Why "one God"?

[HekaMa'atRa]

I actually meant to say hard polytheism dude. I am sorry.
I forget which is which because this whole soft and hard polytheism confuses me a bit.
Hard polytheism asserts that deities are distinct and separate which drives my point home about gods in regards to religious sects being distinct.
Also science only makes the functions of particular gods useless. Such as sea gods and storm gods. Their usage to explain the function of oceans is no longer needed nor beneficial. While on the other hand gods of wisdom and embodiments of human potential are highly beneficial. The purpose of gods in polytheism is what has changed.

Sure they're no longer needed to explain the function of these elements but I'm sure the divine has the ability to control nature.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sure they're no longer needed to explain the function of these elements but I'm sure the divine has the ability to control nature.

If the divine exist. Muhahaha

 

[Sha'irullah]

We dont worship Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him).
Sending blessings upon him is not equal to worship.

56. Allah sends His Salat (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy, etc.) on the Prophet (Muhammad

) and also His angels too (ask Allah to bless and forgive him). O you who believe! Send your Salat on (ask Allah to bless) him (Muhammad

), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islamic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As-Salamu 'Alaikum).

The prophet peace be upon him was asked: How can we send salat(blessings) on you, O messenger of Allah (salallahu aleyhi wassalam). He peace be upon him said:

Abu Muhammad Ka'b bin Ujrah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam came to us and we asked him, “O Messenger of Allah, we already know how to greet you (i.e., say As-salamu alaykum), but how should we supplicate for you?” He said, “Say: `Allahumma salli `ala Muhammadin, wa `ala aali Muhammadin, kama sallaita `ala aali Ibrahima, innaka Hamidum Majid. Allahumma barik `ala Muhammadin, wa `ala aali Muhammadin, kama barakta `ala aali Ibrahima, innaka Hamidum Majid [O Allah, exalt the mention of Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as you exalted the family of Ibrahim. You are Praised and Glorious. O Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You blessed the family of Ibrahim. You are Praised and Glorious.]”' [Bukhari and Muslim]

Shaykh ibn al-Uthaymeen rahimahullah states,

The best that can be said concerning this is what Abu'l-'Aaliyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The salah (blessing) of Allah upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is His praising him among the “higher group” (the angels). So what is meant by Allahumma salli 'alayhi (O Allah send blessings upon him) is: O Allah, praise him among the higher group, i.e., among the angels who are close to Allah.

Al-Sharh al-Mumti', 3/163, 164


2. (Saying) worship none but Allah. Verily, I (Muhammad

) am unto you from Him a warner and a bringer of glad tidings. (Surah Hud, verse 2)

I love how Muslims do this. Quote mining is such a bore.

As'salatul Ibrahimiyah:
“O Allah, let Your mercy come upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You let it come upon Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim O Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You blessed Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim. Truly You arePraiseworthy and Glorious."

Muslims have their idols and I have mine. But mines are more better which is the difference

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I love how Muslims do this. Quote mining is such a bore.

As'salatul Ibrahimiyah:
“O Allah, let Your mercy come upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You let it come upon Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim O Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You blessed Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim. Truly You arePraiseworthy and Glorious."

Muslims have their idols and I have mine. But mines are more better which is the difference

Worshipping prophet Muhammad peace be upon him goes against his own message. Dont you think so? Allah's messenger preached 23 years the oneness of God, he peace be upon him warned the people not to worship his grave.


Abdullah bin ‘Abbas(ra) reports:

“One day I was riding (a horse/camel) behind the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, when he said, ‘Young man, I will teach you some words. Be mindful of God, and He will take care of you. Be mindful of Him, and you shall find Him at your side. If you ask, ask of God. If you need help, seek it from God. Know that if the whole world were to gather together in order to help you, they would not be able to help you except if God had written so. And if the whole world were to gather together in order to harm you, they would not harm you except if God had written so. The pens have been lifted, and the pages are dry.’ ”

 

[Sha'irullah]

Worshipping prophet Muhammad peace be upon him goes against his own message. Dont you think so? Allah's messenger preached 23 years the oneness of God, he peace be upon him warned the people not to worship his grave.


