443
>Your first mistake is comparing God's properties with created properties
You didn't answer my question you're just restating your position which I am aware of. I need an argument why this must be the case that isn't bordering on special pleading territory. Why can't God have multiple properties but creatures can? Anyway this philosophical idea of God is just a frozen picture. He can't even know what happens chronologically now in time as a present reality, and tomorrow His static knowledge won't let Him know what 'today' would be then, since He is denied any dynamic actions of knowing and must view all distinct moments as a single, flattened instant. It also contradicts scripture because this means that the end of times and the Day of Judgment have already occurred in ultimate reality, reducing historical human accountability and the future promises of resurrection into an already finished illusion. Do you truly believe you are alive and dead simultaneously? Because in the mind of a static God, your birth, your life right now, and your decomposed corpse in the grave are all happening at the exact same moment.

>>18689472
The general idea is that if created beings can possess multiple really distinct properties because they are composite, dependent, and capable of change. A red apple, for example, is not identical with redness: it can become brown while remaining an apple, and many other objects can also be red. God can have multiple attributes but they reflect the same essence. This if for example how the Trinity functions. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct divine phypostases who possess the one, numerically identical divine essence.

What a classicla theist God cannot have is separate components within God. If God’s goodness were one component and God’s knowledge another, something would have to unite those components and explain why they constitute one being. God would then depend upon a more fundamental organizing principle. This is what Tiantai Buddhism for example used, appealing to a type of symmetrical causation the number one needs other numebrs to be one or organize it.

File: Screenshot 2026-09-14 at (...).png (141 KB, 929x436)

141 KB PNG

>>18689463
>Conserative Jews who follow Maimonides use the above argument
You mean the one you made? Because if so Maimonedes was the one who said the quote I posted and continued with pic rel

>>18689481
Trust me. Maimonides writings are use a method called escotericism, to echo Leo Strauss, he writes for one audience, knowing someone else is looking overhead. He experienced Islamic persecution. I don't share Strauss's view that he was an atheist.

In The Guide of the Perplexed, he writes that those who say God is one while assigning Him many attributes “declare the unity with their lips, and assume plurality in their thoughts” (Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed p. 111).

For Maimonides, numerical oneness was insufficient: genuine monotheism required absolute divine simplicity. If God’s essence and attributes were really distinct, God would contain an internal plurality and would depend upon components. This is besides what he identified as moral problems and problems of revelation.

>>18689480
>The general idea is that if created beings can possess multiple really distinct properties because they are composite, dependent, and capable of change.
We don't believe God is composed of parts or dependent on anything or is capable of having his nature changed. The latter is something Christian believe in because God took on second nature.
>A red apple, for example, is not identical with redness: it can become brown while remaining an apple, and many other objects can also be red.
Redness doesn't independently exist in a magical world of forms it's just a mental description of an object that matches what it is. I don't see why this means the object must automatically be mutable.
>God can have multiple attributes but they reflect the same essence.
Why can't they instead be grounded in the same essence?
>the one, numerically identical divine essence
Is aseity part of the divine essence? What about filiation?
>If God’s goodness were one component and God’s knowledge another, something would have to unite those components and explain why they constitute one being.
They just describe different aspects of the one being's essence. What unites fruitness and redness in a red apple?

>>18689472
>>18689472
This view btw is crucial to understanding Hell in Christian theology btw . God's wrath is the same as God's love in Eastern Orthodoxy but because one rejects God experiences his love as pain. The general idea though is that God's properties are necessitated by God's being. Just an example of God's goodness and knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vku0LcbNSzo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62iSAf4L9E4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tg05Un4Y5s

This provides an example of heaven and hell in Eastern Orthodoxy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v32B28r-fg0

File: Screenshot 2026-09-14 at (...).png (107 KB, 708x493)

107 KB PNG

>>18689490
>he writes for one audience, knowing someone else is looking overhead
You do realize he called the prophet a madman, right? He had no problem being offensive to Muslims
>God would contain an internal plurality and would depend upon components
We don't believe in parts, anything that can be swapped in and out or ever separated does not represent our beliefs

>>18689501
“Fruit” and “red” are united in one apple because an underlying substance possesses multiple determinations, whereas classical theists deny that God is an underlying subject receiving determinations, since that would distinguish what God is from the features God possesses.

Christians do not claim that the Incarnation changed God’s divine nature; rather, the unchanging person of the Son assumed a created human nature, so the change occurred in the humanity and its relationship to the Son, not within divinity itself. This is also possible because he is God and God is the source of Being.

