How can God have a son while he has no companion.

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Salam

Some people think this in an irrational argument in the Quran. But I think it makes sense. I think "God" as "Creator" if he would have a son, it would only be possible if he has an equal. Equal is only possible, if he is not the absolute big being. If he has an equal, he would have deficiency and need. All limited beings including the most exalted of beings are not created alone, nor do they ascend alone.

If it's the case God has deficiency, than he would have companions and they would have sought a way to reach him (as he would be limited). . Thus if there was a son it's expected it reaches it's status as a companion or that a companion and him raise it.

If he is beyond having a companion in his highest essence and reality, then it follows, he cannot have a son. Of course, from other perspective, if he would have a son, it would choose from those who he created, but he's way exalted from having a son as the type that is a god like him. That is the same genre as him. If he would have a son, than Mohammad (s) is foremost of those who worship him.

Of course, "son" has different contextual meaning in different times. This is not to say in the Torah and Gospels and books between, that there is no concept of sons of God.

With Arabs, they saw it literally that Angels and Jinn were from God's offspring and saw a lineage back to him. In that paradigm, it would not acknowledge the term son and daughter to God.

Another meaning is that a people are more close to God and in a sense his children over other people, as in a chosen people, but this is rejected too since God is close to all his creation and judges them with justice, which is different to how parents prefer their children.

The closest meaning I've seen to ascribing sonship to God is calling Imams (a) 'family of God' in a ziyarat, but that statement is understood in context of Quran "family of the reminder", the reminder being God, the Messenger, and the Quran, and all part of the same coin.

It also came in after generations where Tawhid was solidified enough that no one would see it in a way contradicting his transcendence above all creation.

Another is "And all creation is your family" in a Du'a by Ahlulbayt (a).

However, the verse I'm quoting is saying if he would have a son in the terms polytheists mean, that is only possible if he has companions with him in his realm, otherwise, it makes no sense.

As anything from God is not his equal, but rather all of creation is emanation, it makes no sense to call any creation a son of God.

I think it very odd to believe in a God who can do anything, and then ask "How can God.....?"

 

[King Phenomenon]

I am just pointing out that you can't simply say that miracles show divinity of the presumed miracle-maker and expect anyone to immediately agree just because.

But if you want to have that expectation... be my guest.

Did I ever say I expect people to agree? I did not.

 

[LuisDantas]

Did I ever say I expect people to agree? I did not.

You just want to throw out claims with no regard whatsoever on how convincing they are?

Really?

About whether Jesus was God, no less?

 

[King Phenomenon]

You just want to throw out claims with no regard whatsoever on how convincing they are?

Really?

About whether Jesus was God, no less?

I think you made your point that you don’t believe Jesus is God.

 

[sun rise]

Oh I thought you meant it literally. Khidr (a) is still stated to be a servant of God. So he is not his equal.

My perspective is that God is "One without a second" - non-dualism. My comment was from that perspective but I was trying to illustrate the to me the Quranic story of Khizr and Moses illustrated that it limits God to say that there is God and servants.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you made your point that you don’t believe Jesus is God.

Indeed.

Now I am making the point that while belief is free, claims still involve a certain level of personal responsibility for our actions.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Indeed.

Now I am making the point that while belief is free, claims still involve a certain level of personal responsibility for our actions.

How are my claims not responsible?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I personally would clarify that the Son is the Manifestation of the Attributes of the Father/God, this is an Annointed Station, given of God.

For when the Father comes, as promised by the Son, the Father is also a manifestation of the Attributes of God.

Both the Son and the Father are not the Essence of God, which is unknowable to us. These are annointed stations, given by God, the Father.

Regards Tony

Which manifestation is the Creator? Seems there is two manifestations (holy spirit, and human form) of the Creator. The Creator is never seen,. Anyways, this has same problem of incarnations in other religions, God would be deceiving us and untruthful acting as a human.

Allah is the creator, the Holy Spirit is the Creative force, which Allāh Annoints the Messengers with.

So all the Names and Stations of the Messengers are all given by Allah in the light of the annointed Holy Spirit.

They are the only path to Allah. That is how we acheive our unity in our diversity of Faiths.

Regards Tony

 

[christos]

Salam

Some people think this in an irrational argument in the Quran. But I think it makes sense. I think "God" as "Creator" if he would have a son, it would only be possible if he has an equal. Equal is only possible, if he is not the absolute big being. If he has an equal, he would have deficiency and need. All limited beings including the most exalted of beings are not created alone, nor do they ascend alone.

If it's the case God has deficiency, than he would have companions and they would have sought a way to reach him (as he would be limited). . Thus if there was a son it's expected it reaches it's status as a companion or that a companion and him raise it.

If he is beyond having a companion in his highest essence and reality, then it follows, he cannot have a son. Of course, from other perspective, if he would have a son, it would choose from those who he created, but he's way exalted from having a son as the type that is a god like him. That is the same genre as him. If he would have a son, than Mohammad (s) is foremost of those who worship him.

