NationStates Jolt Archive

I’ve noticed many people on this forum proclaim that Christianity and Islam worship the same God because they both claim heritage from Abraham and Adam and Eve, etc. However, I think this a rather short-sighted observation that results in that erroneous conclusion.

The Bible writes that Jesus is the Word: "the Word was God" (John 1:1). But the Qur'an says He is only "a word" (Sura 3:45). The Bible says Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:13-16). But the Qur'an describes him as one of the created (Sura 3:59).

The Bible says the Lord Jesus is superior to the prophets (Hebrews 1:1-2). The Qur'an tells us He is just another prophet. "We make no distinction between any of them," (Sura 3:84).

The Lord Jesus was crucified and shed His precious blood to wipe away our sins (Revelation 1:5). The Qur'an tells us that Jesus was not crucified at all…Here are 3 different English translations of An-Nisa (Chapter 4.157)

4.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him

The Bible tells us that Jesus is God's Son (Matthew 16:16-17; Mark 1:1; John 9:35-37; 20:31; Acts 3:26; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:19; Hebrews 4:14; 1 John 4:15; 5:5, 20; 2 John 1:3). The Qur'an tells us Jesus is not the son of Allah. (Sura 2:115; 4:171; 10:68-69; 18:4-5; 19:35, 88-93; 21:26; 39:4; 43:81)

"Praise be to Allah, Who hath not taken unto Himself a Son" (Sura 17:111)

The Bible says:
1 Thessalonians 1 10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

And, in the end, the final proof against being able to combine the two different faiths, 1 John 4 1-3

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

There is no possible way (except through ignorance of one or both books) to be able to defend the viewpoint that these two faiths worship the same God. They both demand that you not only worship their way, but that if you worship the other way, you are a false worshiper. The mere fact that they use the same names and claim the same heritage does not in fact prove that they do.

As to whether or not Allah and Jehovah (I refer to the Jewish Torah) are one and the same, perhaps someone else here can enlighten us as to the differences or not between the Jewish God of Abraham and the Islam God of Ibrahim.

If anyone should argue that the ‘true’ God (of any of the above or all of the above and more) accepts true worship from everyone, I am not going to argue with them. Because that, IMO, is distinctly a different question.

I think your perpetuating another myth here. The Bible does not demand that we worship. It encouages us to, but worship is not something that is based on salvation. Worship is just a response to God, who he is and what he's done for us. Its not something that we consider absolutely nessecary

No, they DO still worship the same GOD. The problem is that as a religion divides, more and more crackpot versions of it come out of the woodwork. I'm betting that if there is a God, that they're both worshipping the same one and that any errors or discrepencies are the result of human beings acting like tards.

Minor details.

I think your perpetuating another myth here. The Bible does not demand that we worship. It encouages us to, but worship is not something that is based on salvation. Worship is just a response to God, who he is and what he's done for us. Its not something that we consider absolutely nessecary

That also depends on what you call worship. I was refering the simple acceptance of thanksgiving prayer' as worship in this case.

I’ve noticed many people on this forum proclaim that Christianity and Islam worship the same God because they both claim heritage from Abraham and Adam and Eve, etc. However, I think this a rather short-sighted observation that results in that erroneous conclusion.

The Bible writes that Jesus is the Word: "the Word was God" (John 1:1). But the Qur'an says He is only "a word" (Sura 3:45). The Bible says Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:13-16). But the Qur'an describes him as one of the created (Sura 3:59).

The Bible says the Lord Jesus is superior to the prophets (Hebrews 1:1-2). The Qur'an tells us He is just another prophet. "We make no distinction between any of them," (Sura 3:84).

