Are "Allah" of Islam and "God" of Christianity the same entity? [Archive]

Atticus

11-22-2007, 02:08 PM

But seriously, the reason I say that "God" and "Allah" are the same entity is because that's what the Koran claims. It recounts many of the same stories of the Old Testament, just from the perspective of the descendants of Ishmael rather than those of Isaac. It says there is but one God, and the word for that ("the God") in Arabic is "Allah."

I have seen claims made to contradict this (for example, here (http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/divine.html)) that the name "Allah" derives from a previous word from a time when Arabs were mostly polytheistic. Here's the passage: With this in mind we ask the question: Is the Jahveh Elohim (Lord God) of the Bible really the same as al'illah of the Quran? Contrary to the view of the Quran, the objective student must agree that - although we may use the English term "God" for both - they are not likely to be the same. Who is Allah then? He was not, of course, an invention of Mohammed's. Al'illah was not unknown before the coming of Mohammed. Allah is a form of "al'illah", which means "the God". We note the article, "the". He was generally known before Mohammed's time as can be seen in the name of Mohammed's father, for instance, which was Abd-ullah (slave of Allah). His uncle's name was Obeidallah.

"The Quran itself bears out the fact that the old polytheism had no real hold as a religion, and that Allah was in a sense recognized as a supreme deity by the polytheists themselves....In all the opposition to Muhammad we scarcely meet a defence of the old religion which can be called an argument in its favour. The Quran is quite frank in recording the objections raised by opponents; but there is no reference to any defence of polytheism which could be said to rest on a conviction of its truth....It is inherently probable that the heathen themselves had some such idea of the relation of their special gods to a supreme deity....They will admit that Allah is the creator of the worlds....It seems clear that the Arabs had the idea of a supreme God, in a sense superior to their local deities, but only turned to in their times of stress." ("The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment" by Richard Bell, pp. 55-57).

We also know of poets who used the name Allah before Mohammed.The seven "Moallaqat" by Imra'ul Cays and the "Dewan" by Labid refer to Allah. (For further information on pre-Islamic knowledge we refer to the chapter "Sources of Islam" pp. 96 ff.)."

We are aware of the explanation by our Muslim friends, that over the period of some 2 500 years since Abraham and Ishmael began worshipping God to the time of Mohammed, Allah had gradually been degraded in status to be placed, eventually, among the heathen deities of idolatrous Arabia. This maybe so, but does not really convince us. Also, we see no support for this view in the faith that the Hanifites had in the God of Abraham. They must have been in contact with the Jews and Christians in the Arabian Peninsula, who had knowledge of the story of Abraham in the Bible. What confirms this is that of the six contemporaries of Mohammed that are titled Hanif, half became Christians and one confessed not to know the right way. The problem with this argument that it ignores the way language works. If one wants to name a new concept, one needs a word. We create new words in all sorts of ways: borrowing them from other languages, shorting old words, lengthening old words, compounding old words together, compounding shortened versions of old words together, making anagrams, infusing old words with related but newer meanings, etc. Easily the most common way is to take an older concept and attach a newer meaning to it. That's what it appears Muhammad did with "Allah." It's the closest thing Arabic had to the concept of a supreme God, so that's what he called "Him" (even the use of a gendered pronoun is just a linguistic convenience for an entity that is beyond a physical manifestation).

In any case just about all religions can be seen as deriving from a previous belief. One explanation for the Jewish God is that He derives from a pantheon of previous gods; one explanation is that Jehovah was the god of a great mountain (the one from which Moses descended with the 10 commandments).

Anyway, the most reasonable assertion is that both the Christian God and the God of Islam are the same entity--Muslims accept His later message as authentic, Christians don't.

Atticus

11-22-2007, 02:13 PM

What about Mormonism? Is that God 5.0? Or maybe God 3.5?Depends on whom you ask. Non-Mormons would probably say it's God 2.8 (with Catholicism being 2.1 Lutheranism being 2.2 Calvinism being 2.3, etc.), but Mormons themselves would claim to be the true 2.0 (and everyone else makes the same claim). The original program for 2.0 was lost long ago, and everyone in the post Reformation era is trying to retro-engineer things to discover the original version.

Atticus

11-22-2007, 02:42 PM

Members are reminded that the R & P forum's rules (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/announcement.php?f=10&a=10) are aimed at allowing for the discussion of religious topics on their own terms. Remarks aimed solely at discrediting (and particularly poking fun) at the the entire notion of supernatural belief are not allowed.

halfamind

11-22-2007, 03:02 PM

Anyway, the most reasonable assertion is that both the Christian God and the God of Islam are the same entity--Muslims accept His later message as authentic, Christians don't.

And here I was thinking it was Muslims who rejected his earlier message, while Christians didn't.

Mickey Shane

11-22-2007, 08:46 PM

They are spelled differently. So, I guess they must be different.

Dangerrmouse

11-22-2007, 08:58 PM

They are all Abrahamic.

" Abrahamic religion is a term commonly used to designate the three prevalent monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam[1][2] – which claim Abraham (Hebrew: Avraham אַבְרָהָם ; Arabic: Ibrahim ابراهيم ) as a part of their sacred history. Other, smaller religions that identify with this tradition – such as the Baha'i Faith – are sometimes included.[3] ... "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion

Politicks

11-23-2007, 03:38 AM

To answer the question, unquestionably!

marv

11-23-2007, 09:06 AM

The deities, just like automobiles, are inventions of man.

Fords and Chevrolets are both automobiles and serve pretty much the same function even though they're not the same. Car owners, for whatever personal reason, have their preferences to choose one over the other. When I, the Ford "bigot", want a new car, I don't even think of going into a Chevrolet dealer's showroom. Of course my neighbor, the Chevrolet "bigot", thinks the same about Ford dealer's showrooms.

The sect I belong to worships the Ford Bronco. Even within the Ford "religion", there are differences and we are not always very popular. The Ford Escape worshippers sometime think of us as heretics because we worship a gas guzzling SUV. On the other hand, we Ford Broncoists think of the Ford Escapists as not understanding and appreciating the utility value of Bronco.

We might enjoy Saturday afternoon BBQ's in the backyard together, but we never talk automobiles!

Does this make sense?

ScummyD

11-23-2007, 12:04 PM

The deities, just like automobiles, are inventions of man.

. . .

Does this make sense?
I already said that and so did somebody else and it was all deleted.

They all seemed like legitimate comments to me, as they apparently did to the other guy and you as well.

But apparently people like us are not allowed to post in this forum because it might ohfffffennnnd somebody and hurt their feelings.:rolleyes:

Turenne

11-23-2007, 03:12 PM

So we are not allowed to argue that there is no such thing as a supernatural being?

Groucho

11-23-2007, 03:27 PM

So we are not allowed to argue that there is no such thing as a supernatural being?

Juts don't use the word "superstitious" and you're OK. I found out the hard way.

ScummyD

11-23-2007, 03:27 PM

So we are not allowed to argue that there is no such thing as a supernatural being?

I tried to begin something of the sort and the ball gag of political correctness was promptly stuffed in my mouth and that of another member.

Ethos

11-23-2007, 03:50 PM

Atticus

11-23-2007, 04:24 PM

So we are not allowed to argue that there is no such thing as a supernatural being?It's ok to do that, of course. But this thread is not about that subject. It's about whether the entity one set of people believe in is identical to the entity someone else believes in. The question of whether than entity exists is separate. The question is semantic and historical, not ontological.

Experience in this forum shows that if we allow interruptions of the "there is no God" type in every thread, someone will do so--not in the interest of bringing anything to the thread but only to disrespect the thread topic entirely, which is what happened earlier. This has happened again and again--it amounts to trolling.

You'll find many arguments about the existence of God throughout this forum.

Ethos

11-23-2007, 04:31 PM

It's ok to do that, of course. But this thread is not about that subject. It's about whether the entity one set of people believe in is identical to the entity someone else believes in. The question of whether than entity exists is separate. The question is semantic and historical, not ontological.

Your question becomes too restrictive to have any meaning. No two people believe in an identical god. Removing perspective from the argument reduces the issue to a purely hypothetical construct which isn't applicable to anything.

Ethos

Atticus

11-23-2007, 04:40 PM

While I understand the point being made, I believe the answer must be "no".

Would a Christian say that when they are praying to God they are also praying to Allah? No.

Would an Islamist say that when they are Praying to Allah they are also praying to the Christian God? Also, no.

Since god at any interpretation is a personal conceptualization, it is up to the individual as to whether or not they are worshipping the same entity as someone from another religion. I suppose in a brief minority of cases this would turn out to be correct, however for the greater majority I expect it is not.I would beg to differ, on two counts.

First, while a Christian might not recognize that a Muslim prays to the same God, I would suggest this is a matter of ignorance. Most Christians no nothing of Islam, mostly because Islam came later.

I know of very few Muslims (certainly none who understand their religion well enough to talk about it with non-believers) who would not recognize that Allah and the Christian god are the same. This claim is all over the Koran, and since Muslims are commanded to read the Koran, this kind of ignorance is much less widespread among Muslims--or so it has been my experience.