Redness need not exist separately as a Platonic Form, but classical metaphysics treats the apple and its color as really distinct because the apple can exist without that particular color. It is possible to have some types of nominalism and something like this but this changes how you get knowledge of God. The excpetion would be nominalism as found in Buddhism which is much more through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_UxFJkQkFs

This explores a Buddhist style nominalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHZDLycuMSA

>>18689519
It depends on the audience compare. How he wrote to a Yemeni Jew is different than when he is writing for an audience at an Islamic court.

Whether you believe it is parts or not is not quite the issue. I would say the issue is more relevant if philosoophically it counts as a part. We have to seperate the personal belief from the theological normative beliefs about parts. Think for example Spinoza's defense of the Trinity using Jewish theology while rejecting it in defense of his philosophical monism.

File: Screenshot 2025-12-04 at (...).png (20 KB, 573x394)

20 KB PNG

>>18689505
>God's wrath is the same as God's love in Eastern Orthodoxy but because one rejects God experiences his love as pain.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. The bible tells people to remain in his love by obeying commandments so clearly there is a different side to him. Why doesn't it say remain in my wrath? It should all be the same

>>18689481
when i was 22 i had to do a history class and wrote a paper called RAMBAM THANK YOU MAAM: the story of maimonides

God is the ground of being. Even hell is a type of being. You can never cut off yourself from God totally because you exist, death is also a type of existence. Orthodox theology commonly interprets divine love and wrath as different human experiences of God’s one unchanging presence as the ground of beign and activity just as one experiences different types of being like hot and cold. God’s “wrath” is not a hostile substance, God cannot do evil afterall or act arbitarily given his divine Good and All Knowing nature. Nor is hell a separate side within God that competes with His love; it is the painful experience of divine goodness by someone who resists goodness. For those united to God, His presence is light, life, and joy; for those opposed to Him, that same presence is judgment and “consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29).

https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell?utm_source=

>>18689537
Ephraim the Syrian also claimed that heaven is experiencing God's love in new attributes one has but since one has fully realized one's nature in relation to God. You are experiencing God's love in every possible property and an infinite amount of new ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmRYrMWQ5xY

>>18689524
>“Fruit” and “red” are united in one apple
So how does a red apple and a red car share redness? How does a red apple and a yellow banana share fruitness? Do you believe we as human beings do not share humainty with your godman?
>Christians do not claim that the Incarnation changed God’s divine nature
Yes I know but how can the change occur in the humanity when the Son did not have a human nature that can experience change in the first place? Seems kind of circular honestly
>It is possible to have some types of nominalism and something like this but this changes how you get knowledge of God
Explain the changes required if you may

>>18689529
>It depends on the audience
Yeah but it would have passed through muslim controlled areas either way so...
>We have to seperate the personal belief from the theological normative beliefs about parts
Okay fair so what is a part? We stress on the separability aspect quite a bit, so do you believe electrons have parts?

>>18689547
>>18689547
>Do you believe we as human beings do not share humainty with your godman?

I am not a Christian. The official answer in a historical Christian religion like Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the Church of the East is that God shares a completed and purified human nature with the Incarnation.

From a Christian philosophical perspective, a red apple and a red car share redness because each possesses a quality that can be understood under the same universal concept, “redness.” Likewise, an apple and a banana share “fruitness” because both instantiate the nature or category of fruit, despite differing in color, shape, and taste. Christian thinkers disagree over whether universals exist independently, within particular things, or primarily as ideas in the divine and human intellects. In the Augustinian and Thomistic traditions, created things resemble one another because God creates them according to intelligible patterns or divine ideas which we grasp as laws or probablities of nature.

From their view it is not circular because Jesus is God and God is omnipotent. To echo Spinoza's argument, saying God cannot be human would be equivalent to saying God cannot be God.

Human beings do not share humanity with God in the same way that two human beings share human nature. God is not a member of the human species: human nature is created, finite, embodied, and dependent, whereas the divine nature is uncreated and infinite. Christians nevertheless believe that humans resemble God because they are made in God’s image and participate finitely in perfections such as goodness, rationality, and love. In the Incarnation, the Son expresses human nature without the divine nature becoming human or the two natures being mixed. Christ shares humanity with humans according to his human nature, while remaining fully divine according to his divine nature.

>>18689558
I would suggest it does not matter if electrons have parts. The argument from classical theists is simply that if such a seperation exists, it is not an expression of divine simplicity. From that perspective the Islamic view is the same as Dvaita Vedantin account of constuitive monotheism where the attributes together are separate from the single essence which is unknowable.

