Regarding virgin births and Jesus (and Adam).
-
Peace Hussein,
Thanks for your polite responses. I appreciate them
Likewise )
I am not very clear as to what you are trying to say. Can you elaborate?
My apologies. Upon further review of your original reply, I see you already answered my question. oops
I cannot think of the answer. Not knowing the answer does not mean that this did not happen.
I agree. But shouldn't we try to make some rational connection between what we read and what we end up believing? If you disagree, that's fine, really. Each person's path is lit with different hues, I feel. But in the spirit of debate and analysis, I think there has to be a better answer than "because God said so". I'm not implying that this will be your answer, only that I've heard this response before when a debate gets down to the nitty gritty.
Again, we're asked to verify information before accepting it. It is the means of verification that seperates the individuals, I suppose. So if your answer is "I hold my beliefs because that is my understanding of what I read in the Qur'an, and that's good enough for me", then that's good enough for me too. But if there's a trace of doubt, i think it should be explored without fear of asking "why". Afterall, the Truth survives all scrutiny. It is falsehood that disentegrates.
All that I am saying is that I was not convinced by the evidence that was presented by Truth and You as to the birth of Jesus, from a linguistic sense.
OK.
Let's look at 359 again
The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.
What is this example?
The example is, God created him from dust, then said to him "Be".
Interestingly, look at what 3020 states3020 And among His Signs it is that He created you out of dust - and then, behold, you become human beings ranging widely.
So Jesus, and Adam, and all of mankind were created the same way. Do you disagree? Don't you think if this alleged immaculate conception occurred, God would have considered it a sign for us? Yet no where in the Qur'an does it ever state that Jesus did not have a father.
I also do not have a problem that the Qur'an does not adhere strictly to our scientific knowledge, which is anyway, incomplete.
Nor do I. But I do think consistency is important.
I don't agree with your theory. Despite the similarities in the DNA, there are significant differences.
That's fine. But please offer an alternative explanation as to why our DNA is so similar to that of an ape? Do you consider this as part of the test? I mean, we're given brains, and we're given the pieces of the puzzle that have taken countless hours and lives to unlock, and then we unlock it, and find similarities between ourselves and many portions of life, only to have to disregard all of this? It doesn't make sense, bro.
I don't think that science answered this question yet.
Not completely, but pretty close.
If you believe in the evolution theory completely...
I do not believe in the evolution theory completely. The theory in mainstream science is driven by atheism, or naturalism. Science does not leave the door open for the existence of God. But it does dig up some invaluable information along the way.
should not you believe that the way man became "blessed with consciousness" is through evolution as well? and not as the Qur'an said.
The Qur'an says all of life comes from water, and that we were created from dust. This is eerily similar to the theory of the primordial soup(dust+water). I also cannot ignore the leap into consciousness made approximately 50-75 thousand years ago. Before that time, there were no cave paintings, no evidence of burials, of trade, of any communication relative to modern man. Something happened that triggered a leap from animal to man. Perhaps the biped became advanced enough at this time to be worthy of the blessing of consciousness.
I've wondered what the Angels were referring to in 230, when they said
?Will you place on it such creation as will cause disorder therein and shed blood!"From where did they get this idea if not from an animalistic being already existing?
In short, I believe that the existing, evolved man recieved consciousness 50-75 thousand years ago. Whether consciousness was literally blown into the body or evolved as such is not important, I feel. Either way, it came from God.
Peace,
Tay -
Salaam Tay,
The example is, God created him from dust, then said to him "Be".
Interestingly, look at what 3020 statesYes you will find this in several ayaat relating to mankind, us in particular. You will also find it mentioned in the hadeeth of the two men in the garden .
Joe
-
Dear Tay,
I found this very interesting.
That's fine. But please offer an alternative explanation as to why our DNA is so similar to that of an ape? Do you consider this as part of the test?
Die hard Christian creationists consider the fossil evidence in the earth to be a "test" of their faith - and that man as well as the universe and earth have been around approx. 4.5 thousand years (ie. as long as the geneology of the bible permits to backwards). The fact it appears older is all illusory and part of the test.