The second point is that although individual belief is important, your claim implies that there are as many religions as there are believers, and this idea doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's answerable to the old chestnut that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they aren't entitled to their own facts. The nature of the relationship between Allah and the Christian God is factual, if only because there are written texts that speak to that relationship. Some may be ignorant of those texts, but that ignorance does not change the texts.

There are Americans who think that Benjamin Franklin was a president, or that elements of the Communist Manifesto are in the Constitution, but their belief does not make these things so.

Atticus

11-23-2007, 04:41 PM

Your question becomes too restrictive to have any meaning. No two people believe in an identical god. Removing perspective from the argument reduces the issue to a purely hypothetical construct which isn't applicable to anything.

EthosI believe it is you who are removing perspective.

mataj

11-23-2007, 05:25 PM

They are similar products, like Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola. Manufacturers are different, though, and competition is fierce.

Atticus

11-23-2007, 05:40 PM

Here's what a prominent Islamic website says on this subject:
Belief in the unseen includes the following:

Allah is the author of both the Old and the New Testaments and Muslims are obliged to believe them, to the extent they do not contradict Allah's newer (and last), perfect revelation, the Koran:
[….]The revealed books: It is obligatory for us to believe that Allah has books that He sent down to His Messengers (upon them be peace). We must believe in the books that are specifically mentioned. Allah says:

- We gave the Psalms to David

- Verily, we sent down the Torah containing guidance and light.

- Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.

Likewise, we must have a general belief in the existence of books that have not been mentioned.http://www.islamtoday.com/discover_islam.cfm?cat_id=6&sub_cat_id=55

As to how Islam fits with other religions, the site says this:
The Relationship between Islam and the Religions of the Past

Among the blessings and favors that Allah has bestowed upon humanity is that He endowed them with an innate ability to recognize and acknowledge His existence. […] since it is not possible for human beings to have a detailed knowledge of Allah except through revelation from Himself, Allah sent His Messengers to teach the people about their Creator Who they must worship. [….]
On this basis, all the divine revelations have had the same lofty objectives, which are:
[….]
4. To invite the people to the highest level of virtue, moral values, and noble customs.

Allah, in the Qur’ân, points to the fact that all the revealed religions agree upon these fundamental principles. He says:

He has ordained for you the same religion that He ordained for Noah, and that which We have inspired in you (O Muhammad) and that which We ordained for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus) saying: “You should establish religion and make no division in it.Islam explains the different revelations as pertaining to a particular time and place, while his final revelation, the Koran, is for all time and all people:
Allah, in His infinite Wisdom and eternal Will, decreed that all the divine missions prior to the final message of Islam be limited to a specific time frame. As a result, their laws and methodologies dealt with the specific conditions of the people whom they had been sent to address. Allah refers to this in the Qur’ân and points towards the wisdom behind it when He says:

…To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allah willed, He would have made you one nation. But that He may test you in what He has given you (he made you what you are), so strive as in a race in good deeds. Unto Allah you will all return; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ.

Humanity has passed through numerous periods of guidance, misguidance, integrity, and deviation, from the most primitive age to the heights of civilization. Divine guidance accompanied humanity through all of this, always providing the appropriate solutions and remedies.

This was the essence of the disparity that existed between the different religions. This disagreement never went beyond the particulars of the Divine Law. Each manifestation of the Law addressed the particular problems of the people it was meant for. However, the areas of agreement were significant and many.

http://www.islamtoday.com/discover_islam.cfm?cat_id=6&sub_cat_id=58

So, different revelations, same God.

Ethos

11-23-2007, 05:49 PM

First, while a Christian might not recognize that a Muslim prays to the same God, I would suggest this is a matter of ignorance. Most Christians no nothing of Islam, mostly because Islam came later.

This is irrelevant. Faith is not about what you know, but about what you believe. If a person believes they are not praying to Allah, then they are not, regardless of what history tells us.

This claim is all over the Koran, and since Muslims are commanded to read the Koran, this kind of ignorance is much less widespread among Muslims--or so it has been my experience.

Muslims pray to Jesus Christ?

The second point is that although individual belief is important, your claim implies that there are as many religions as there are believers, and this idea doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's answerable to the old chestnut that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they aren't entitled to their own facts. The nature of the relationship between Allah and the Christian God is factual, if only because there are written texts that speak to that relationship. Some may be ignorant of those texts, but that ignorance does not change the texts.

Again, you are attempting to draw a parallel between faith and fact. No matter how many facts you wish to introduce, no two people will believe their god holds the same doctrine, and so no two people pray to exactly the same god.

I believe it is you who are removing perspective.

Your perspective perhaps, but it is not yours that matters in this case. If you ask whether someone who prays to Allah is praying to Jesus Christ, the answer depends on who they believe they are praying to.

You can tell us you believe they are praying to the same entity, but that is your answer, not theirs. A person praying to Jesus almost certainly will not agree they are praying to Allah or that the two are identical in nature.

Ethos

Atticus

11-23-2007, 06:14 PM

This is irrelevant. The problem is that you are trying to reduce everything to irrelevancies. We are talking about two intellectual and spiritual traditions here--traditions with texts and not just individual cognitions. The perspective you appear to take suggests that all believes are entirely individual, with no communication between them. But if you truly accepted that paradigm, there'd be no reason to participate in this or any discussion at all, since there'd be no common ground at all one which to meet.
Muslims pray to Jesus Christ?No, and neither do they pray to Muhammed. But they do pray to the God that both Jesus and Muhammed prayed to, considering them both prophets of the same single and indivisible God.Again, you are attempting to draw a parallel between faith and fact. No matter how many facts you wish to introduce, no two people will believe their god holds the same doctrine, and so no two people pray to exactly the same god.And you are trying to dismiss actual texts that actually say things, in favor of some assertion that you can support only under the idea that "no two people will ever believe the same thing." While that may be true, it's unlikely that there are NO points of intersection between the beliefs of more than one person.
Your perspective perhaps, but it is not yours that matters in this case. If you ask whether someone who prays to Allah is praying to Jesus Christ, the answer depends on who they believe they are praying to.

You can tell us you believe they are praying to the same entity, but that is your answer, not theirs. A person praying to Jesus almost certainly will not agree they are praying to Allah or that the two are identical in nature.

EthosActually, this is not MY perspective at all, but the perspective of the texts from which the tradition of Islam springs.

Taken to its logical conclusion, your paradigm would invalidate all belief, even beliefs about the physical world. After all, we each of us has his own perception, his own nervous system processing the information, and our own cogitations on that information.

Seriously, if you'll discount entirely the texts that underlie these traditions, there's no end to the "facts" you can dismiss.

marv

11-23-2007, 06:38 PM

Ethos

11-23-2007, 07:04 PM

The problem is that you are trying to reduce everything to irrelevancies. We are talking about two intellectual and spiritual traditions here--traditions with texts and not just individual cognitions. The perspective you appear to take suggests that all believes are entirely individual, with no communication between them. But if you truly accepted that paradigm, there'd be no reason to participate in this or any discussion at all, since there'd be no common ground at all one which to meet.

I didn't say that there is no common ground, only that god is an individual construct. That doesn't make any two peoples' beliefs mutually exclusive, but it does mean their beliefs will not be identical, as the term you have used.

No, and neither do they pray to Muhammed. But they do pray to the God that both Jesus and Muhammed prayed to, considering them both prophets of the same single and indivisible God.

You are forgetting that one of the basic tenants of Christianity is that Jesus is not simply a prophet, but God as well.

Actually, this is not MY perspective at all, but the perspective of the texts from which the tradition of Islam springs.

Like it or not, this is still irrelevant. Because you understand the history or tradition of Islam does not mean everyone does or can, nor does it mean they would draw the same conclusions.

Taken to its logical conclusion, your paradigm would invalidate all belief, even beliefs about the physical world. After all, we each of us has his own perception, his own nervous system processing the information, and our own cogitations on that information.

Seriously, if you'll discount entirely the texts that underlie these traditions, there's no end to the "facts" you can dismiss.

I really don't know what to tell you. I answered your question - are Allah and the Christian God the same entity? - the best way I know how. Regardless of what any specific text says, God and Allah are entities built on the conceptualizations of their followers. They are not simply characters in static novels, but beings we have adapted over time to fit our needs or desires.

Therefore my answer is based not on theory, but on practice. Is a Christian who prays to God also intentionally praying to Allah? No. Is a Muslim praying to Allah also praying to Jesus Christ? Certainly not. The answer then is still no, even if historical context might conflict with that conclusion.

Ethos

marv

11-23-2007, 07:35 PM

Folks believe in deities because it satisfies some need. They accept the one likely to satisfy their needs most closely. Two Jews can attend the same synagog, two Christians the same church, or two Muslims the same mosque, but in their heart of hearts, see deities differing according to their individual construct, wants and needs.

This also explains why an individual raised in one faith would convert to a different faith.