The Lord Jesus was crucified and shed His precious blood to wipe away our sins (Revelation 1:5). The Qur'an tells us that Jesus was not crucified at all…Here are 3 different English translations of An-Nisa (Chapter 4.157)

4.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him

The Bible tells us that Jesus is God's Son (Matthew 16:16-17; Mark 1:1; John 9:35-37; 20:31; Acts 3:26; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:19; Hebrews 4:14; 1 John 4:15; 5:5, 20; 2 John 1:3). The Qur'an tells us Jesus is not the son of Allah. (Sura 2:115; 4:171; 10:68-69; 18:4-5; 19:35, 88-93; 21:26; 39:4; 43:81)

"Praise be to Allah, Who hath not taken unto Himself a Son" (Sura 17:111)

The Bible says:
1 Thessalonians 1 10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

And, in the end, the final proof against being able to combine the two different faiths, 1 John 4 1-3

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

There is no possible way (except through ignorance of one or both books) to be able to defend the viewpoint that these two faiths worship the same God. They both demand that you not only worship their way, but that if you worship the other way, you are a false worshiper. The mere fact that they use the same names and claim the same heritage does not in fact prove that they do.

As to whether or not Allah and Jehovah (I refer to the Jewish Torah) are one and the same, perhaps someone else here can enlighten us as to the differences or not between the Jewish God of Abraham and the Islam God of Ibrahim.

If anyone should argue that the ‘true’ God (of any of the above or all of the above and more) accepts true worship from everyone, I am not going to argue with them. Because that, IMO, is distinctly a different question.

According to the Torah, Christianity is a false religion.

According to Christianity, Islam is a false religion.

Both claim the same origins, but Judaism specifically makes a liar of the claims of the New Testament.

So - Islam and Christianity worship the same God, in as much as they BOTH claim Jehovah...

Of course! If someone calls me by my nickname I'm no longer the same person! :rolleyes:

I'm daring anyone to prove they're the same.
*shrug*

According to the Torah, Christianity is a false religion.

As far as orthodox Jewish interpretations goes... Yes, I agree.

According to Christianity, Islam is a false religion.

Agreed (same as above).

Both claim the same origins, but Judaism specifically makes a liar of the claims of the New Testament.

Agreed (same)

So - Islam and Christianity worship the same God, in as much as they BOTH claim Jehovah...

Where is your connection for your conclusion? How is this the result of the above steps? It is not established by your steps, the conclusion must be that all three are different. Your last statement is clearly in error.

As far as orthodox Jewish interpretations goes... Yes, I agree.

Agreed (same as above).

Agreed (same)

Where is your connection for your conclusion? How is this the result of the above steps? It is not established by your steps, the conclusion must be that all three are different. Your last statement is clearly in error.

Christianity claims that Jesus is Messiah, according to Hebrew scripture. Christianity claims that Jesus was with God at the act of creation, and that the Hebrew religion is, in effect, modified by the coming of Christ.

Thus - by claiming the same god, and the same heritage, Christianity claims Yahweh (Jehovah), modified.

Islam claims to come from the same covenant as the Hebrew lineage... drawing from Ishmael, instead of Isaac. Bound by the same covenant, to the same God. Islam says his name was 'Allah', but the name does not disguise the fact that the same entity is being described.

The difference between the three, is that each claims that THEIR text is the accurate description of 'God'... but all three claim the same 'creation', and the same history. Clearly, all three claim Jehovah.

Christianity claims that Jesus is Messiah, according to Hebrew scripture. Christianity claims that Jesus was with God at the act of creation, and that the Hebrew religion is, in effect, modified by the coming of Christ.

Thus - by claiming the same god, and the same heritage, Christianity claims Yahweh (Jehovah), modified.

Islam claims to come from the same covenant as the Hebrew lineage... drawing from Ishmael, instead of Isaac. Bound by the same covenant, to the same God. Islam says his name was 'Allah', but the name does not disguise the fact that the same entity is being described.

The difference between the three, is that each claims that THEIR text is the accurate description of 'God'... but all three claim the same 'creation', and the same history. Clearly, all three claim Jehovah.

Required: undeniable proof that all 3 claims are indeed true...
( See, one of 'em, or 2 of 'em, or even all 3 might be lying )

So what you're saying here is that there's more than one god, eh?

How Christian of you.

So what you're saying here is that there's more than one god, eh?

How Christian of you.