Regards.
-
Let me get this straight. Evidence has emerged that the Cambrian "explosion" was not really an explosion at all, more likely an evolution, yet despite this, evolutionists admit that the species resulting from the Cambrian explosion "were as if they were just planted there without any evolutionary ancestors"?
No offense, but I find that hard to believe. Do you have any references of scientists who accept the pre-Cambrian evidence, yet deny it's implications?
Peace,
TayJust a fact I'd like to throw in... I'm surprised that people still call it the Cambrian 'explosion' as if whole animal phyla appeared overnight. In fact the 'explosion' occured along a time span of tens of millions of years... longer than humans have ever existed on Earth.
-
Salaam all, Tay,
I hope that you all have a good morning.
Tay said
But if there's a trace of doubt, i think it should be explored without fear of asking "why". Afterall, the Truth survives all scrutiny. It is falsehood that disentegrates.
This is a very important point. I agree that Truth survives the falsehood. I also agree that we will never have all the answers. It seems to me that when science answers one question, it creates many more. It could be that GOD puts stories like those to see who believes what is unbelievable if told by GOD and who does not. I think that GOD allows us to ask Why, just as he allowed the angels to do so. The answer will be that GOD knows what we don't know.
So Jesus, and Adam, and all of mankind were created the same way. Do you disagree?
I do not disgaree. The AYAT also talk about where the similarities lie
Dust, Be and IT IS. The Ayat did not mention parentage as the source of similarities, and that is where those two are different. Also those ayat were sent to the people that said Jesus has to have some divine presence to be born the way he was. GOD says NO.Don't you think if this alleged immaculate conception occurred, God would have considered it a sign for us?
1921He said "So (it will be) Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me and (We wish) to make him as a Sign unto people and a Mercy from Us'It is a matter (so) decreed."
And this sign is included in his birth.Yet no where in the Qur'an does it ever state that Jesus did not have a father.
1932"(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
Why did jesus ignore his father, if he is a righteous man? when in the case of John it says
1914And kind to his parents, and he was not overbearing or rebellious.The words were WALIDATI in 1932 and it means the one female that gave birth to me.
Waldaihi in 1914 and it means the TWO that Gave birth to him.But please offer an alternative explanation as to why our DNA is so similar to that of an ape?
GOD could have created us carrying some similarities with the Ape's DNA, as well as giving us some new genes that may explain the differences as well. We share also many properties with many other minor organisms as well. Evolutionn can explain changes in the same gene and it's functions. However, it does not explain-to me- the creation of new genes.
Salaam and thanks for the very though provoking discussion
Hussein
-
Let me get this straight. Evidence has emerged that the Cambrian "explosion" was not really an explosion at all, more likely an evolution, yet despite this, evolutionists admit that the species resulting from the Cambrian explosion "were as if they were just planted there without any evolutionary ancestors"?
No offense, but I find that hard to believe. Do you have any references of scientists who accept the pre-Cambrian evidence, yet deny it's implications?
Peace,
TayJust a fact I'd like to throw in... I'm surprised that people still call it the Cambrian 'explosion' as if whole animal phyla appeared overnight. In fact the 'explosion' occured along a time span of tens of millions of years... longer than humans have ever existed on Earth.
Khi- Salam. Yes here r some refernces 2 satisfy u
David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says
"the trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".
These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth Sciences, which is one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion" which came as a total surprise to evolutionists
A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.
How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists.
The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins himself, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that invalidates the very roots of all the arguments he has been defending
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.
Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states
"Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."
Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote
"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."
The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".
GOD Bless! -
Peace Khalil,
Thanks for the references. Unfortunately, none of them acknowledged the newly discovered complex life forms existing prior to the Cambrian period. This was my main bone of contention.