Atticus

11-23-2007, 07:48 PM

I didn't say that there is no common ground, only that god is an individual construct. That doesn't make any two peoples' beliefs mutually exclusive, but it does mean their beliefs will not be identical, as the term you have used.It would then follow that each individual person is praying to a different god, even if they are sitting beside each other in the same pew in the same church. That's a conception that breaks the bounds of credulity, considering that people do in fact gather together in churches and Mosques. Their religions tell them to do this. To make this statement fundamentally misunderstands the notion of religion, at least the ways these two religions constitute themselves.
You are forgetting that one of the basic tenants of Christianity is that Jesus is not simply a prophet, but God as well.So what?
Like it or not, this is still irrelevant. Because you understand the history or tradition of Islam does not mean everyone does or can, nor does it mean they would draw the same conclusions.Then you have to say the same thing about every field of study. If this is true, then no one can agree upon anything. The whole notion of "consensus" in science means pretty much nothing. You're positing an epistemological conundrum that can't be limited only to religion.
I really don't know what to tell you. I answered your question - are Allah and the Christian God the same entity? - the best way I know how. Actually, I think you're just trying to throw a monkey wrench into any reasonable discussion of the question. You begin with the notion that we can agree on nothing, that common ground can't be found, that texts are not understandable. In short, you've come to a discussion about religion with the premise that one cannot have a meaningful discussion of religion--and then you've arrived at your conclusion on that basis.

Frankly, I think that's disrespectful to the question at hand.

BTW, you've done nothing to justify your conclusion beyond your own axiomatic premise that no conclusion can be drawn. Sort of like insisting that all mathematical equations end by dividing by zero.

Regardless of what any specific text says, God and Allah are entities built on the conceptualizations of their followers. They are not simply characters in static novels, but beings we have adapted over time to fit our needs or desires.

Therefore my answer is based not on theory, but on practice. Is a Christian who prays to God also intentionally praying to Allah? No. Is a Muslim praying to Allah also praying to Jesus Christ? Certainly not. The answer then is still no, even if historical context might conflict with that conclusion.Actually, you aren't doing this at all, since you haven't brought into the discussion any more than your own assertions. I suppose you can speak to your own practice, but you haven't even attempted to generalize that to anyone else's. In the meantime, I've offered some basis for my assertion, which you have not seriously disputed, beyond offering the idea that nothing means anything.

Atticus

11-23-2007, 08:00 PM

There are different versions of the Bible, different versions of the Torah, and different versions of the Qur'an (claims to the contrary notwithstanding). Differing versions mean different interpretations of their respective holy books, the basis for these religions and their respective deities.In fact, this is not true--something more that we might discuss in more depth. There are different translations of the Bible, but there are not "different versions," at least not so different as to make the discussion of so broad a question as this one very much confused at all.
I've never come across information of any peoples who simply did not have one or more spirit, deity, or some other figure(s) to worship or pay homage to. The purpose, at least to me, is than man needs something to explain things that he doesn't understand.Since you suggested another thread for the question at hand, perhaps you should start a thread on this question, since it appears unrelated to the topic.
If one group is told by their deity to forgive their enemy, and another group is told by their deity to kill them where you find them, those deities must be different.I think you misunderstand Islam if you'd posit this question. To the extent their messages are different, Muslims would say their version is more perfect than previous revelations. Please at least examine the quotations in my previous post and try to make some sense of them before you bring assertions of this kind to the table.
Although some Jews, Christians and Muslims might say that their deity is one and the same with the others, they are in effect worshipping different deities because each was invented in their own eye for their own purpose.They are "in effect" doing something? Hmmm...sounds like you just don't like the obvious answer to your question.
So I suppose that it can be said that each man has his own God(s).Again, you may make that assertion, but its quite a different thing to say than your original statement that I'm disputing here.
Folks believe in deities because it satisfies some need. They accept the one likely to satisfy their needs most closely. Two Jews can attend the same synagog, two Christians the same church, or two Muslims the same mosque, but in their heart of hearts, see deities differing according to their individual construct, wants and needs.But two people, even standing side by side, see the same flower differently, owing to the fact that their eyes are not in the exactly the same place. We might even suggest that my mind's conception of the color red is not the same as yours, even though we would agree the color is the same. We cannot know the same way because we don't share the same gray matter. However, if we operate under this assumption, all discussion of any kind is meaningless.

There has to be a basis for an argument. I've provided one. My opponents appear to rely merely on their self-satisfied assertions that, where God is concerned, nothing means anything.

marv

11-23-2007, 08:55 PM

Atticus

11-23-2007, 09:13 PM

As a non-proselytizing atheist, my religious views are fairly objective. I have opinions rather than beliefs. Therefore, I can stand outside the circle and voice observation rather than seek support for preconceived notions of belief.

By now, it's apparent to me that you simply wish to promote the idea that all gods are the same. Logic instructs me otherwise. Any argument contrary to your view seems to be immaterial.

May I ask which religion you follow, Atticus? I suspect from your posts that you are a Muslim convert. So be it; that's your choice and I have no problem with that.Actually, no. I'm a relatively liberal Christian, actually. I have simply done a lot of academic study of religion.

No scholar of religion would suggest that all gods are the same. Shiva and Allah are not the same because they don't develop from the same tradition. Zoroaster is not in the same tradition as either one. Allah and the Christian God ARE the same because they follow a single historical line of development--even if Christians don't care to recognize that.

I don't think you understand my motivations at all. There is a historical background to these religions that shouldn't be ignored. We can make claims based on it. Rejection of historical facts frustrate me. :rolleyes:

Ethos

11-23-2007, 10:07 PM

It would then follow that each individual person is praying to a different god, even if they are sitting beside each other in the same pew in the same church. That's a conception that breaks the bounds of credulity, considering that people do in fact gather together in churches and Mosques. Their religions tell them to do this. To make this statement fundamentally misunderstands the notion of religion, at least the ways these two religions constitute themselves.

As I mentioned, there is common ground and people do worship according to some basic doctrines of faith. However each person does hold a different conceptualization of god - even two Christians do this - and are therefore praying to two different entities, even when gathered together.

So what?

So I find it highly unlikely that a Muslim would be praying to Jesus Christ, who is in fact also the Christian God.

Actually, I think you're just trying to throw a monkey wrench into any reasonable discussion of the question. You begin with the notion that we can agree on nothing, that common ground can't be found, that texts are not understandable. In short, you've come to a discussion about religion with the premise that one cannot have a meaningful discussion of religion--and then you've arrived at your conclusion on that basis.

Frankly, I think that's disrespectful to the question at hand.

Again, I can only repeat myself: I have not said there is no common ground.

This certainly wouldn't be the first time you've labeled my opinions on a religious topic as "disrespectful". Perhaps if you attempted to read my statements instead of judging them, we could move on to other platforms.

BTW, you've done nothing to justify your conclusion beyond your own axiomatic premise that no conclusion can be drawn. Sort of like insisting that all mathematical equations end by dividing by zero.

I've answered your question in a fairly basic and logical way. You can continue to fall back on all the historical reference information you wish, but I must insist there is a difference between theory and practice. You may be able to trace a historical parallel between Allah and Christianity's God, but you cannot show that those practicing these faiths today believe they are in fact praying to the same entity.

Obviously I am more concerned with perception as reality (which in the case of faith is what we have), than I am the deeper scholarly meanings of the Quran or the Bible. I fully concede your historical argument, but until you can find a Christian who would say they are praying to Allah, or a Muslim who says he is praying to Christ, the argument is only partially accurate.

Ethos

lord tammerlain

11-23-2007, 11:02 PM

As I mentioned, there is common ground and people do worship according to some basic doctrines of faith. However each person does hold a different conceptualization of god - even two Christians do this - and are therefore praying to two different entities, even when gathered together.

In my opinion, they would be worshipping the same god, but have different interpretations of who/what that god represents. Just as their was only one George Washington, people may view him and his accomplishments differently, they still are discussing the same person

So I find it highly unlikely that a Muslim would be praying to Jesus Christ, who is in fact also the Christian God. They dont hold Jesus Christ as god (neither do Catholics I believe, if I recall correctly in Catholicism Jesus is the son of God, seated on the right side of God in Heaven. So no muslims dont worship Jesus Christ, who many christians dont view as god either, a divine being yes, but God no.

Muslims do view Jesus Christ as a prophet of god, certainly not as important as christians view Jesus christ but important none the less

Again, I can only repeat myself: I have not said there is no common ground.

This certainly wouldn't be the first time you've labeled my opinions on a religious topic as "disrespectful". Perhaps if you attempted to read my statements instead of judging them, we could move on to other platforms.

I've answered your question in a fairly basic and logical way. You can continue to fall back on all the historical reference information you wish, but I must insist there is a difference between theory and practice. You may be able to trace a historical parallel between Allah and Christianity's God, but you cannot show that those practicing these faiths today believe they are in fact praying to the same entity. As Islam is based on the old testement, views many of the figures of the old testament as important in Islam, I would suggest that Muslims believe that Allah is the same god as the Christian god, and the Jewish god. I certainly doubt many christians dont believe that their god is the same god as the Jewish god. But that the Jewish people are basically behind the times in not viewing Jesus as their saviour.

Obviously I am more concerned with perception as reality (which in the case of faith is what we have), than I am the deeper scholarly meanings of the Quran or the Bible. I fully concede your historical argument, but until you can find a Christian who would say they are praying to Allah, or a Muslim who says he is praying to Christ, the argument is only partially accurate.

Ethos
Again I dont think Catholics prey to Jesus as a god, but as the son of god. Making the issue of praying to Christ a non issue regarding if Allah is the same entity as the Christian and Jewish gods

AgentM

11-23-2007, 11:06 PM

Again I dont think Catholics prey to Jesus as a god, but as the son of god. Making the issue of praying to Christ a non issue regarding if Allah is the same entity as the Christian and Jewish gods

That is my understanding as well.