Abdullah bin ‘Abbas(ra) reports:

“One day I was riding (a horse/camel) behind the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, when he said, ‘Young man, I will teach you some words. Be mindful of God, and He will take care of you. Be mindful of Him, and you shall find Him at your side. If you ask, ask of God. If you need help, seek it from God. Know that if the whole world were to gather together in order to help you, they would not be able to help you except if God had written so. And if the whole world were to gather together in order to harm you, they would not harm you except if God had written so. The pens have been lifted, and the pages are dry.’ ”

Muhammad preached of 23 years of false monotheism. The tawhid you speak of is not found in your understanding of al-Qur'an nor in the kutub that contain kalam of your precious nabbi. You raise the rasul l'Allah to the status of a divine being who negotiates with your god and mediates on behalf of man. His name must be recited in every prayer and you keep his alleged hairs and garments as keepsakes.
To say you do not worship Muhammad is like saying a Buddhist does not follow the path of Sidhartha Gautama. For the longest amount of time Muslims were called Mohamedans by the Indians, Sikhs and even religious academics.
You live in the shadow of your nabi/rasul and worship his silhouette like you do Allah. To this very day the notion of Muslims worshiping Allah has not existed until a century. You have been labelled by your prophet and been deemed worshipers of your prophets while Allah remains weeping in the dark deprived of attention like an abused child.

Muslims and especially the follows of Ali are all Muhammadins in the strictest sense of the word possible. The only Muslim is a Qur'anist as far as I am concerned

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

If the divine exist. Muhahaha

Haha yes, of course of course!

 

[morphesium]

Hello Morphesium,

Why one God? Would you prefer more? Would you prefer the impossible task of serving more than one master?

Do ships have more than one captain? Even if several men are ranked as captain on a naval vessel, should more than one be appointed as skipper of the ship? Do you have two bosses in your department? If you are a boss, would you prefer one identically positioned beside you? Would you prefer more than one set of parents? Why not more than one president?

If ones god is self, would he prefer two or three selves?

Why one God? A ship has only one captain. So does the universe that includes the spaceship called earth one God.

Take care,
Earl

Hello Esaurus
Do we know any of the physical properties (mass, volume, density etc,) of God? NO. we know nothing of those kind. So what about its mathematical analogy, mathematical properties? Again we have to say NO.
To count an object, you have to be sure that there is a mathematical property associated with the object which enables us to count those kind of objects. for example, we can count (as you said) number of masters, captains, bosses, families, presidents, parents apples and grapes, etc; but can we count space, water, etc; NO (these have uncountable property). we say little space, some water etc but not one water (one liter of water is different - it is the liter we count). Even there are things that cannot be included in any of the above categories. we have waves and alternating currents whose properties are explained with the help of complex numbers. We have electrons that exhibits wave like and particle like nature at the same time, can exist at two or more different places at the same time and so on.
What I am asking is when we say one God, How do we know that God has the mathematical property which enables us to count God. what i am saying isn't it more truthful or more elegant to say just "God" than "one God"

If ones god is self, would he prefer two or three selves?

"If ones god is self" => well i believe that is a big subject. But I do believe God speaks to us through our morales that always guide us to do good. (I don't accept any particular "religious" God - I believe these are all man made.).

"would he prefer two or three selves" => I just thought about - what if we have multiple selves (bodies, like avatars), in different countries or in different planets which we can choose at free will. Isn't this preferable? Just kidding here.

Best Regards
Morphesium

 

[BUTSeriously]

There is only "ONE GOD".

why did you accept it? How does this make sense? What are its properties? (volume, weight, mass etc,). What was/is its necessity?

Please post your comments.
Thanking you

Its not just a clean & simple premise. It is also scientifically irrefutable when based on a finite universe with a 'beginning' - with no alternatives in sight: name one? Also, pls check this out - its new and causing hot debate in all forums: Amazon.com: ben hur ii - exile

 

[BUTSeriously]

In a sense there is no point discussing One God or even a Creator when one is referring to an infinite universe - a creator is not required here - everything always existed. It is thus essential to offer a preamble which universe is being discussed - a finite or infinite one. Apples & oranges apply.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Actually, echad does precisely mean "one," though it can also mean "sole," "solitary," or "unique."

Whereas yachid or meyuchad means "unity," or "unified." "United" could be yachad or meyuchad.