Peace,
TayKhi- Show me those. If they r also complex then this cld be another refute 2 the theory of evolution. I personally believe tht GOD creates everything by explosions. This i consider another miracle. We can only destroy things by explosion while GOD the Almighty All knowing creates things by it. Thus there cld have been many explosions like the cambrian resulting in complex fully coded living things. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Truth,
Die hard Christian creationists consider the fossil evidence in the earth to be a "test" of their faith
Yes, I've bumped into a few of those folks. In my opinion, it is the ultimate cop-put, the ultimate crutch. Any evidence that doesn't fit their preconceptions is branded as a test.
Peace Andya,
Just a fact I'd like to throw in... I'm surprised that people still call it the Cambrian 'explosion' as if whole animal phyla appeared overnight. In fact the 'explosion' occured along a time span of tens of millions of years... longer than humans have ever existed on Earth.
Exactly!
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Hussein,
It could be that GOD puts stories like those to see who believes what is unbelievable if told by GOD and who does not.
I guess this is possible. I would call it unlikely, and contradictory. In the Qur'an we are told that this is a book of guidance, with clear verses. We are told it is a book that will give mankind eminence. We are told to verify information, to not accept hearsay, to not follow what our fathers followed without thorough examination. It doesn't make sense that in the midst of this flow of guidance, this methodical guidance, we are expected to believe something that we cannot possibly verify, something that is never duplicated in nature, and something that goes against the very grain of all of life.
Also those ayat were sent to the people that said Jesus has to have some divine presence to be born the way he was. GOD says NO.
I did not notice any such thing in Surah 3. Please elaborate.
And this sign is included in his birth.
This is your extrapolation. His birth is not mentioned as a sign, only his existence.
Why did jesus ignore his father, if he is a righteous man?
Who said he ignored is father? Lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. But since we're discussing lack of evidence, a concept as important as a virgin birth, unequaled in the history of mankind, surely deserved atleast one line such as, "Jesus did not have a father." This would have cleared up all the apparent confusion.
GOD could have created us carrying some similarities with the Ape's DNA, as well as giving us some new genes that may explain the differences as well.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Please explain.
We share also many properties with many other minor organisms as well.
Exactly! But the one animal we're closest to happens to be the one animal that is most similar to man. There is no stigma in admitting this. We are here by God's grace, whether we were plucked out of heaven and placed here, or whether we evolved here, or whether an animal evolved to a certain point and God blew into the animal from His essencel, giving it a soul.
I think there is a fear that admitting the body we reside in has evolved from an ape is somehow equivalent to disrespecting God. I don't see it that way at all. To me, it is all the more magnificent that all these wonderful puzzle pieces exist for us to dig up and put together, only to get a tiny glimpse of reality.
Furthermore, once we accept that we are not our bodies, then it is very easy to see that the only way we could have experienced this life was to be in a vehicle composed of the fabric of this life. The human body follows the same rules as all mammals it needs food, and water, and oxygen. It only makes sense that since our bodies are subject to the same laws as animals, they must be of the same substance, and hence, of the same evolution.
But we are not our bodies. We don't need these things. There is a difference. We are eternal beings placed in this temporary flux to test our mettle.
Salaam and thanks for the very though provoking discussion
Thank you too.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Idmkhizar,
You asked
Show me those.
I already did. Here it is again
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_Explosion
radiation of animal phyla started much earlier, from about 570 MYA, 30 million years before the beginning of the Cambrian geologic period. In 1994, triploblastic animals (organisms with more than two layers, and who therefore rely on internal organs and systems for their cells' supplies of food and waste disposal), were discovered preserved as phosphatized embryos in rocks from southern China . These fossils were estimated to be 570 million years of age and thus were even older than the Ediacaran fauna found in strata about 10 million years younger.If they r also complex then this cld be another refute 2 the theory of evolution.
Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind. I believe an objective approach is always best. As Zenje often says, we see what we want to see.
Peace,
Tay -
Exactly! But the one animal we're closest to happens to be the one animal that is most similar to man. There is no stigma in admitting this. We are here by God's grace, whether we were plucked out of heaven and placed here, or whether we evolved here, or whether an animal evolved to a certain point and God blew into the animal from His essencel, giving it a soul.