Ethos

11-23-2007, 11:18 PM

In my opinion, they would be worshipping the same god, but have different interpretations of who/what that god represents. Just as their was only one George Washington, people may view him and his accomplishments differently, they still are discussing the same person

I'm not sure you can compare a universally documented, physical being with something as abstract as "god".

They dont hold Jesus Christ as god (neither do Catholics I believe, if I recall correctly in Catholicism Jesus is the son of God, seated on the right side of God in Heaven. So no muslims dont worship Jesus Christ, who many christians dont view as god either, a divine being yes, but God no.

Exactly where does the Holy Trinity enter into Christianity, then?

Ethos

Atticus

11-23-2007, 11:26 PM

Obviously I am more concerned with perception as reality (which in the case of faith is what we have), than I am the deeper scholarly meanings of the Quran or the Bible. I fully concede your historical argument,Had you begun your argument this way, we might actually have started with a useful and amicable conversation. Your original argument didn't allow for that concession at all. Had you made it, we could have saved a great deal of time. but until you can find a Christian who would say they are praying to Allah, or a Muslim who says he is praying to Christ, the argument is only partially accurate.Very well. The first part is easy--any Arabic-speaking Christian, praying in his own language, says "Allah." That's the word they use because there is no other word for a single, all-encompassing God in Arabic.

The second part is harder, but I'd start by questioning the simplicity of your assertion. While Christians belief Christ is God, they don't think he's the sum total of God, whom they see as manifested in three persons--Christ is only one of them. To borrow a term from Hinduism, he's an "avatar"--a corporeal manifestation of a deity. Krishna is a very important god in Hinduism, for example, (he's the main speaker in the Bhahavad-Gita), but he an avatar of Vishnu, for example.

Strictly speaking, Christians don't pray "to" Christ most of the time. Jesus taught his disciples to begin their prayers "our Father in Heaven." This is a very familiar conception to Muslims. Protestants do pray "in the name" of Christ--ending their prayers this way. Christians also believe in a Holy Spirit, which can dwell within them. The idea of a divided god into three parts makes no sense to Muslims, but that's not the same as saying they don't believe in the same god--they just have very different ideas about His nature.

By the way, many Christians pray to people whom they would not call God. Catholics frequently pray to Mary or one of the saints, asking for intercession with God on their behalf. In a sense, this is what Protestants are doing when they end their prayers "in the name of Jesus."

So while you certainly won't hear Muslims praying to Jesus Christ, that's not mostly what you hear Christians doing either.

lord tammerlain

11-23-2007, 11:32 PM

I'm not sure you can compare a universally documented, physical being with something as abstract as "god".

Not in a direct comparison, but in the interpretation of both. Or if you like, use a fictional character and how different people will interpret the motivations and desires of said character differently, but they are still discussing the same fictional character

Exactly where does the Holy Trinity enter into Christianity, then?

Ethos

The Father, (god), the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is venerated as the Son of God in Catholocism, and is recognized(sp) as dieing for our sins. But I dont think that current Church doctrine views Jesus as being God himself

Atticus

11-24-2007, 12:18 AM

Thanks LT and AgentM--I got behind in the conversation (interruptions), but I think we're seeing things the same way.

marv

11-24-2007, 11:12 AM

Atticus

11-24-2007, 12:14 PM

Back to the topic...

Jews pray to Jahweh. Christians pray to Jehovah but recognize a trinity of Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit which is a 'mystery' in the Christian church. Muslims pray to Allah (a derivative of il-illah, the ancient male moon-god in the Arab pantheon whose symbol was the crescent and the morning star, Venus) while calling Christians polytheists and accusing Jews of corrupting the Bible necessitating a revision called the Qur'an.

Abraham, from Ur of the Chaldees, worshipped Sin, the Sumerian moon-god. Sin was only the chief deity in Ur. Each city like Ur worshipped pretty much the same pantheon, but had its own chief or head god.

Monotheism was invented by the Egyptian pharaoh, Akhenaten. It was the first recorded appearance of a one-god in history. It would have been no difficult task for a conversion from the polytheism of Abraham's Canaanites to henotheism and on to a form of monotheism. The key was in the amalgamation/elimination of various deities following cultural needs.

Egypt, Trunk of the Tree (http://books.google.com/books?id=F9u4SaPEL-oC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=monotheism+israelites+egypt&source=web&ots=PqY1WrmzD6&sig=Oep9sxwyG3rCUYbch5Qs6D-uk6Y) provides the essence of my argument on page 217, a long read perhaps for many who rely too much on the Internet for their information. But it states it well.Oh my! A reference AND an insult.

I don't see how page 217 speaks to the question at hand. It makes the quite reasonable claim that the monotheism of Jews and Christians grew out of the polytheistic traditions of Eygpt that that region. No argument from me--though I'd point out that there aren't any references to support the author's claims. But we're missing page 218. And page 220. And 223-256. That's where I expected to find references to Christianity and Islam, and more references to Judaism. So your argument really isn't made by your source--and it isn't really all that long.

BTW, I use internet sources not because they are the only ones I know but because they are the only ones I can quote at some length in order to make a point.

If you're up to it, try Karen Armstrong's A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. (http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563/ref=ed_oe_p) It's not that lengthy, and it's an entertaining read.

marv

11-24-2007, 02:19 PM

Oh my! A reference AND an insult.Please quote the specific "insult".But we're missing page 218. And page 220. And 223-256. That's where I expected to find references to Christianity and Islam, and more references to Judaism.You could buy the book. Amazon probably has it....I can quote at some length in order to make a point.Copy'n'paste is wonderful, and a time saver. I use it too.If you're up to it, try Karen Armstrong's A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. (http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563/ref=ed_oe_p) It's not that lengthy, and it's an entertaining read."IN THE BEGINNING, human beings created a God who was the First Cause of all things and Ruler of heaven and earth..."Additional reading materials might include A. E. Hayden's, Biography of thr Gods, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1941. Unfortunately, it's long out of print but available at AntiQbook (http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/gen/006918.shtml) for about $20US. There's also Dr. Georges Roux' Ancient Iraq, third edition, Penguin (paperback), available on Amazon.

Dr. Roux is a medical doctor and archaeologist and has written extensively on the middle-east. I came across A. E. Hayden's work in 1956 while doing some research in the university library (Valparaiso, a Lutheran university). At the end of the last chapter, he wrote, "For too long man has put off unto the gods those things he should be doing for himself." That made more sense than anything I'd been taught before. I've been an atheist ever since.

After 9/11, I thought to brush up on Islam so I read good parts of the Pickthall English translation (http://www.islam.tc/quran/) of the Qur'an online. Having read most of the Christian (King James version) Bible during my early parochial education, I can certainly say that I see no reason to conceive of the Christian god and the Islamic god to be the same. The same by logic extends to the Jewish god. Only by citing the similarities whilst ignoring the differences can anyone claim them to be the same.

Incidently, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, page 218 (http://books.google.com/books?id=F9u4SaPEL-oC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA217&ots=PqY1WrmzD6&dq=monotheism+israelites+egypt&sig=JLO8-vPhsO1W5NngjlF7YepOczc) is there. Just click on the FORWARD and BACKWARD arrows. Trust me, all the pages are there.

Atticus

11-24-2007, 02:46 PM

Please quote the specific "insult".Here it is: a long read perhaps for many who rely too much on the Internet for their information.Perhaps we're talking about apples and oranges here. You're suggesting as a primary point that religion is pretty much an empty vessel, filled up by humans with "things he should be doing for himself." To me, that question has nothing to do with the question of this thread. It's a different question that we have argued over in other threads here extensively. You also make this point:
After 9/11, I thought to brush up on Islam so I read good parts of the Pickthall English translation (http://www.islam.tc/quran/) of the Qur'an online. Having read most of the Christian (King James version) Bible during my early parochial education, I can certainly say that I see no reason to conceive of the Christian god and the Islamic god to be the same. The same by logic extends to the Jewish god. Only by citing the similarities whilst ignoring the differences can anyone claim them to be the same.Again, I think you're making a valid point, but one that doesn't make any difference in this argument. Whether or not the religions seem quite different (though also quite similar in many ways) is not germaine to the question of whether the God at at their center is the same. He is. These three religions are parts of a long tradition, though the tenets associated with them have varied somewhat. They are different species of the same genus. I don't have to ignore their differences to say this.

Incidently, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, page 218 (http://books.google.com/books?id=F9u4SaPEL-oC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA217&ots=PqY1WrmzD6&dq=monotheism+israelites+egypt&sig=JLO8-vPhsO1W5NngjlF7YepOczc) is there. Just click on the FORWARD and BACKWARD arrows. Trust me, all the pages are there.The thing is, I read the whole thing all of what you've suggested I read (really--two pages in a book is supposed to be "a long read?") but they don't substantiate most of the assertions you made in the post where you cite the book. Exactly as I said, your reference doesn't speak to Islam at all, speaks to Christianity only in passing, and makes the point that the god of the Jews grew out of a polytheistic tradition. I've stipulated to that point, but it doesn't touch the question of the thread. All the pages are NOT there, BTW. They are replaced with messages that those pages are not viewable.

marv

11-24-2007, 03:47 PM

All the pages are NOT there, BTW. They are replaced with messages that those pages are not viewable.Not all viewable? This (http://books.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=43729&topic=9259&hl=en) explains it..."Why can't I read the entire book?

