"}},"i":0}}]}" id="mwkw">.mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 32px}.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;margin-top:0}@media(min-width:500px){.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{padding-left:1.6em}}
1. Say: He, Allah, is Ahad (the Unique One of Absolute Oneness, who is indivisible in nature, who is unique in His essence, attributes, names and acts, the One who has no second, no associate, no parents, no offspring, no peers, free from the concept of multiplicity, and far from conceptualization and limitation, and there is nothing like Him in any respect). [15] [16]
2. Allah is al-Samad (the Ultimate Source of all existence, the Uncaused Cause who created all things out of nothing, who is eternal, absolute, immutable, perfect, complete, essential, independent, and self-sufficient; Who does not need to eat or drink, sleep or rest; Who needs nothing while all of creation is in absolute need of Him; the one eternally and constantly required and sought, depended upon by all existence and to whom all matters will ultimately return). [17] [18] [19]
3. He begets not, nor is He begotten (He is Unborn and Uncreated, has no parents, spouse, or offspring).
4. And there is none comparable (equal, equivalent or similar) to Him. [11]
In this context, the masculinity of huwa (he) with respect to Allah is unmistakably a purely grammatical masculinity without even a hint of anthropomorphism. [20] The Maliki scholar Ibrahim al-Laqqani (d. 1041/1631) said in his book, Jawharat al-Tawhid (The Gem of Monotheism), that: "Any text that leads one to imagine the similitude of Allah to His created beings, should be treated either through ta'wil or tafwid and exalt Allah the Almighty above His creation." [21]
The Hanafi jurist and theologian al-Tahawi (d. 321/933), wrote in his treatise on theology, commonly known as al-'Aqida al-Tahawiyya : [22] [23]
He is exalted/transcendent beyond having limits, ends, organs, limbs and parts (literally: tools). The six directions do not encompass/contain Him like the rest of created things.
The six directions are: above, below, right, left, front and back. The above statement of al-Tahawi refutes the anthropomorphist's dogmas that imagine Allah has a physical body and human form, and being occupied in a place, direction or trajectory. 'Ali al-Qari (d. 1014/1606) in his Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar states: "Allah the Exalted is not in any place or space, nor is He subject to time, because both time and space are amongst His creations. He the Exalted was present in pre-existence and there was nothing of the creation with Him". [22]
Al-Tahawi also stated that: [22] [23]
Whoever describes Allah even with a single human quality/attribute, has disbelieved/blasphemed. So whoever understands this, will take heed and refrain from such statements as those of disbelievers, and knows that Allah in His attributes is utterly unlike human beings.
In the Baháʼí Faith God is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty". [24] [25] Although transcendent and inaccessible directly, his image is reflected in his creation. The purpose of creation is for the created to have the capacity to know and love its creator. [26] God communicates his will and purpose to humanity through intermediaries, known as Manifestations of God, who are the prophets and messengers that have founded religions from prehistoric times up to the present day. [27]
While many deists view God as a personal god, deism is a broad term encompassing people with varying specific beliefs, some of which reject the notion of a personal god. The foundational idea of a personal god in deism is illustrated by the 17th-century assertions of Lord Edward Herbert, universally regarded as the Father of English Deism, which stated that there is one Supreme God, and he ought to be worshipped. [28] A god that is not a personal god cannot be worshipped. Nevertheless, the notion of God as a personal god cannot be ascribed to all deists. Further, some deists who believe in a personal god may either not prioritize a relationship with such god or not believe a personal relationship with such god is possible.
Christian deism is a term applied both to Christians who incorporate deistic principles into their beliefs and to deists who follow the moral teachings of Jesus without believing in his divinity. [29] With regard to those who are essentially deists who incorporate the teachings of Jesus into their beliefs, these are usually a subset of classical deists. Consequently, they believe in a personal god, but they do not necessarily believe in a personal relationship with God. However, some Christian deists may practice a different (non-classical) form of deism while viewing Jesus as a non-divine moral teacher. The views of these Christian deists on the existence of a personal god and whether a relationship with such god is possible would be based on their core deist beliefs.
Classical deists who adhere to Herbert's common notion certainly believe in a personal god because those notions include the belief that God dispenses rewards and punishments both in this life and after it. [28] This is not something which would be done by an impersonal force. However, a personal relationship with God is not contemplated, since living a virtuous and pious life is seen as the primary means of worshiping God. [28]
Humanist deists accept the core principles of deism but incorporate humanist beliefs into their faith. [30] Thus, humanistic deists believe in a personal god who created the universe. The key element that separates humanistic deists from other deists is the emphasis on the importance of human development over religious development and on the relationships among human beings over the relationships between humans and God. [30] [31] Those who self-identify as humanistic deists may take an approach based upon what is found in classical deism and allow their worship of God to manifest itself primarily (or exclusively) in the manner in which they treat others. Other humanistic deists may prioritize their relationships with other human beings over their relationship with God, yet still maintain a personal relationship with the Supreme Being.