I think there is a fear that admitting the body we reside in has evolved from an ape is somehow equivalent to disrespecting God. I don't see it that way at all. To me, it is all the more magnificent that all these wonderful puzzle pieces exist for us to dig up and put together, only to get a tiny glimpse of reality.
Furthermore, once we accept that we are not our bodies, then it is very easy to see that the only way we could have experienced this life was to be in a vehicle composed of the fabric of this life. The human body follows the same rules as all mammals it needs food, and water, and oxygen. It only makes sense that since our bodies are subject to the same laws as animals, they must be of the same substance, and hence, of the same evolution.
But we are not our bodies. We don't need these things. There is a difference. We are eternal beings placed in this temporary flux to test our mettle.
Tay
Well said.
Regards.
-
Salaam Tay,All,
I hope that you are having a good and relaxing saturday morning.
You said
It doesn't make sense that in the midst of this flow of guidance, this methodical guidance, we are expected to believe something that we cannot possibly verify, something that is never duplicated in nature, and something that goes against the very grain of all of life.
My point is not that there is no logic. There is a logic that we sometimes may not be able to grasp. Examples
1- God asked Abraham to kill his son. No logic there to Abraham, yet he complied. GOD had the logic.
2- GOD created Adam. No logic to the Angels, yet GOD knew the logic. 230
3- GOD asked the angels to do Sujood to Adam. No logic there to the angels. Again GOD knew the logic.
4- The story of Moses and the other man. 1860-82
This is a very constructive story of How Moses did not see the logic of things and therefore asked (which is not wrong in my opinion). The issue here is that there is logic that Moses did not know.My point is that We, as humans, will never know everything and will never know the logic of every thing. Just because we do not know the logic, does not mean that we should not believe what GOD tells us. That is if we believe that the Qur'an is the unadulterated book of GOD.
I have a question for you Do you believe that you will be sent back alive after you die? If you do then you are believing something that does not correlate with science.
I did not notice any such thing in Surah 3. Please elaborate.
361 If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say "Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!"
The dispute at the time of the prophet happened and it was not the same dispute that you and I are having. The dispute relates to the christians that believed that Jesus is the son of GOD or GOD himself because he was born to a mother without a father. NO ONE at that time claimed that Jesus was born of a mother and a father. The Jews of the time did not believe that Jesus even existed.
Another AYAH.
1935 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
Again mentioning the people that Claimed that Jesus is the son of GOD. You can also see The BE and IT IS in the AYA, just as the Adam story.But since we're discussing lack of evidence, a concept as important as a virgin birth, unequaled in the history of mankind, surely deserved atleast one line such as, "Jesus did not have a father." This would have cleared up all the apparent confusion
2191 And (remember) her who guarded her chastity So We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.
The Arabic words were AHSANAT FARJAHA and they meanThe female that made her openning (Vagina) unreachable. The AYAH suggests that the breathing in her was made while she was still having her Vagina unreachable.
Another evidence is the fact that Jesus is often mentioned as ISA BEN MARIAM. This is a very unusual way of calling people unless their father is unidentifiable, or uncertain. If Jesus had a father then GOD would know who the father was.I am going to stop here for the Jesus discussion and I will respond to you later about the Evolution issue.
Have a great day
Hussein
-
Salaam Tay,All,
Now for the Adam and evloution part.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Please explain.
I meant that GOD can create anything. In that, He can create a man that shares some DNA properties with an ape. He does not have to evolve man this way. There are many ways that can lead to the same ending.
I think there is a fear that admitting the body we reside in has evolved from an ape is somehow equivalent to disrespecting God. I don't see it that way at all. To me, it is all the more magnificent that all these wonderful puzzle pieces exist for us to dig up and put together, only to get a tiny glimpse of reality.
Actually my fear is that some of us are trying to make the Qur'an adhere to the evolution theory blindly. The Evolution theory is still a theory. It has lots of merits and it explains lots of things but it has some holes in it, and there are many missing links. One of those missing links is that scientisits have not yet found the real ancestor to man. Evolutionarilyy speaking, man is related to the Apes, but he is on a different family tree. All the apes' fossils that were found are on different branches of the evolutionary tree than man, even the neanderthal man (of course there is debate on this, which also proves that nothing is certain.)