"Many of the books in Google Book Search come from authors and publishers who participate in our Partner Program. For these books, our partners decide how much of the book is browsable -- anywhere from a few sample pages to the whole book.

"For books that enter Book Search through the Library Project, what you see depends on the book's copyright status. We respect copyright law and the tremendous creative effort authors put into their work. If the book is in the public domain and therefore out of copyright, you can page through the entire book and even download it and read it offline. But if the book is under copyright, and the publisher or author is not part of the Partner Program, we only show basic information about the book, similar to a card catalog, and, in some cases, a few snippets -- sentences of your search terms in context. The aim of Google Book Search is to help you discover books and learn where to buy or borrow them, not read them online from start to finish. It's like going to a bookstore and browsing - with a Google twist."However what I found was apropos to the thread.

Now, I'm not suggesting that religion is an empty vessel. To some, like political discussions, it's half full, but to others it's appears half empty. Poor analogy, but it'll have to do. I certainly don't want to disabuse anyone of their religious convictions.

On to the question at hand.

It doesn't matter to me whether the Jewish, Christian or Muslim gods are the same or not. Whether they are the same, just similar, or completely different depends on the degree and level of characteristics that are examined. You argue from the theist's view, I from the atheist's.

My argument might be that if Baptists (like my wife) argue that they worship the same god as the Jews, or that Muslims worship the same god as the Catholics, why isn't there just one religion? If the argument goes no deeper than "who created the Universe", then we have to throw Shiva and others into the mix.

It's when we get into the details that the differences become apparent. And it's the differences that tell us whether these gods are the same god or not.

Atticus

11-24-2007, 05:04 PM

Now, I'm not suggesting that religion is an empty vessel. To some, like political discussions, it's half full, but to others it's appears half empty. Poor analogy, but it'll have to do. I certainly don't want to disabuse anyone of their religious convictions.Good. I think what you've said here directly contradicts your quotations from Dr. Roux in post #47 (why did you bring that up?), but I'll accept your statement of intentions as honest.

On to the question at hand.

It doesn't matter to me whether the Jewish, Christian or Muslim gods are the same or not.This convinces me even more that we don't really have a difference here. It does make me wonder why you
bothered to make contradict my statement about their similarity in this post (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1092010&postcount=20) and (in my view) challenged me to create this thread. Now you say you don't care....okay. :sorry:
Whether they are the same, just similar, or completely different depends on the degree and level of characteristics that are examined. You argue from the theist's view, I from the atheist's.Actually, no, my view isn't dependent on my theism but on my study of these religions what they say about themselves. I take them at their word--to do that I don't need to believe in any of them and I've never suggested anyone else should or has to. I DO think that in order to understand a world view, one has to at least imagine what it must be like to wear it. Your view may involve never imagining a theist's view point before rejecting it (is that what you mean by "atheist?") but I don't think any of us can be fair in judging the view of another before trying to at least imagining what that view feels like. Sort of like saying you don't like Green Eggs and Ham before actually putting some in your mouth.
My argument might be that if Baptists (like my wife) argue that they worship the same god as the Jews, or that Muslims worship the same god as the Catholics, why isn't there just one religion? If the argument goes no deeper than "who created the Universe", then we have to throw Shiva and others into the mix.Actually, no. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims share the same creation story--it involves Adam and Eve, a garden, a tempting serpent, etc. There are a few differences (in the Koran, Adam and Eve are made simultaneously, for example), but they are pretty much the same story. The creation myths of the Hindus (or the Babylonians or various Native American tribes, for that matter) are quite different and spring from entirely different sources.
It's when we get into the details that the differences become apparent. And it's the differences that tell us whether these gods are the same god or not.And now we see our real difference. You aren't making claims about the identity of a god but about the nature of belief systems. And, yes, they are different. I'd be happy to talk about those difference at length. But these three groups differ not on the identity of their God but on the nature of humanity's relationship to Him, His commandments to us, the ways He wishes to be worshiped, and so forth. That's simply a different question.

BTW, while I'll agree that these religions differ (just as there are many differences among Jews, Christians, and Muslims--who all have differing sects and denominations), they also have remarkably similar outlooks when compared to other religious groups. The faiths of Jews, Christians, and Muslims look almost exactly alike when compared to, say, Hinduism or Buddism.

Here's an analogy: We think of human languages as being very different from each other, though we recognize a "tree" of lineage from proto-indo-european to English, with other branches ending up in Hindi or Polish. There is another tree for African languages and still another for Asian languages. Polish makes no sense to a speaker of English, even though they have the same origin. Yet as different as are, say, Chinese and English (probably as different as two languages can be), to someone outside our species, they would appear just two varieties of the same language--at least this is what most linguists would argue.

Just so, Christianity and lslam--as different as they are, share more in common than they differ. Among those things they share is the same deity. :flowers:

Not all viewable? This (http://books.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=43729&topic=9259&hl=en) explains it..."Why can't I read the entire book?

"Many of the books in Google Book Search come from authors and publishers who participate in our Partner Program. For these books, our partners decide how much of the book is browsable -- anywhere from a few sample pages to the whole book.

[....]However what I found was apropos to the thread.I think I knew why they didn't make all the pages viewable. I'd just reiterate that the pages that WERE available didn't support the claims you were making. That's what I said originally and I'll stand by it; nothing I've seen since has added to the original.

Politicks

11-25-2007, 04:16 AM

Oh my! A reference AND an insult.

I don't see how page 217 speaks to the question at hand. It makes the quite reasonable claim that the monotheism of Jews and Christians grew out of the polytheistic traditions of Eygpt that that region. No argument from me--though I'd point out that there aren't any references to support the author's claims. But we're missing page 218. And page 220. And 223-256. That's where I expected to find references to Christianity and Islam, and more references to Judaism. So your argument really isn't made by your source--and it isn't really all that long.

BTW, I use internet sources not because they are the only ones I know but because they are the only ones I can quote at some length in order to make a point.

If you're up to it, try Karen Armstrong's A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. (http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563/ref=ed_oe_p) It's not that lengthy, and it's an entertaining read.
I stand by that recommendation. I have it and have had it for years. It is quite well written with no apparent leanings that I could detect. Worth a few bucks and hours. Great suggestion!

Dangerrmouse

11-25-2007, 01:07 PM

How about a food analogy in suport of the one God concept? Everyone is familiar with stew. Water, with vegetables and/or meat in an infinitely variable melange, depending on local varations of supply, cultural preference, or individual taste.

English: Stew
Czech: dušené maso
Danish: sammenkogt ret
Dutch: hutspot
Estonian: hautis
Finnish: muhennos
French: ragoût
German: das Schmorgericht
Greek: κρέας ψητό της κατσαρόλας
Hungarian: párolt hús
Icelandic: kássa
Italian: stufato
Latvian: sautēta gaļa; gaļas sautējums
Lithuanian: troškinta mėsa, troškinys
Norwegian: lapskaus, ragu, gryterett
Polish: gulasz
Portuguese: guisado
Romanian: tocană
Slovak: dusené mäso
Slovenian: dušeno meso, enolončnica
Swedish: ragu, gryta
Turkish: yahni

The ingredients may vary but the water is a constant.

heel31ok

11-29-2007, 02:16 PM

Without getting into a whole mess of things , a simple version of the similarities and differences of the Christian God and Allah of Islam is that they both originate as the same God. i point to the account of Ishmael. The Abrahamic covenant with the promise of all people being blessed through his seed spurred Abraham to take matters into his own hands and have a child with Sarah's maidservant because he thought Sarah was too old.After a while Sarah also gave birth and God told Abraham to expel Ishmael and his mother from the camp.The promise was upon Isaac not Ishmael but because Ishmael was Abraham's God blessed him also.This was a earthly blessing but not a spiritual one. The resulting actions of Abraham caused them to look at God as harsh and a taskmaster more than a loving God or friend.It also represented the efforts of man, Abraham's way, versus the actions of God seen in Isaac.Thus the dichotemy of how the participants viewed God. Abraham went on to worship God as He was while Ishmael went on to have a harder view of God and with that the seeds of Islam were born.I also believe this is the seed of the Israeli/palestinian conflicts. It is much deeper than homeland it is birthrite.The red headed step child as it were.

Dangerrmouse

11-29-2007, 08:49 PM

... The red headed step child as it were.

Leave prince Harry out of this! ;)

blueactive

12-01-2007, 01:00 PM

Speaking from a theological standpoint the Allah of the Muslims is not the God of Christianity in any meaninful way. Muslims deny the father-heart of God, the divinity of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit. That is the Christian God is. There has been some mention of the Mormon God here as well but that is also removed from the Christian faith. Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the twice-sired half-brother of Lucifer. One of the founders of the Mormon faith professed the donctrine that that Adam "is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do." (the fact the some Mormons reject this central doctrine about the nature of God as false without considering the wider implications this has for their faith is mystifying) The Mormons also believe that the soul is eternal rather than an immortal creation of Gods and express various other non-Christian beliefs that pose themselves as Christian only so far as Mormons would refine what being a Christian is.