Of course, "son" has different contextual meaning in different times. This is not to say in the Torah and Gospels and books between, that there is no concept of sons of God.

With Arabs, they saw it literally that Angels and Jinn were from God's offspring and saw a lineage back to him. In that paradigm, it would not acknowledge the term son and daughter to God.

Another meaning is that a people are more close to God and in a sense his children over other people, as in a chosen people, but this is rejected too since God is close to all his creation and judges them with justice, which is different to how parents prefer their children.

The closest meaning I've seen to ascribing sonship to God is calling Imams (a) 'family of God' in a ziyarat, but that statement is understood in context of Quran "family of the reminder", the reminder being God, the Messenger, and the Quran, and all part of the same coin.

It also came in after generations where Tawhid was solidified enough that no one would see it in a way contradicting his transcendence above all creation.

Another is "And all creation is your family" in a Du'a by Ahlulbayt (a).

However, the verse I'm quoting is saying if he would have a son in the terms polytheists mean, that is only possible if he has companions with him in his realm, otherwise, it makes no sense.

As anything from God is not his equal, but rather all of creation is emanation, it makes no sense to call any creation a son of God.

Well the trinity is the first emanation of God

So, God is the infinite eternal unknowable first source and centre

The trinity are the infinite, eternal, knowable, second source and centre
The first personalities of God

So the names, Son, Spirit, Father are not literal to myself
They’re more like human placeholders

The Child, Father and Mother, to describe various traits



But in reality Yeshua is THE son of God (according to narrative) so he’s one of the personalities of the second source

And all humanity, all animals, are ultimately waaaaaaay down the line, all sons and daughters of God


(Just my personal thoughts)

 

[I Am Hugh]

Salam

Some people think this in an irrational argument in the Quran. But I think it makes sense. I think "God" as "Creator" if he would have a son, it would only be possible if he has an equal. Equal is only possible, if he is not the absolute big being. If he has an equal, he would have deficiency and need. All limited beings including the most exalted of beings are not created alone, nor do they ascend alone.

Contemplation involves two distinctly different aspects; 1. The data and 2. The theology. The data is what, for example, a religious text actually says and the theology is speculation regarding what it might mean.

1. Equal means the same.
Equality is counterproductive, especially in procreation. The terms father and son are metaphoric colloquialisms. The Abrahamic creator was alone, unparalleled. Without equal. He is neither male nor female and both male and female. Man and woman were created in his image but he is spiritual rather than physical, neither male or female. The created isn't equal to the creator.

2. We don't make the rules
We can't say a creator god can't or must do this or that without the data. This isn't true of gods we invent, like Shinto creator gods, but it is true of gods introduced to us by allegedly divine revelation, like the Abrahamic gods. In the case of the former we can make the rules, in the latter we must follow the rules.

If it's the case God has deficiency, than he would have companions and they would have sought a way to reach him (as he would be limited). . Thus if there was a son it's expected it reaches it's status as a companion or that a companion and him raise it.

See 2 above, and so what does the data suggest? Deficiency is subjective. God can't lie, the physical heavens can't contain God which means he can't come here. (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2; 1 Kings 8:27) From our perspective those would be deficiencies. If God created independent sentient beings, they would be companions. Reflections (in the image of) their creator. So, how would they reach him and what does that mean? Would he be limited in that he wouldn't create something greater or equal to himself? Or would he be limited in that he would, thus rendering himself limited by comparison?

If he is beyond having a companion in his highest essence and reality, then it follows, he cannot have a son.

Why not? Is a son required to be a companion in the highest essence and reality of the father?

 

[Link]

Why not? Is a son required to be a companion in the highest essence and reality of the father?

I'm saying a son is only possible for limited beings, not the ultimate being who is too big to have anything with him.

 

[Link]

See 2 above, and so what does the data suggest? Deficiency is subjective. God can't lie, the physical heavens can't contain God which means he can't come here. (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2; 1 Kings 8:27) From our perspective those would be deficiencies. If God created independent sentient beings, they would be companions. Reflections (in the image of) their creator. So, how would they reach him and what does that mean? Would he be limited in that he wouldn't create something greater or equal to himself? Or would he be limited in that he would, thus rendering himself limited by comparison?

They would reach him because he would be limited. The only way God can beget is if he limited and in that case he would have companions.

 

[Nakosis]

Salam

Some people think this in an irrational argument in the Quran. But I think it makes sense. I think "God" as "Creator" if he would have a son, it would only be possible if he has an equal. Equal is only possible, if he is not the absolute big being. If he has an equal, he would have deficiency and need. All limited beings including the most exalted of beings are not created alone, nor do they ascend alone.

If it's the case God has deficiency, than he would have companions and they would have sought a way to reach him (as he would be limited). . Thus if there was a son it's expected it reaches it's status as a companion or that a companion and him raise it.

If he is beyond having a companion in his highest essence and reality, then it follows, he cannot have a son. Of course, from other perspective, if he would have a son, it would choose from those who he created, but he's way exalted from having a son as the type that is a god like him. That is the same genre as him. If he would have a son, than Mohammad (s) is foremost of those who worship him.