God is certainly echad-- one, singular, sole-- which is why the word is used in the Torah. Not united, because God doesn't have separate parts in Jewish theology-- that's Christianity.

There is ONE ...
Pondered this for quite some time, with science adding somewhat to the confusion,
discussions of "Big Bangs"
Which further confused .. with the why and what for ...

It seems something must have caused that initial event ...

Perhaps if we look inside all things ... at the energy that causes matter to stay matter,

All the waves of energy.... seen, unseen, above and below light ....
perhaps there we find HaShem

Shalom ... Eliab

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is only "ONE GOD".

why did you accept it? How does this make sense? What are its properties? (volume, weight, mass etc,). What was/is its necessity?

Please post your comments.
Thanking you

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

IF there is a God, and It is omnipotent (powerful enough to create the universe) and omnipresent, then any other gods (angels whatever) would be superfluous. God, ostensibly, only created us to keep from being bored by having companions of sorts with the free will to disrespect the Truth--which is what God ultimately is.

 

[rrosskopf]

IF there is a God, and It is omnipotent (powerful enough to create the universe) and omnipresent, then any other gods (angels whatever) would be superfluous.

That's a lot of ifs. If God were omnipresent, then heaven would be everywhere. He wouldn't need messengers. He wouldn't employ prophets and apostles. The God of the Bible is not omnipresent. The meaning of "omnipotent" gets more and more exaggerated with each new astronomical discovery. How can it mean the power to create a universe, when no ancient prophet even had a concept of a universe? It is more likely that "omnipotent" to a Jew of 600 BC, was a somewhat fuzzy concept without known limits. To conclude from this that God doesn't have limits, is to banish him to the realm of unreal things. All real things are defined by their limits.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not if it's "only."

If there's only god, there's nothing to count.

Levite said that he believed in a god with "no physicality". Why would you assume that this is a monistic god? Seems like you're just replacing one contradiction with another.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IF there is a God, and It is omnipotent (powerful enough to create the universe) and omnipresent, then any other gods (angels whatever) would be superfluous.

Of course, "superfluous" does not mean "non-existent".

God, ostensibly, only created us to keep from being bored by having companions of sorts with the free will to disrespect the Truth--which is what God ultimately is.

Presumably, an omnipotent god would be perfectly able to amuse himself without us... and an omniscient god wouldn't be any less bored with us around than without us.

 

[Willamena]

Levite said that he believed in a god with "no physicality". Why would you assume that this is a monistic god? Seems like you're just replacing one contradiction with another.

I don't understand--what is the contradiction?

 

[Willamena]

Of course, "superfluous" does not mean "non-existent".

Effectively it does. Of course, one isn't required to address things effectively.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Effectively it does. Of course, one isn't required to address things effectively.

One person could take care of the house next door. Anyone else is "superfluous"... and therefore non-existent (effectively).

Someone should tell the rest of the family who lives there that they don't exist (effectively).

I don't understand--what is the contradiction?

The contradiction comes from assuming that all physicality is an aspect of a being with no physical aspect.

 

[mystic64]

That's a lot of ifs. If God were omnipresent, then heaven would be everywhere. He wouldn't need messengers. He wouldn't employ prophets and apostles. The God of the Bible is not omnipresent. The meaning of "omnipotent" gets more and more exaggerated with each new astronomical discovery. How can it mean the power to create a universe, when no ancient prophet even had a concept of a universe? It is more likely that "omnipotent" to a Jew of 600 BC, was a somewhat fuzzy concept without known limits. To conclude from this that God doesn't have limits, is to banish him to the realm of unreal things. All real things are defined by their limits.

Sir yours is an interesting argument . Just as an intellectual exercise, could it be possible that God defines His own limits so that He can be real? And just for the sake of argument, "If we are actually created in "Our Own Image", then could we also be defining our own limitations so that we can be real?"

 

[Willamena]

One person could take care of the house next door. Anyone else is "superfluous"... and therefore non-existent (effectively).

Someone should tell the rest of the family who lives there that they don't exist (effectively).

If superfluous was characteristic of them rather than the set of people necessary to take care of the house, you'd have a case.

The contradiction comes from assuming that all physicality is an aspect of a being with no physical aspect.

Was there an assertion made to that effect? I didn't see it.