No. Any of the 3 claims might be deceptive, or imperfect, or otherwise flawed.
Quite apart from the little detail that Iod-He-Vav-He doesn't exactly equate Jehova. Would you - as a believing Muslim- say that HLH equates Jehova?

What I would say is they worship the same god, but they all disagree on what form (that may not be the best word, just the one I could think of at the moment) that God takes. Christainity makes the whole claim about Jesus being the son of God and being the creator etc, while the others disagree, but they all think they worship the god of Abraham, the one true god etc. Disagreeing on what form a god takes doesnt mean you disagree on what god exists. Its like... hmm.. having a difficulty to think of an analogy... lets see.

Ok, lets say 3 people claim they know what... a certain car is like. They all know it is the same car they are talking about it, but none of them have actually seen it. As a consequence of this they all disagree what it looks like, its performance etc. So they all say different things about this car, some completely non-compatible, but they are still talking about the same car.

OK, not the best analogy, just the best I could think of at such short notice.

No. Any of the 3 claims might be deceptive, or imperfect, or otherwise flawed.
Quite apart from the little detail that Iod-He-Vav-He doesn't exactly equate Jehova. Would you - as a believing Muslim- say that HLH equates Jehova?


No, I'd say there's only one god. One. Maybe variations on how one sees that one god, but there is only one. I wouldn't, as Dubyagoat suggests, claim one "true" god and many "false" gods.

Christians are supposed to believe in the oneness of god just as Jews (shema) and Muslims (shahadah) do, yet it is always Christians arguing that there must be more than one, but only theirs is "true".

Makes no sense. But, then, I suppose if they truly accepted the oneness, then they couldn't prove their truth by denegrating others.

Whatev.

Who cares what invisible imaginary sky-daddy they pray to. The voices in their heads cause more trouble than their worth.

I'm feeling kind of disgusted with religion lately.

Ok, lets say 3 people claim they know what... a certain car is like. They all know it is the same car they are talking about it, but none of them have actually seen it. As a consequence of this they all disagree what it looks like, its performance etc. So they all say different things about this car, some completely non-compatible, but they are still talking about the same car.


That's actually a good analogy.

Okie dokie ... we have a blue Chrysler.

Jew sees a green Chrysler. Fine. "Hear, o Israel, thy Chrysler is green."
Muslim sees a red Chrysler. Fine. "I declare that there is no Chrysler but red."

Jew and Muslim say, "Well, we see it different, but ok."

Christian sees a purple Ford springing from the Chrysler and bitches that the Jew and the Muslim seeing red and green is wrong and that those cars don't exist and must be false cars. Hence, the Christian believes there to be more than one car (even though there isn't) and that all other cars are false cars.

I like this analogy.

I think the issue here is one of definition. Assuming we're speaking of the Christians who worship Jesus, we have to take into account the fact that Muslims do not worship Jesus. While they both claim to worship a deity that shares the same name and heritage, the actual doctrines about this deity are radically different, and therefore it would be accurate to say that Muslims and Christians don't worshiip the same God.

In addition, Christians and Jews don't worship the same God, if Christians worship Jesus. Those of us who are Jews flat out reject Christianity as a perversion of the Torah and idolatry, and reject the belief that Christians worship the same God we do. While some Jews do attempt to say that we "all worship the same God", as do some Muslims and some Christians, its usually an attempt to bridge faiths and reconcile differences. The Jewish sages were quite clear that the worship of Jesus is idolatry and not on par with the worship of the God of Abraham.

I can't say it with as much certainty as I can with Judaism, but I also know many Muslims don't believe that Christians (or Jews for that matter) worship the same God they do. That is why they feel justified in executing them as khafir rather than protecting them as dhimmi like the Quran states they should.

Now, as I said above, the issue of if Christians and Muslims (or Jews) worship the same God is a matter of definition. When you look at it in a superficial way, it would seem that they do, because they both worship haShem in name alone. However, when you stop to define what God actually means, then its easy to see that they don't. For example:

Something that defines God in Islam and Judaism is that God is NOT Jesus.
Something that defnines God in Christianity (the form we're assuming) is that God IS Jesus.