Speaking as a Catholic, equating the God of Christianity to the Allah of the Koran is heresy.

Dangerrmouse

12-01-2007, 02:28 PM

The entire construct is hearsay.

Izdaari

12-01-2007, 02:30 PM

You two have it all wrong--it's not about competing versions, it's about updated versions.

Judiasm = God 1.0
Christianity = God 2.0
Islam = God 3.0
Bah'aiism = God 4.0

But they're all the same God. It's just a matter of when you bought the program. Oh, and updates are not offered at a discount--you have to buy a whole new version, and getting the old version off the computer involves some conflict. :D
That sounds about right, except that versions 3.0 and 4.0 were issued by other companies without authorization from the subject of the program. That doesn't mean they're entirely without merit, and indeed I hear some good things about 4.0, but still they lack the hologram.

:flowers:

blueactive

12-01-2007, 05:55 PM

The entire construct is hearsay.

"Heresay?" Is this a trial of some kind?

Dangerrmouse

12-01-2007, 06:19 PM

Atticus

12-01-2007, 06:20 PM

That sounds about right, except that versions 3.0 and 4.0 were issued by other companies without authorization from the subject of the program. That doesn't mean they're entirely without merit, and indeed I hear some good things about 4.0, but still they lack the hologram.

:flowers:To hear the God 1.0 people tell the story, God 2.0 is a rogue program wholly without merit. Who's an authorized producer is all in one's perspective, with each succeeding programmer condemning those who came after.

Atticus

12-01-2007, 06:21 PM

Bicycleman

12-01-2007, 10:03 PM

Exactly. He quotes Jesus as calling his followers "true Muslims."

Are you now a Muslim?

Atticus

12-01-2007, 10:10 PM

Are you now a Muslim?Nope. Why would you think that? Can someone try to understand the perspective of others only by becoming one of them? Sorry, that seems terribly limited to me.

According to Islam, if you live your life according to godly principles and in "peace and submission to God" you are a Muslim, because that's what "Muslim" means.

Bicycleman

12-01-2007, 10:19 PM

Nope. Why would you think that? Can someone try to understand the perspective of others only by becoming one of them? Sorry, that seems terribly limited to me.

According to Islam, if you live your life according to godly principles and in "peace and submission to God" you are a Muslim, because that's what "Muslim" means.

I ask because you seem to be a Muslim apologist.

Atticus

12-01-2007, 10:48 PM

I ask because you seem to be a Muslim apologist.Everybody has a story to tell, and there's no shame in listening to all of them. Only after you hear everyone's story can you make sense of things.

serenity

12-02-2007, 07:47 AM

I ask because you seem to be a Muslim apologist.

This statement doesn't speak volumes--it screams them.

"Apologist"? So Muslims are, incontrovertibly and obviously, something to be fought against, or at least derided?

"Apologist" tends usually--at least connotatively--to mean a negative.

Interesting. (To me, anyway.)

steveksux

12-02-2007, 01:32 PM

Where does the FSM fit into the picture? Seperate deity? Same as christian god? Allah? Was "Holy Spirit" mistranslated from "Holy Sauce"? I see it more of an offshoot of Christianity, version 2.500 perhaps, rather than an offshoot of the others. Seeing as this was based on DaVinci's painting, I'm assuming its an offshoot of similar beliefs.

http://www.cafepress.com/venganza/3682856

Randy

Izdaari

12-02-2007, 03:12 PM

To hear the God 1.0 people tell the story, God 2.0 is a rogue program wholly without merit. Who's an authorized producer is all in one's perspective, with each succeeding programmer condemning those who came after.
Of course! :D

And the God 1.0 version still works (the Old Covenant was never canceled, but is still in effect for those who follow it), so that's alright for them if they don't mind a much less user-friendly version. They're missing out on the benefits of 2.0, but that's their problem.

Yes, it is a matter of perspective. But one or more of the programs necessarily will from God's perspective, the only one that really counts (if you believe in Him... and if you don't, there's no reason to use any of them), contain more truth than the others. :angel:

From this merely human understanding of that divine perspective, 2.0 is the best version though 1.0 remains usable. 3.0 and 4.0 both contain some truth and may be morally beneficial, but both deny the central claim of 2.0 without being participants in the Old Covenant of 1.0, rendering them ineffective as a means of salvation.

:)

Everybody has a story to tell, and there's no shame in listening to all of them. Only after you hear everyone's story can you make sense of things.
I agree. I'm all for hearing everybody's story. And once you have, you can, if you're ready, pick a winner or decide they're all of no merit. I've chosen 2.0, though of course I'm always willing to hear more.

Oh, and the original question? Yes, I think all 4 versions are about the same God, but are not of equal merit.

:flowers:

blueactive

12-02-2007, 03:39 PM

The Prophet (clue) Muhammad did not start a new religion, he simply conveyed the same message as all the other prophets of God - Adam, Noah, Ibrahim, Moses, Jesus, et al. The name Islam means "peace and submission to God".

No, that is false. Mohammed did not just repeat the same message. He created his own invented interpretation of the Old Testament. Jesus was not the son of God and the Messiah,(muslims reject the historical fact of the crucifiction) but just another prophet, human and mortal. Mohammed did not offer any new covenant between man and his God but a regression away from the covenant of Christ. Muslims even believe that Christians are polytheists because of the Trinity. That is not the same old message conveyed by a new prophet. And unlike Christ who offered a universally approachable understanding about God, muslims insist that only those who speak and understand arabic can understand the true message of the Koran. Such a claim instantly raises the red flag pointing to a false prophet and a false understanding of God.

Atticus

12-02-2007, 04:06 PM

Oh, and the original question? Yes, I think all 4 versions are about the same God, but are not of equal merit.That's my position exactly.

Dangerrmouse

12-02-2007, 08:05 PM

No, that is false. Mohammed did not just repeat the same message. He created his own invented interpretation of the Old Testament. Jesus was not the son of God and the Messiah,(muslims reject the historical fact of the crucifiction) but just another prophet, human and mortal. Mohammed did not offer any new covenant between man and his God but a regression away from the covenant of Christ. Muslims even believe that Christians are polytheists because of the Trinity. That is not the same old message conveyed by a new prophet. And unlike Christ who offered a universally approachable understanding about God, muslims insist that only those who speak and understand arabic can understand the true message of the Koran. Such a claim instantly raises the red flag pointing to a false prophet and a false understanding of God.

Peace and submission to God is not the same message you receive? perhaps you need to retune. Claiming falsehood is a bold move.

blueactive

12-02-2007, 11:04 PM

Peace and submission to God is not the same message you receive? perhaps you need to retune. Claiming falsehood is a bold move.

I think against the claim you've made it's pretty accurate. Christ does not call for Man to "surrender" to him. He asks Mankind to "choose" Him and His way. You have a choice.

From the old Testament

Deuteronomy 30:19

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants."

Christ's salvation is a perfect act of charity given to mankind in remission of his sins and in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts. Man does not "surrender" to God, but is saved by Him and freed by Him. Man has his free will in every case. In Christianity, "faith" stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to the truths of God. We do not submit to it against our own free will.

The muslim understanding of submission excludes Christians and members of other relgions from inclusion within Islam. Here is the Koran rejecting Christians as "submitters" because of their belief in Christ;

“O followers of the scripture, let us come to a logical agreement between us and you: that we shall not worship except GOD; that we never set up any idols besides Him, nor set up any human beings as lords beside GOD.” If they turn away, say, “Bear witness that we are submitters.” [3:64]

It is little wonder that many if not all of the “Muslim” nations of the world are in constant misery and turmoil through fighting and hostilities with their neighbors or each other. They are generally the least democratic and the most tyrannized people constantly plagued with political and civil upheaval. Muslim countries are marked by relatively no religious tolerance and have little consideration towards the faith of their own people or the people of other nations. It is because they view submission to God as cumpulsory, not voluntarily.

Dangerrmouse

12-02-2007, 11:06 PM

Quibbling over hearsay again.

Izdaari

12-03-2007, 12:22 AM

That's my position exactly.
Very good. And how do you rank them in terms of merit?

:)

lawman

12-03-2007, 04:15 AM

Interesting. My initial take on all of this would be that if you start from a theistic perspective and assume that there is, in fact, a God, ontologically speaking (however imperfect human understanding of that God may be), then it's logical to observe that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and all the variants thereof) emerged from the same historical tradition and are thus worshiping that same God (even if some sects interpret him with more "error" than others, obviously a subjective matter for believers). Let's call this the "top down" view. This would seem to be the view expounded by Atticus, and back when I was a believer I would have argued much the same.

OTOH, if one starts from an agnostic perspective and doesn't assume that there is necessarily a God, then "God" emerges as an entity that is conceptualized differently by each sect (possibly even by each individual worshiper); and as God has no verifiable existence beyond those conceptualizations, the variants cannot be said to refer to the same entity. Let's call this "bottom up." This would appear to be the position taken by Marv, Ethos, and others.