Suppose that we now make the Qur'an say that man evolved to this existence. Then 200 years from now, a new discovery will come that will totally disprove what we thought. Then, we will have a problem on our hands, very much the same as what happened to those that made the Qur'an say that the sun rotated around the earth.
Making the Qur'an adhere to scientific theories can be a very short sighted, hasty decision.
Salaam
Hussein
-
Peace Hussein,
I hope that you are having a good and relaxing saturday morning.
) Nothing beats sleeping and waking when the body is ready, not forced out of sleep by a screaming alarm clock. Life is good.
My point is not that there is no logic. There is a logic that we sometimes may not be able to grasp.
I understand, but I disagree. The examples you used entailed single moments in time, single decisions. What we are discussing is the information from the book of guidance, the criterion. The criterion is supposed to be clear and concise. It's supposed to be consistent. Virgin births are inconsistent.
Do you believe that you will be sent back alive after you die?
I believe the soul does not die, only the physical body dies.
If you do then you are believing something that does not correlate with science.
As I mentioned, science has it's limits. Mainstream science follows a naturalistic agenda. But individuals within this group do believe in God and have combined science and spirituality in a wonderful manner. I have plenty of examples if you wish.
The dispute relates to the christians that believed that Jesus is the son of GOD or GOD himself because he was born to a mother without a father.
Again, this is your extrapolation.
NO ONE at that time claimed that Jesus was born of a mother and a father.
From where do you get this information? The only historical account of Jesus' very existence outside of the Bible was the account of Josephus, and even this says very little. The Aryans, at one time a large percentage of Christians, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Not until the Council of Nicaea was the dogma official church doctrine.
Another evidence is the fact that Jesus is often mentioned as ISA BEN MARIAM. This is a very unusual way of calling people unless their father is unidentifiable, or uncertain. If Jesus had a father then GOD would know who the father was.
Yes, God would know, but people would not. Hence calling him the son of the man whom none of you know would be pointless. Nevertheless, I think this would be a good point to part on this subject. You admit you are OK without a logical explanation. I am not OK with it. But we were made different to learn from each other, so all is well. )
I meant that GOD can create anything. In that, He can create a man that shares some DNA properties with an ape.
Sure, He can. But why would He? To test us, to confuse us?
Actually my fear is that some of us are trying to make the Qur'an adhere to the evolution theory blindly.
I have yet to see an example of this. Any thoughts I've read on the matter have always been well argued. Please provide an example of this blind justification.
It has lots of merits and it explains lots of things but it has some holes in it, and there are many missing links.
As does Creationism. The difference is, when a Creationist gets stuck, he falls back on "God can do anything".
Evolutionarilyy speaking, man is related to the Apes, but he is on a different family tree.
Correct.
Suppose that we now make the Qur'an say that man evolved to this existence. Then 200 years from now, a new discovery will come that will totally disprove what we thought. Then, we will have a problem on our hands, very much the same as what happened to those that made the Qur'an say that the sun rotated around the earth.
That is the nature of science, and the beauty of it. Science is always flexible and open to new ideas. Even when science is wrong, it opens doors. When Freud published his theories on dreams, it was a blasphemy, then it was psychological doctrine, now it is hardly agreed upon. But in this process, we have made leaps in understanding the human mind.
The alternative is to remain stagnant. It is to say, the world is what it is because God said so. If all of man followed this path, how far would we have gotten?
If people didn't question the ancient dogma of creationism, we never would have discovered DNA, nor human anatomy, nor weather patterns, geology, astronomy, psychology, etc. The greatest thinkers have always been those who challenged the official party line, despite the apparent consequences.
And because of their courageousness, humanity has benefitted. You and I are now communicating because of this.
Making the Qur'an adhere to scientific theories can be a very short sighted, hasty decision.