Therefore, we have conflicting definitions of God in these religions, and thus they can't not by the same God, by definition. Only if the object in question is defined the same way, with no conlifcting aspects, can we argree that it is the same object. No matter how many qualities it shares, one contradictory relationship falsifies it. So it doesn't matter that they all believe that it's the God who gave Moses the Torah, for example, because they still have contradictory relations in the definition.

We can outline this in a logical syllogism as follows:
Christians believe that Jesus is God
Muslims don't believe that Jesus is God
Therefore, Muslims don't believe in the Christian God

Or, Jews don't believe Jesus is God
Christians believe Jesus is God
Therefore, Christians don't believe in the Jewish God.

In any case, its philosophically unsound to say that they all worship the same God because all three religions stole the concept, stories, and name from Judaism. If I take the Trinity doctrine and add a three-headed, green monster, I don't worship the same Trinity the Catholics do anymore.

Suppose we are to postulate that all 3 religions ( A, B, C)worship one God ( we'll call this I), name unknown, and one God only. We'll call this God M.
Suppose we postulate that all 3 of them even refer to the God they worship with one and the same sound/name. Let's call this N.

You then still have to prove that what A worships as I under the name N is in fact M.
And what B worships as I under the name N is in fact M.
And what C worships as I under the name N is in fact M.

Though you have shared attributes, this does not equate identity.

It's not enough that you have 3, or 6, or 9, or 10000 shared attributes - you need total Identity.
Identity cannot be proven for objects that cannot be proven to exist.

We cannot prove that I known as N equates M.
Logical impossibility.

The name does not equate the Ding an Sich.

That's actually a good analogy.

Okie dokie ... we have a blue Chrysler.

Jew sees a green Chrysler. Fine. "Hear, o Israel, thy Chrysler is green."
Muslim sees a red Chrysler. Fine. "I declare that there is no Chrysler but red."

Jew and Muslim say, "Well, we see it different, but ok."

Christian sees a purple Ford springing from the Chrysler and bitches that the Jew and the Muslim seeing red and green is wrong and that those cars don't exist and must be false cars. Hence, the Christian believes there to be more than one car (even though there isn't) and that all other cars are false cars.

I like this analogy.

A red car, a green car, and a blue car are all different things. If one person is worshipping a red car, and another a green car, they are worshipping two different things. It doesn't matter if the worship was a result of misunderstanding, of if they heard wrong, because they have still invented doctrines of this car with different definitions. Unless the definitions are the same, then they are different. Its pretty simple.

And because the concept of Jesus being God violates virtually all of the qualities of God that the sages have outlined in Judaism, it would be more of a difference than a change in car color. Try comparing a car with a fish or an airplane.

What I would say is they worship the same god, but they all disagree on what form (that may not be the best word, just the one I could think of at the moment) that God takes. Christainity makes the whole claim about Jesus being the son of God and being the creator etc, while the others disagree, but they all think they worship the god of Abraham, the one true god etc. Disagreeing on what form a god takes doesnt mean you disagree on what god exists. Its like... hmm.. having a difficulty to think of an analogy... lets see.

Ok, lets say 3 people claim they know what... a certain car is like. They all know it is the same car they are talking about it, but none of them have actually seen it. As a consequence of this they all disagree what it looks like, its performance etc. So they all say different things about this car, some completely non-compatible, but they are still talking about the same car.

OK, not the best analogy, just the best I could think of at such short notice.

You are suggesting that they all have valid viewpoints of the same car, from different angles. I'm suggesting that this long held 'faith' based belief is in fact in error, but instead, that the two I gave examples for (I made no comment about Jewish Torah) are in fact witnesses of different cars (to continue with your analogy).

Christian sees a purple Ford springing from the Chrysler and bitches that the Jew and the Muslim seeing red and green is wrong and that those cars don't exist and must be false cars. Hence, the Christian believes there to be more than one car (even though there isn't) and that all other cars are false cars.

You're nuts; and I love it.