Yet we must contend with the dilemma posed by Blueactive, who is obviously a believer, yet who argues strenuously that his God is not the same as the one worshiped by other sects or religions, on the apparent grounds that his sect's understanding of God is free of the errors introduced by the others; i.e., he rejects the "subjective matter" of my first paragraph, insisting that if they don't understand God "correctly," they can't claim that their God is the same one at all. (Indeed, his insistence on the Trinity as essential to Christianity (by which read, Catholicism) would likely dismiss even the Christian denomination in which I was raised as heretical, since I attended services and studied Bible verses for years without ever so much as hearing the word "trinity" or understanding Jesus to be anything other than the son of God, not a mysteriously coextensive being.)

Blueactive's view, however, suffers from an internal logical contradiction: it assumes the ontological existence of God qua God, yet at at the same time treats the definition of God as something flowing only from the beliefs of His worshipers. By that reasoning, one could well argue that unless one possesses a perfect understanding of God's nature (would Blue claim that?), no one is actually worshiping the "true" God. Top-down and bottom-up just don't mix well.

Furthermore, one can hardly avoid observing that his argument rests not merely upon a base of theism or non-theism, but upon sharing the tenets of his specific belief system, and as such is non-falsifiable and ultimately moot to anyone who doesn't do so.

blueactive

12-03-2007, 12:40 PM

The question asked in the thread opener was whether the God of Islam was the same God as that worhipped by Christianity and Judaism. Speaking from my own perspective as a Catholic I answered in the negative and gave my reasons for that answer. The fact that Jehovah and Allah share the same historal basis is not enough to render them the same God. The differences between the Judeo-Christian God and Allah are too great when it comes to the perceived understanding of him by the religions mentioned. It is not the same God because the differences in understanding his nature between Christians and muslims mutually exclude each other as being related. The mulsim revelation about God is totally alien and foreign to the Christian understanding about God. Between Jews and Christians the differences are much less. While the Jews recognize the historic fact of Jesus existing as a person they simply doubt that he was the messiah. Islam denies the crucifiction and that Christ even died(they believe that his followers faked his death).

If one is agnostic, atheist,(or simly ignorant of the theologies of these religions) it's easy to see these interpretations of God as being equivilent. As we have sen here, but in my view that similarity is of the most superficial kinds.

It has been suggested that I am putting forth the view that my interpretation of God is the one without errors. I would counter that if Judaism and Christianity share anything it is a constant re-examination of the meaning of our faith. It permitted Man's understanding of God to progress and come closer to a perfected knowledge of God. It does not pretend to know all there is to know about the Creator, but does strive to get closer to what God want's his creations to know about Him. The same cannot be said of Islam which is;
a) violently intolerant to the religious views of others and even dissention within its own believers.

b) Islam holds itself above critical examination because it claims that Islam can only be properly understood by those fluent in arabic who read it with a mind already prepared to surrender to its donctrines in advance.

c) Islam is not commited to persuasion in making it's case. Islam is and has always been a religion of forced conversion. The fact the some muslims consciously choose to permit other to live in peace does not change the fact that their faith still calls for compulsory acceptance of Islam as the one true religion.

So I don't think Christianity is without error when Man(who is riddled with error) attempts to put it into practice. But I think the record clearly points to Christianity and Judaism as progressive religions that are willing and capable of change when there is progress in our understanding of God. The same cannot be said of Islam, which cannot be criticized, examined critically or even understood unless one is ready to be an arabic speaking muslim. And false religions, unable to reasonably or theologically support their beliefs often resorts to intimidation to gain and keep its members.

As for the "logical contradiction" posed by my argument. I think it' a bit of a stretch. It is not unreasoning that the proper understanding of God includes the assumption that God must transend Man in order to actually be God. The Greek and Roman Gods were easy to reject as True Gods since they possessed all the faults and pettiness of the human beings they presumably ruled over. Those Gods had the power to rule over men but not te authority to do so justly. There is a big distinction to be made there. I think the God of Islam suffers from this same fault. Mohammeds supposed revelation included an angry, wrathful God who called for war, murder and submission. Is there anything new or transendent of mankind in that? Allah is a human construct that serves humanistic purposes. In it's own way Islam is as flawed as the Roman and Greek Pantheon of Gods. At least the Greek and Romans had enough gods to explain the various human motivations to themselves. To me, Allah seems a purposeless God without motivation.

There also seems to be some misconception about why the Trinity is important to Christianity and considered a "mystery" of the faith. The Trinity is a "mystery" because it exists beyond the flesh and bone physical existence of Mankind. A man cannot be three things and one thing all at the same time. The transendence of the Judeo Christian God depends on His existence being very different from Mans. Show me a human like mortal God and I will show you that it's just a man and not God at all. The Trinity is "mystery" because it's beyond our complete comprehension as mortals. We can sense it and recognize that it is, but not understand how it can be. The Trinity is what makes God what he is, transendent of man.

roderic

12-03-2007, 02:14 PM

If one is agnostic, atheist,(or simly ignorant of the theologies of these religions) it's easy to see these interpretations of God as being equivilent. As we have sen here, but in my view that similarity is of the most superficial kinds.From a Buddhist, Hindu or Pagan perspective the Abrahamic religions appear to have a lot in common, too.

The same cannot be said of Islam which is;
a) violently intolerant to the religious views of others and even dissention within its own believers.

b) Islam holds itself above critical examination because it claims that Islam can only be properly understood by those fluent in arabic who read it with a mind already prepared to surrender to its donctrines in advance.

c) Islam is not commited to persuasion in making it's case. Islam is and has always been a religion of forced conversion. The fact the some muslims consciously choose to permit other to live in peace does not change the fact that their faith still calls for compulsory acceptance of Islam as the one true religion.a) not dissimilar to Christianity during most of its long history. But historically, Islam had a tolerance unequaled by Christianity during the middle ages.

b) I cannot say, but generally it does appear less open to criticism than Christianity, though Christianity also only accepts and takes on what lies within its parameters, it seems to me.

c) Not sure about that. It were ME traders who initially brought Islam to S.E.-Asia, and it was also spread by the sword - not a sole characteristic of Islam at the time. How was Christianity established in Latin America?
When is the last time you heard of a forced conversion, if I may ask?

blueactive

12-03-2007, 10:24 PM

From a Buddhist, Hindu or Pagan perspective the Abrahamic religions appear to have a lot in common, too.

Just as I said, but it is the most rudimentary of similarities. A hummingbird and an eagle have many superficial similarities in that they are both birds, but they are very different kinds of birds when the details are examined. That is what I am attempting to clarify. Which perspective are you offering here? Are you speaking for the Buddist, Hindu or Pagan?

a) not dissimilar to Christianity during most of its long history. But historically, Islam had a tolerance unequaled by Christianity during the middle ages..

We aren't really talking about the intolerance of Christianity in the 15th century. We are talking about the intolerance of Islamic countries in the here and now. Perhaps you simply don't know that prior to the invention of a new religion by Mohammed, the Middle East(and the arabs in it), were mostly Christian, Jewish and a polyglot of other Pagan religions. It certainly isn't anymore. If Islam was a religion of tolerance I think should think some vestige of the previous religions would still remain. Contrast that with the religious tolerance of a country like America, which retains its original protestant denominations from its founding but has added Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists and even Wiccans to its social make up. All this while the current Muslim countries are driving out other muslims who do not practice the faith of Islam with sufficient purity.

The point you are missing or ignoring is this;
When the Danish Cartoons of Mohammed appeared it was common for sword waving protestors to claim “Whoever defames our prophet should be executed.” That is the view in the street in the Sudan right now where an english teacher named a teddy bear Mohammed after one of her students.
And that is what separates Middle Eastern Muslims from the religious people in America and most other civilized nations. The Muslims over there don’t care that other people in other countries may not share their faith.

Other faiths are irrelevant to them.

If Muhammad is blasphemed, the perpetrator must be dealt with harshly, even if he or she doesn’t believe Muhammad was a prophet of any importance.

In America, insults to religious belief are hardly new or novel. When an image of Christ was suspended up side down in a jar of urine, the provocation did not result in the murder of the artist. But a removal of funding by the government of "art" that was deliberately offensive to the religious minded.

b) I cannot say, but generally it does appear less open to criticism than Christianity, though Christianity also only accepts and takes on what lies within its parameters, it seems to me.

Pope John Paul II once said that Chritianity rejects nothing which is true in different religions. There is no modern equivilent in Islam.

c) Not sure about that. It were ME traders who initially brought Islam to S.E.-Asia, and it was also spread by the sword - not a sole characteristic of Islam at the time. How was Christianity established in Latin America?
When is the last time you heard of a forced conversion, if I may ask?

Again, you are talking about 15th century Christianity. May I mention the much more modern secular conquests of the atheistic Nazis and Communists in the last century? It's far more recent. Far more people died in those attempts at forced conversion then did so in South America.

blueactive

12-03-2007, 10:26 PM

Here is a rather concise history of Islamic conquest. Offerred in rebuttal to those who believe that Islam was founded on principles religious tolerance.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html

634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.

705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

Dangerrmouse

12-03-2007, 10:28 PM

"Pope John Paul II once said that Chritianity rejects nothing which is true in different religions. There is no modern equivilent in Islam"

What does this mean, other than "When another religion agrees with us, it's right, but if it differs, we are." Is this your idea of ecumenism?