In Vaiṣṇava constitutive monotheisme like Rāmānuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa is the one supreme personal God that and has no body, but divine unity includes rather than excludes the plurality of souls, the universe, and subordinate deities which themselves are his attributes. All beings constitute the “body” (śarīra) of God, while God is their indwelling Self (śarīrin): they are real and distinct from God, yet completely dependent upon, controlled by, and inseparable from God. The only difference is the domain of entities and attributes which exist unlike our regular ones. Aka the divine body is different from our body and unlike it.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-05 at (...).png (84 KB, 671x800)

84 KB PNG

>>18689562
>In the Augustinian and Thomistic traditions, created things resemble one another because God creates them according to intelligible patterns or divine ideas which we grasp as laws or probablities of nature.
Wouldn't this just mean that there is no such thing as a human nature but rather numerous individual human-like natures?
>saying God cannot be human would be equivalent to saying God cannot be God.
No saying God can be Human is equivalent to saying God is not God. Everything about humanity directly opposes divinity. For example Jesus sleeps while God does not sleep Psalm 121:4 it's a proposition and its negation being true at the same time in the same person
>God is not a member of the human species
Jesus has a created body what exactly is he lacking?
>the Son expresses human nature without the divine nature becoming human or the two natures being mixed. Christ shares humanity with humans according to his human nature
The reverse process of that is how Orthodox believe that human nature will be changed to be exactly like divine nature but still human nature somehow. Ignoring how this breaks the identity of indiscernibles how can you even tell us apart at that point?

>>18689603
A Buddhist might state that one only has experience of things and that gets the label. That is called conpetualism although there account is very specific and more nuanced.

However, a realist response would simply be that Peter and Paul possess distinct bodies, experiences, and personal identities, but both instantiate the same kind of nature: rational, embodied animality. The shared human nature need not be a separate object existing outside individuals. It is the common intelligible essence realized in each human being. Individual differences therefore do not eliminate human nature any more than different triangles eliminate the common nature of triangularity.

It is not the case that divinity became humanity or that humanity became divinity. It claims that the eternal hypostasis of the Logos assumed a complete human nature, body, rational soul, intellect, and human will,while remaining fully divine aka Christ. Christ lacks nothing required for humanity. The statement that “God is not a member of the human species” means that the divine essence as such is not one instance within a biological class. Nevertheless, the divine Son genuinely became a member of humanity through the human nature he assumed. The Council of Chalcedon consequently describes Christ as one and the same person existing in two complete natures “without confusion” and “without change”.

John of Damascus argues that Christ’s divine and human activities remain distinguishable even though both belong to the one acting person of the Son. Classical theism would agree and reject the inference that becoming human makes God cease to be God: the Incarnation adds an assumed nature and a new relationship to creation like us but not a mutation within the divine essence. The divine essence already has the nature of doing anythign.

Theosis in Eastern Orthodoxy is just a model of soteriology or being saved. Human beings do not acquire the divine essence or become “exactly like the divine nature.” They remain created, contingent, embodied persons with distinct identities and human wills. They become “divine” by grace, that is, through participation in God’s uncreated energies, andnot by becoming identical with God’s essence. Knowledge of God's essence like through his attributes would entail that from their perspective.

It is also not necessarily obvious to believe in a metaphysical picture in which the idenitty of indiscrnibles is necessarily true either. the principle may confuse qualitative identity with numerical identity. Two objects are qualitatively identical when they share all relevant characteristics, but they are numerically identical only when they are one and the same object. Two mass-produced objects could be perfect duplicates without becoming a single object. Numerical difference may therefore be more fundamental than qualitative difference.

It might be that reality is not characterized by substance but relation or process. For example, spacetime may individuate objects without giving them different intrinsic natures. Two qualitatively identical objects can occupy different spatial positions, but treating location as an ordinary qualitative property creates difficulties because spatial positions may themselves require individuation. In that view number and quality do not in themeslves individuate but relation does.

Theosis is just sancitifcation through grace. It is understood more individually though as a type of synergy or working with God then common latin frameworks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_9QULuj8Lo

To compare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7a4w-FdhzE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clRZ8Swfb14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSSDDtBHuA0

>>18688399
Because those are real your just retarded lol

>>18689788
I knew I’d get dubs btw ;p

>>18689211
Key word, PHYSICAL body

>Islam does not teach divine simplicity like Christianity
you can believe in divine simplicity and be Sunni also the majority of Shias believe in DS

>Christian drivel
idc

Seriously, disagreeing with me should get you banded for 3 days.
Everything I said in my op is indisputable, and to say otherwise is just disingenuous,
you all are pseudos man

>>18689535
correction: i was only 20, holy shit
by the start(?) of being 22 i had already flunked out or was just about to

>>18690411
thanks for bumping this dead thread you faggot

Why did lil moe moe have sex with the zutts?

>>18691697
Why is the kikeble full of BDSM and cuckoldry fetishes?