Of course, "son" has different contextual meaning in different times. This is not to say in the Torah and Gospels and books between, that there is no concept of sons of God.

With Arabs, they saw it literally that Angels and Jinn were from God's offspring and saw a lineage back to him. In that paradigm, it would not acknowledge the term son and daughter to God.

Another meaning is that a people are more close to God and in a sense his children over other people, as in a chosen people, but this is rejected too since God is close to all his creation and judges them with justice, which is different to how parents prefer their children.

The closest meaning I've seen to ascribing sonship to God is calling Imams (a) 'family of God' in a ziyarat, but that statement is understood in context of Quran "family of the reminder", the reminder being God, the Messenger, and the Quran, and all part of the same coin.

It also came in after generations where Tawhid was solidified enough that no one would see it in a way contradicting his transcendence above all creation.

Another is "And all creation is your family" in a Du'a by Ahlulbayt (a).

However, the verse I'm quoting is saying if he would have a son in the terms polytheists mean, that is only possible if he has companions with him in his realm, otherwise, it makes no sense.

As anything from God is not his equal, but rather all of creation is emanation, it makes no sense to call any creation a son of God.

I like the Hindu view.
It is all God, it is all equal.
The only difference is the particular narrative you prefer to invest in.
To create the stories that inspire us.

 

[Link]

I like the Hindu view.
It is all God, it is all equal.
The only difference is the particular narrative you prefer to invest in.
To create the stories that inspire us.

I've heard many different things from Hindus about this. I'm not sure what their view is.

 

[I Am Hugh]

I'm saying a son is only possible for limited beings, not the ultimate being who is too big to have anything with him.

Are we not with him? Are we not sons of God?

 

[Link]

Are we not with him? Are we not sons of God?

God is with us, but we are not at his level so no.

 

[I Am Hugh]

They would reach him because he would be limited. The only way God can beget is if he limited and in that case he would have companions.

This sounds to me like you aren't interpreting the data to come to the right conclusion, but rather trying to limit the data to reflect the conclusion you want. Really, then, what you do is specify how an alleged father and an alleged son are defined. God can't be limited and therefore can't have a son is the objection to a son. Okay, what is the alleged son?

 

[Link]

This sounds to me like you aren't interpreting the data to come to the right conclusion, but rather trying to limit the data to reflect the conclusion you want. Really, then, what you do is define how an alleged father and an alleged son are defined. God can't be limited and therefore can't have a son is the objection to a son. Okay, what is the alleged son?

In most cases in the Quran, polytheists imagined the spiritual beings who were unseen that they experienced things with to be daughters of God (and sons, less the latter). Quran says if these beings were as you alleged, it would be Angels who would be close servant God. They would not be gods nor to be ascribed lineage to God. It furthermore argues in reality, the polytheists have been deceived, and have they are in fact not saints, but Jinn, and really mostly under Satan and Satanic beings themselves.

God being the absolute being, he cannot be ascribed such beings as daughters or sons even if say they were saints (Angels) and truthfully guiding them.

Of course a lot of Quran is arguing if they would be gods (set aside semantic debate), they would have to be from God and have proof.

In the case of Christianity, the Quran says those who said Jesus is God have disbelieved and furthermore argues it's a contradiction in terms when he says they say God is third of a three (one of three components).

I say these are logical arguments in Quran. I furthermore believe it's rational that if God was limited and had equals that sought a way to him, there would be no absolute morality, ascension would have no truth, and the order of the heavens and earth would be in turmoil as the highest beings would be at dispute, things would be chaotic in the world we live and it would be politics who is in power, not based on the truth. This all because they would be limited beings and have no guidance to truth in absolute way.

 

[I Am Hugh]

God is with us, but we are not at his level so no.

Okay, is anything equal to God? If no why would his son be? Do we define the son as being the offspring of or equal to? What relationship does the possible metaphoric son have contextually? The angels, are they not sons of God? They are not equal to God since nothing is. So why assume the son must be? Theologically apostate Christianity subscribes to the idea that they are equal, the same. That is where a valid objection actually exists, but logically you seem to transcend the data or rules. Angels are sons of God. God's son was an angel. The phrase sons of God is used in the Bible 11 times, in application to both men and angels.

 

[Link]

Okay, is anything equal to God? If no why would his son be? Do we define the son as being the offspring of or equal to? What relationship does the possible metaphoric son have contextually? The angels, are they not sons of God? They are not equal to God since nothing is. So why assume the son must be? Theologically apostate Christianity subscribes to the idea that they are equal, the same. That is where a valid objection actually exists, but logically you seem to transcend the data or rules. Angels are sons of God. God's son was an angel. The phrase sons of God is used in the Bible 11 times, in application to both men and angels.

The term sons and daughters can have other metaphoric meaning. I'm dealing with the type that sees son and daughters as gods (and hence worship them as well).

There is a perspective, of worshiping them to worship God. But then why use the term worship? Why not just exalt them and not equate them with God?