Surely. And then, we're also safe to say that Catholics and Lutherans don't worship the same God. Nor do Calvinists and Anglicans, etc etc. After all, concepts such as "salvation through grace alone" and "Jesus was not God Himself" surely make an immense difference between the many Christian Gods.

Or we could say they are, just because you, op, don't understand there's a world beyond Protestantland.

I'd say they worship the same god. They both ripped off the Jewish version and put their own spin on it.

Required: undeniable proof that all 3 claims are indeed true...
( See, one of 'em, or 2 of 'em, or even all 3 might be lying )

Not at all. All 3 could be completely untrue.

The 'story', however, would remain the same... three 'stories', with one common root.

Have you ever read "Little Red Ridinghood"?

Some versions tell that a woodsman saves Red Ridinghood and her grandmother. In some of these, the wolf flees. In some, they stitch rocks into the wolf's belly, so he'll always feel full, even as he starves to death.

Some earlier versions tell that a woodsmen saved Red Ridinghood, but grannie gets eaten. Even earlier versions have the wolf eating both, and no woodsman.

A VERY early version of the Red Ridinghood story has the wolf killing grannie, slicing her flesh, and bottling her blood. When Red arrives, she eats the 'meat' and drinks the 'wine', before hopping into bed with the wolf.

All those different versions of a wolf and a girl.... all the same basic story, retold different ways, in different times.

I'd say they worship the same god. They both ripped off the Jewish version and put their own spin on it.

Thats exactly why they don't worship the same God. Ripping something off and changing the definition is what makes it different. Unless all three religions have the same definition of what constitutes God, with no contradictions between definitions, the thing defined (God) is different. Definition is what defines if the thing is the same, not the name or the source.

Like I said, I could steal the Catholic Trinity and throw in a three-headed monster, but it wouldn't be the same Trinity anymore.

Not at all. All 3 could be completely untrue.

The 'story', however, would remain the same... three 'stories', with one common root.

Have you ever read "Little Red Ridinghood"?

Some versions tell that a woodsman saves Red Ridinghood and her grandmother. In some of these, the wolf flees. In some, they stitch rocks into the wolf's belly, so he'll always feel full, even as he starves to death.

Some earlier versions tell that a woodsmen saved Red Ridinghood, but grannie gets eaten. Even earlier versions have the wolf eating both, and no woodsman.

A VERY early version of the Red Ridinghood story has the wolf killing grannie, slicing her flesh, and bottling her blood. When Red arrives, she eats the 'meat' and drinks the 'wine', before hopping into bed with the wolf.

All those different versions of a wolf and a girl.... all the same basic story, retold different ways, in different times.


See post 19.

You're trying to use the term 'identity' in an invalid way. And please note that I have allowed for the possibility of all 3 being dead-wrong ab ovo, for what I believe may be in fact very untrue.

Cain and Able served the same God yet both came up with different ways to express their service.

The fact that there are two different Faiths or one of two different Faiths may be wrong doesn't imply 2 different Gods.

Thats exactly why they don't worship the same God. Ripping something off and changing the definition is what makes it different. Unless all three religions have the same definition of what constitutes God, with no contradictions between definitions, the thing defined (God) is different. Definition is what defines if the thing is the same, not the name or the source.

Like I said, I could steal the Catholic Trinity and throw in a three-headed monster, but it wouldn't be the same Trinity anymore.
Not exactly the same, but the same nonetheless (sp?).

Cain and Able served the same God yet both came up with different ways to express their service.

The fact that there are two different Faiths or one of two different Faiths may be wrong doesn't imply 2 different Gods.

That won't do.
'does not imply X' does not equate Y.

Ad Keruvalia.

Retracting my earlier comments, on contemplation. The whole thing 'merely' proves that civilised debate does become impossible in wartime. It's not a matter of what is said, but when it's said.

See post 19.

You're trying to use the term 'identity' in an invalid way. And please note that I have allowed for the possibility of all 3 being dead-wrong ab ovo, for what I believe may be in fact very untrue.

As an Atheist, I strongly suspect ALL versions are likely untrue.

You are missing something, though.

'God' is almost by definition, not 'quantifiable'... and only EVER qualifiable, which makes perception entirely objective.