As is making the Qur'an adhere to what we've been taught by others. I am sure you were taught about the virgin birth before you ever read the Qur'an, as was I.
The best appraoch is the objective approach. Weighing all the evidence, from within the Qur'an, and from without, is not hasty, nor short sighted. It is an objective approach, one which is in fact encouraged within the Qur'an itself. (1736)
Peace,
Tay -
peace be upon all,
Here's something to think about, if we had never "learned" or even heard about the story of the virgin birth from the christians/sunnis and knew nothing about it, then one day we came across the reading (quran) and read all the correlating signs (ayat) regarding isa and maryium, would we interpret it as a virgin birth?
p.s. there is a metaphorical/allegorical way to interpret the story that idolfree adheres too and I happen to agree with mostly, lets be willing to be openminded under this thread
idolfree
Regarding Mary, the WOMB whch creates Isa, I understand her to represent the MIND(nafs), which is a feminine word (unless I am mistaken). It is the MIND that concieves the "virgin birth" because the God's ruh(divine energy) impregnates it with the new idea/word(Isa 345, 4171). We have to leave tradition (Mary went to a place in the east and shielded herself from family). Once we remove the preconcieved ideas of tradition, the God's ruh can speak clearly to us. At first it is scary and one wishes that they could go back to life before they became concious(birthpains), but the God assures us that this state of "garden" is best because we have rivers flowing beneath us and fruit always on hand. When we return to our families, they ask us what is going on with us, we do not respond from our own accord, we let the new idea/word (isa) of the God speak. It is only the newly formed idea/word that can speak in infancy, not human babies.
his understanding may be wrong as all understandings could possibly be but it is far more correct than a virgin birth, I have experienced this myself and have seen others experience this as well, plus he has a lot of scriptural support
-
Peace,
I just wanted to offer my view on two things Hussein raised as arguments supporting a virgin birth
The dispute relates to the christians that believed that Jesus is the son of GOD or GOD himself because he was born to a mother without a father.
Pre Christian mythology has many examples of virgin births which result in gods or god-men. These mythologies are almost standard in pagan and polytheistic traditions.
Is it a stretch of the imagination to understand plainly that the prevailing traditionalist view (ie. of agreeing with the Christians) is to allow pagan thought to pollute our understanding of God's system?
The promotion to god or son of god, happened much later and in some Christian thinking is still not valid.
NO ONE at that time claimed that Jesus was born of a mother and a father.
The reason why this is absurd especially coming from the Christian tradition is that in their stories there actually IS a father present - JOSEPH is recorded categorically as being Mary's husband.
To therefore swallow some pagan corruption, and deny that a husband who accompanied Mary was not the father of a child that came from that couple is ridiculous.
The Christian's have even less reason to suppose a virgin birth. Your intellect should tell you the same.
Saying that God can create ANYTHING is a gross simplification. God acts in ways that are harmonious with and do not contradict his own creation. Remember that even in the Koran God reminds us that a clue that something is NOT FROM GOD is that it will CONTAIN CONTRADICTION.
So God CANNOT create a ROUND SQUARE because it is impossible under the system he has put into place governing the rules of mathematics; it is a contradictory concept.
Likewise, the belief in a pagan inspired virgin birth is a contradictory concept. God is not contradictory.
Regards.
-
Salaam,
There is a logic that we sometimes may not be able to grasp. Examples
1- God asked Abraham to kill his son. No logic there to Abraham, yet he complied. GOD had the logic.
2- GOD created Adam. No logic to the Angels, yet GOD knew the logic. 230
3- GOD asked the angels to do Sujood to Adam. No logic there to the angels. Again GOD knew the logic.
4- The story of Moses and the other man. 1860-82
This is a very constructive story of How Moses did not see the logic of things and therefore asked (which is not wrong in my opinion). The issue here is that there is logic that Moses did not know.Yet it is a logic that I find is capable of being grasped. I believe I've grasped these instances of logic which you have not grasped or are incapable of grasping.
Regarding the underlined portion if you know why and can relate to the quran and it's manifest qualities I think you should find the understanding.
Joe