"1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses"

How did Islam manage to do that? They must have had a very effective prayer system going back then!

blueactive

12-03-2007, 10:28 PM

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches(finally)its first Crusades in retaliation and to prevent further conversion by the sword by Islam.

blueactive

12-03-2007, 10:30 PM

What does this mean, other than "When another religion agrees with us, it's right, but if it differs, we are." Is this your idea of ecumenism?

It means that Christiandom seeks to know the Truth about God and that the revealed Truth may be found in other religions as well.

Izdaari

12-04-2007, 12:13 AM

a) not dissimilar to Christianity during most of its long history. But historically, Islam had a tolerance unequaled by Christianity during the middle ages.
Aye. And to Islam I say, with all due respect for the tolerance it once exemplified, what have you done for me lately? :D

lawman

12-04-2007, 10:47 AM

blueactive

12-04-2007, 01:23 PM

We get it, Blue, you don't like Islam. All the same, your argument seems to rest upon an inextricable foundation: your statement from Post #76 that "the proper understanding of God includes the assumption..." Needless to say, what you've offered is nothing more than your assumption of how things should be, and the parallels with the kind of intolerant thinking of which you accuse Islam are hard to ignore.

That Christians believe that a proper understanding of God is required is not exactly controversial. The monotheism of Christianity requires the understanding that God is transendant of Man. A God that is not supernatural is not a God. This view represents an evolved understanding of Gods nature that has been on going for thousands of years. In western culture, that understanding began with the Greeks and Romans who maintained a variety of Gods. These religions were replaced at some point by Christianity which offered a religion that was objectively a better understanding of God's nature then the religions it replaced. I am Catholic, and I believe as the Catholics do because I am pursuaded by the profession of faith that Catholicism offers. My beliefs do not exclude the beliefs of others, I just don't hold them to be the religious equal of my own. That you see that as religious intolerance is your seeing what you want to see. Saying that someone else is wrong in their beliefs is not religious intolerance. It's how religions like judaism and Christianity have evolved to the point they are at now. By critical examination of those beliefs and changing them to perfect that understanding of a True faith as best as man can do given his flaws.

Why not? Surely you're not arguing that either faith is worshiping a different God than it was a few centuries ago? During the period of Christianity's greatest cultural ascendency, when it held pretty much unchallenged power, it was without question every bit as brutal and intolerant as Islam is now or has ever been. .

When exaclty did Christianity enjoy "unchallenged power?" The final Muslim crusade against the West was driven back from the gates of Vienna in 1693. The 17th and 18th centuries had numerous battles where Europeans fought to drive the Islamist conquest back out of Europe so that Christianity could continue to exist there. So when did Christianity get the chance to do all these bad things with unchallenged power?

And for someone who claims to have been raised within the Christian religion you seem rather ignorant of it. Perhaps that is why you abandoned it? There is nothing in the Bible which justified the violence done by people professing to be Christians. They were not worshipping the wrong God, but they were improperly worshipping the God that was right there in front of them. With Islam things are quite different. If you are a muslims the Koran specifically approves of the rape of female captives and sets down rules for how slaves are to be obtained and treated. So when muslims capture and rape women it is entirely within the bounds of their faith to do so. Contrast that religiously approved conduct with the religious misconduct of Americans during slavery in this country. It was not secularists who ended slavery but a Christian religious Crusade that resulted in a Civil War. As terrible as that war was, it born witness to the fact that slavery so was detested that men were willing to die to end the practice. That zealous determination did not come from anywhere but religious belief.

If you're really arguing that changes in the modes and rules of worship change the substantive nature of the object of worship, then who or what were Christians worshiping then?.

The failure to properly follow your faith is not the failure of God. It is the failure of the man who improperly worships Him. Surely you don't want to argue that the intellect of Man five hundred years ago was equal to the intellect of Man today?

You're just muddying the waters here. The contemporary tolerance for plurality and diversity in America and other "civilized" nations is due to historical and cultural factors entirely independent from Christianity..

I'm not throwning mud in the waters, you just don't want to argue the point. The objective Truth in a religion can be seen in the kind of social outcomes it creates. Do those outcomes reflect good or bad things? Put very simply, would you prefer that America be more like Saudi Arabia? Or would you prefer Saudi Arabia be more like the US socially? As for the historical and cultural factors you think shaped American religious tolerance independent of Christianity, you will have to offer some proof of it. Your simply declaration of it as fact will not be enough to convince me.

blueactive

12-04-2007, 01:24 PM

None of this is really relevant to answering the question from the OP, which relies upon how one chooses to define the term "God." If one acknowledges that it's a subjective, malleable concept, then it is indeed easier to support your thesis that Islam worships a "different God" than Christianity (and the same would also be true for Judaism)... but that notion of malleability remains incompatible with your assumption that there is in fact an ontologically objective God, one whom various people or sects worship in different ways..

It's pretty interesting that you would exclude religious perspectives on the nature of God while seeking to understand God as a malleable concept. It would seem to me that non-believers in God have little to contribute to a discussion on the nature of a God they don't believe exists. What's the point of even discussing how many fairies will fit on the head of a pin when fairies are all imaginary human constructs anyway?

My point is that Islam is a false religion and a false interpretation of the one True God. And because Islam is so isolated from other faiths and violently intolerant of even interfaith dissent, it is impossible for muslims to progress or evolve into a better and more enlightened understanding of God.

If that latter assumption is granted, then one has to ask where to draw the line -- who decides (and how) when a given faith's interpretation of God is sufficiently close to the allegedly "proper" understanding, and when it's far enough away to call its object of worship categorically different. You seem to do this rather arbitrarily.

I don't know how you can that its "arbitarily." I didn't just denounce Islam as false and declare my point made. I thought I clearly stated my reasons that the Allah of the Koran is alien and foreign to the Jehovah of the Bible and the Torah.

As for who decides which religion is objectively a better understanding of God, I would say that all of us do when it comes to Christianity and apparently none of do when it comes to Islam. As for which understanding is proper, that requires that one acknowledge that God exists and is knowable. Are you prepared to stipulate on those two points?

lawman

12-04-2007, 02:42 PM

...Christianity... offered a religion that was objectively a better understanding of God's nature then the religions it replaced.
That you sincerely believe this suggests that you don't quite understand what the word "objective" actually means, and thus that further discussion on this topic will probably be fruitless. :(

And for someone who claims to have been raised within the Christian religion you seem rather ignorant of it. Perhaps that is why you abandoned it?...
Are you accusing me of fabricating my "claims" on the matter? I assure you, my reasons for adopting a skeptical stance don't arise from ignorance; rather, from studying religion in rather more depth than most professed believers have ever done. My earlier anecdote was merely to underscore that there are Christian denominations that don't prioritize or even accept key Catholic concepts like the Trinity: I said that I didn't encounter the concept in church, not that I never studied it later.

The failure to properly follow your faith is not the failure of God. It is the failure of the man who improperly worships Him...
Ah, of course. A great excuse for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the countless immolated "heretics," and all the other evils perpetrated during the centuries of Christianity's greatest power. God gets all the credit for the good stuff, IOW, but none of the blame for the bad. :rolleyes:

Still, that leaves the question: why do you then insist that Muslims worship a different God, rather than merely worshiping the same one "improperly"?

Surely you don't want to argue that the intellect of Man five hundred years ago was equal to the intellect of Man today?
Yes, of course I do. Human intellect is absolutely identical today to what it was 500 years ago. Our culture has changed, and our accumulated knowledge has certainly grown, but as a matter of biology our actual intelligence hasn't changed; there's not nearly enough time for it to have done so.

The objective Truth in a religion can be seen in the kind of social outcomes it creates...
Not only is that argument logically nonsensical, but a few paragraphs ago you yourself were arguing the exact opposite, insisting that negative "social outcomes" were entirely a matter of fallible believers rather than of the religion itself. If you're only going to count good "outcomes," that's quite a thumb on the scales.

Put very simply, would you prefer that America be more like Saudi Arabia? Or would you prefer Saudi Arabia be more like the US socially?
The latter, all else being equal, but that's not even remotely what this thread is about.

As for the historical and cultural factors you think shaped American religious tolerance independent of Christianity, you will have to offer some proof of it. Your simply declaration of it as fact will not be enough to convince me.
Fortunately, I really don't give a damn about convincing you; I gave up long ago on expecting you to be swayed by fact-based arguments. It's enough for me merely to intervene to make sure your paralogia doesn't inadvertently convince anyone else, nor completely derail the thread.

It's pretty interesting that you would exclude religious perspectives on the nature of God while seeking to understand God as a malleable concept. It would seem to me that non-believers in God have little to contribute to a discussion on the nature of a God they don't believe exists...
I didn't exclude anything; I did my best to account for all perspectives on offer. Did you even read any part of my initial post (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1096090&postcount=75) besides the bit that was about you?

My point is that Islam is a false religion and a false interpretation of the one True God.
Then please start a fresh thread to say so, because that's not what this one is about.

As for which understanding is proper, that requires that one acknowledge that God exists and is knowable. Are you prepared to stipulate on those two points?
Of course not. That's part of my point: you can't grasp the actual arguments going on in this thread if you insist that it's about identifying a single "proper" understanding of God. Beyond that, I don't pretend to speak for a believer's point of view; I'll leave that to Atticus and others.