If you take the X and Y approach, you have to allow that X and Y are NOT values in a numerical sense, but in a symbolic sense.

This is why your 'math' is flawed.

X isn't the SAME as Y... it IS Y, just viewed from a different perspective.

Not exactly the same, but the same nonetheless (sp?).

The definitions of the Christian God and the Jewish God contain contradictory. That means that not only are they not exactly the same, but they aren't the same at all. They violate the logical law of noncontradicton, and they show up as opposites on the Square of Opposition if you work it out. I'll post the syllogysim I listed above again, to demonstrate:

Christianity defines God as being Jesus
Judaism defines God as not being Jesus
Therefore, God in Judaism and God in Christianity are not the same.

Of course, this is only a reference to those sects of Christianity that do define Jesus as God and those sects of Judaism that deny Jesus is God. The former would include Catholics and a number of others, and virtually all sects of Judaism deny that Jesus is God.

You do, of course, assume that the God of both religions are defined entirely by the scripture that explains them. Both would disagree, of course, though there is no doubt that a considerable proportion of the ideas of God come from these written works. Surely, however, for God to "exist" (in the sense that both groups believe) it must exist independently of how humans describe it. With these descriptions thrown aside, how can you possibly say the Muslim and Christian Gods are any different?

A red car, a green car, and a blue car are all different things. If one person is worshipping a red car, and another a green car, they are worshipping two different things. It doesn't matter if the worship was a result of misunderstanding, of if they heard wrong, because they have still invented doctrines of this car with different definitions. Unless the definitions are the same, then they are different. Its pretty simple.

Then imagine three flies inside a church, when a car drives past they watch it through a stained glass window but because of the stained glass one fly sees a red car, another a green car and the last a blue car. They're all seeing the same car but they're perceiving it in different ways.

Then imagine three flies inside a church, when a car drives past they watch it through a stained glass window but because of the stained glass one fly sees a red car, another a green car and the last a blue car. They're all seeing the same car but they're perceiving it in different ways.

If one fly worships a red car, one a green car, and another a blue car, they are still worshipping different cars. It doesn't matter if the same car, seen in different lights, is what gave them those ideas of worship. The definitions have become different, and the definitions are what define the object.

In fact, if the actual car was a different color than the ones the three flies saw, then they would all be worshipping a different car from the one that exists in reality. In any case, I'm not sure that these analogies really get to the point. They fail to address definition, and definition is what must be addressed when you ask the question "are two objects the same."

We know from the definitions of God in these religions that Jews, Muslims, and Christians in general do not worship the same God. There are exceptions, like when Christians don't consider Jesus to be God, but in general they worship three deities with distinct and conflicting definitions. They only share the same name and origin.

As an Atheist, I strongly suspect ALL versions are likely untrue.

You are missing something, though.

'God' ism almost by definition, not 'quantifiable'... and only EVER qualifiable, which makes perception entirely objective.

If you take the X and Y approach, you have to allow that X and Y are NOT values in a numerical sense, but in a symbolic sense.

This is why your 'math' is flawed.

X isn't the SAME as Y... it IS Y, just viewed from a different perspective.


Let's call Y viewed from perspective 1 Y1, followed by Y2 and Y3 ( you get the idea, and I'm in a hurry, for it wont do to miss a family dinner ).

You have to allow for the possibility that the worshipped object is not Y, but that in fact the object of worship is Y1, ie, not Y, but exactly Y as viewed from perspective 1, and no other viewpoint at all, nor from an objective POV either.


Sir, my math is not flawed. You're ( imho ) led astray by your insistence on objectivity ( which I consider a paradoxical thing when entering the realm of metaphysics ). My argument rests upon the impossibility of objectivity in the case of theology!

Let's call Y viewed from perspective 1 Y1, followed by Y2 and Y3 ( you get the idea, and I'm in a hurry, for it wont do to miss a family dinner ).

You have to allow for the possibility that the worshipped object is not Y, but that in fact the object of worship is Y1, ie, not Y, but exactly [U]Y as viewed from perspective 1, and no other viewpoint at all, nor from an objective POV either.