Pandeists believe that in the process of creating the universe, God underwent a metamorphosis from a conscious and sentient being or force to an unconscious and unresponsive entity by becoming the universe. [32] Consequently, pandeists do not believe that a personal god currently exists.
Polydeists reject the notion that one Supreme Being would have created the universe and then left it to its own devices, a common belief shared by many deists. Rather, they conclude that several gods who are superhuman but not omnipotent each created parts of the universe. [33] Polydeists hold an affirmative belief that the gods who created the universe are completely uninvolved in the world and pose no threat and offer no hope to humanity. [34] Polydeists see living virtuous and pious lives as the primary components of worshiping God, firmly adhering to one of the common notions set forth by Herbert. [28] Thus, polydeists believe that there are several personal gods. Yet, they do not believe they can have a relationship with any of them.
Vaishnavism and Shaivism, [35] traditions of Hinduism, subscribe to an ultimate personal nature of God. The Vishnu Sahasranama [36] declares the person of Vishnu as both the Paramatma (supreme soul) and Parameshvara (supreme God) while the Rudram describes the same about Shiva. In Krishna-centered theology (Krishna is seen as a form of Vishnu by most, except Gaudiya Vaishnavism) the title Svayam Bhagavan is used exclusively to designate Krishna in his personal feature, [37] [38] it refers to Gaudiya Vaishnava, the Nimbarka Sampradaya and followers of Vallabha, while the person of Vishnu and Narayana is sometimes referred to as the ultimate personal god of other Vaishnava traditions. [39] [40]
Jainism explicitly denies existence of non-personal transcendent god and explicitly affirms existence of personal gods. All gods in Jainism are personal.
One of the major point of dispute between Digambara and Shwetambara is the gender of the gods. Digambara gods can only be men, and any man of at least eight years of age can become god if he follows the right procedure.
Jain gods are eternal, but they are not beginningless. Also, Jain gods are all omniscient, but not omnipotent. They are sometimes called quasi-gods due to this reason.
Gods are said to be free from the following eighteen imperfections: [41]
The four infinitudes of god are (ananta cātuṣṭaya) are: [41]
Those who re-establish the Jain faith are called Tirthankaras. They have additional attributes. Tirthankaras revitalize the sangha, the fourfold order consisting of male saints (sādhus), female saints (sādhvis), male householders ( śrāvaka ) and female householders (Śrāvika).
The first Tirthankara of the current time cycle was Ṛṣabhanātha, and the twenty-fourth and last Tirthankara was Mahavira, who lived from 599 BCE to 527 BCE.
Jain texts mention forty-six attributes of arihants or tirthankaras. These attributes comprise four infinitudes (ananta chatushtaya), thirty-four miraculous happenings (atiśaya), and eight splendours (prātihārya). [41]
The eight splendours (prātihārya) are: [42]
At the time of nirvana (final release), the arihant sheds off the remaining four aghati karmas:
And float at the top of the universe without losing their individuality and with the same shape and size as the body at the time of release.
![]() | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (December 2022) |
Lutheran theologian Paul Tillich in his German-language Systematic Theology writings wrote that
'Personal God' does not mean that God is a person. It means that God is the ground of everything personal and that he carries within himself the ontological power of personality... [43]
Anglican theologian Graham Ward (theologian) distinguished between seeing God as a "Person" and God as a "Subject". He wrote that the "attempt to reconcile or, at least render, theologically coherent, the man-God" of God the Son in 'nineteenth-century biblical criticism'
will always make Christ the Subject par excellence, the Monad defining all monads, the man-without-relation, the self-grounding one. Let me suggest a difference here between Subject and Person, subjectivity and personhood. Subjectivity, though not necessarily tied to a concept of the transcendental ego, is fundamentally concerned with discrete individuals. Personhood, on the other hand, is that sense of self that continually comes from being in relation ...Being made ‘in the image of God’ and, therefore, living imitatio Christi, Christian Persons are not replicas, but embodiments of Christ as Person. Persons, as such, are analogically related to each through Christ. Subjects, on the other hand, are atomised. They are monads. And theologies of Christ as Subject conceive other Christian Subjects as monadic replicas of the same. [44] : 114
Ward quotes John S. Dunne's The City of the Gods: A Study in Myth and Mortality which states that "the personal God and his individual incarnation are abolished in a Calvary from which there emerges the autonomous human spirit, the 'absolute' spirit". [44] : 45
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)Non-copyright