Absolutely, you've got it.

As I've often stated different myths same practice.

That won't do.
'does not imply X' does not equate Y.



I'm not equating Y, I'm discounting X, which the OP used to decide =/ Y

On the same note...

Why are Christians always so eager to admit that they don't worship the same God as Muslims, yet they still want to pretend that they worship the same God Jews do?

In Judaism, there are three sins that a Jew has to choose death over committing. Idolatry, bloodshed, and sexual immorality. Now, a Jew can convert to Islam because Allah is not considered an idol, but a Jew can't convert to Christianity because Jesus is considered an idol and thus Christianity is idolatry. Interesting, huh?

You are suggesting that they all have valid viewpoints of the same car, from different angles. I'm suggesting that this long held 'faith' based belief is in fact in error, but instead, that the two I gave examples for (I made no comment about Jewish Torah) are in fact witnesses of different cars (to continue with your analogy).

So you are saying that there are actually at least 3 Gods in existence?

That doesn't exactly sound like the traditional Christian viewpoint. Usually, we tend to think that there is only one God.

On the same note...

Why are Christians always so eager to admit that they don't worship the same God as Muslims, yet they still want to pretend that they worship the same God Jews do?

...

That's easy enough. They want to worship the same God that Jesus taught them to pray to, before he was crucified and rose again (proving, as they say, that he himself IS the resurrection)…

Ah cmon, there is no spoon and there is no god or gods. You will all see as time goes on that humans have been absolutely bonkers in cherishing their bloody deities and killing in their name.

So you are saying that there are actually at least 3 Gods in existence?

That doesn't exactly sound like the traditional Christian viewpoint. Usually, we tend to think that there is only one God.

Which traditional Christian viewpoint are you thinking of that doesn't include teaching about avoiding false prophets and/or idols or the worship of false gods?

Let's talk about word derivation. "Yahweh" (Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh) is Hebrew. "Jehovah" is the Latinized form of "Yahweh". "Allah" is Arabic. Muslims do not worship a pagan god named "Allah". "Allah" is the Arabic word for God. Even Christians whose native tongue is Arabic use "Allah" when talking about God. Saying that Muslims (or any Arabic-speaking person) worship a pagan god named "Allah" is like saying Spanish-speaking people worship a pagan god named "Dios".

Which traditional Christian viewpoint are you thinking of that doesn't include teaching about avoiding false prophets and/or idols or the worship of false gods?

I didn't say anything about false prophets or idols. I am talking, as you were, about actual "other" gods.

Have you ever heard the story of the 3 blind men and the elephant? It goes essentially like this:

3 blind men who have never been around an elephant are brought to where they can be in contact with one. The first blind man walks towards the elephant from the rear and grips its tail. He calls out to the other two, "This animal is much like a snake, with an end like a broom." The second approaches from the side, and comes in contact with the leg of the animal. He calls out, "You are crazy. This animal is much like a tree, large and round and rough to the touch." The third man approached from the front, and came in contact with the ear of the elephant. He called out, "You are both wrong. This animal is much like a large fan. There is nothing like a tree or snake here."

Which of them was correct? Which was wrong? Were they all touching the same elephant? When it comes down to it, none of them were wrong, or fully correct, and they were all touching the exact same animal.

You may believe, as I do, that Christians have touched more of the elphant (to keep with the metaphor), but that does not mean that Jews and Muslims are not observing the same one.

This is really quite simple; I can't understand all the confusion.

They all worship the same god. All three faiths believe that there is one god, who is the same in each. However, each follows different sets of teachings from that god. Each believes in the validity of different messages supposedly sent from that god.

In a sense, Judaism is the least corrupted form. The fly sees the red car that drove past through a neutral window, without any prophets influential enough to alter the color of the glass.
Christianity sprang from Judaism, originating as a reform movement within the Jewish community. Christians do not worship a different god, but rather follow the teachings of a different figure (Jesus of Nazareth) about the nature and will of that god. This fly sees the same car that the first fly saw, but Jesus changed the glass to blue - which, if they are correct, is the actual color of the car, and the neutral window seen through by the first fly alters the color of the outside world incorrectly.

Muslims reject Christianity, believing that Jesus was merely a prophet, and not the actual Son of God/avatar of God. They follow the teachings of the prophet Mohammed. They believe that the Trinity is polytheism. However, they still claim descent from Abraham, and still claim the same god as him. Mohammed's teachings alter the original color of the glass - but to red, this time. The red and blue glass share the same base (the neutral of Judaism), but both teach that it is incorrect and that the SAME god must be followed in different ways.

Here's my point:
It's the same car. Each fly sees it through a different filter, but they are all the same car.

I personally am not religious, but I am a student of history, and I do know that Muslims do not reject the god of Christianity and Judaism (with the exception of rejecting that Jesus was that god or even the son of that god), they merely reject the practices of those religions.

You can argue logic for as long as you want, but the fact remains that historically all three of those religions share the same god.

I didn't say anything about false prophets or idols. I am talking, as you were, about actual "other" gods.

Have you ever heard the story of the 3 blind men and the elephant? It goes essentially like this:


Yes I've heard the story. The premise of the story is that they are touching the same elephant. The reality is though what the religions say about themselves, and as I pointed out in the OP, the scriptures for each clearly define their limits to exclude the beliefs of the other as a valid option. Like it or not, all encompassing desire for compatibility between them does not exist simply because we can invent pretty stories about blind men and elephants or differently colored cars, as the case may be.

Yes I've heard the story. The premise of the story is that they are touching the same elephant. The reality is though what the religions say about themselves, and as I pointed out in the OP, the scriptures for each clearly define their limits to exclude the beliefs of the other as a valid option. Like it or not, all encompassing desire for compatibility between them does not exist simply because we can invent pretty stories about blind men and elephants or differently colored cars, as the case may be.

Each of the blind men clearly defined their limits to exclude the beliefs of the other as a valid option, too. But they were still all touching the same elephant. Do you really think that God is defined by what we think of God? Or does God exist in God's own right, and we are just defining what we think God is?

No one is trying to make the religions completely compatible - this cannot be done within the structure of the doctrines of each. What we are saying is that, when you boil it all down, the same God is being worshipped. Each of the various religions is clear on this. We just think that they are worshipping incorrectly and hold flawed views about God. They think the same about us.

Each of the blind men clearly defined their limits to exclude the beliefs of the other as a valid option, too. But they were still all touching the same elephant. Do you really think that God is defined by what we think of God? Or does God exist in God's own right, and we are just defining what we think God is?

No one is trying to make the religions completely compatible - this cannot be done within the structure of the doctrines of each. What we are saying is that, when you boil it all down, the same God is being worshipped. Each of the various religions is clear on this. We just think that they are worshipping incorrectly and hold flawed views about God. They think the same about us.

You assume the elephant can't talk.

Edit: I should say, your story/analogy assumes the elephant can't talk.

This is really quite simple; I can't understand all the confusion.

They all worship the same god. All three faiths believe that there is one god, who is the same in each.

God isn't the same in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Like I stated before, according to Judaism, Christians worship an idol. The doctrines on God are quite different in Judaism and Islam than they are in Christianity. The only thing that the gods have in common are names and traditions. The actual doctrines of the deities, the definition, is quite different. If you think two things are the same because they share the same name or etymology, you're quite mistaken.


Christians do not worship a different god, but rather follow the teachings of a different figure (Jesus of Nazareth) about the nature and will of that god.


The majority of Christian worship Jesus as God. They don't simply follow the teachings of a prophet who taught that God had a different nature, like Muslims do. This is part of why Christianity is considered idolatry in Judaism and why Jews believe Christians don't worship the same God we do. Its also why many Muslims consider Christians infidels rather than dhimmi, because they worship a man who is distinct from their deity.

Muslims reject Christianity, believing that Jesus was merely a prophet, and not the actual Son of God/avatar of God. They follow the teachings of the prophet Mohammed. They believe that the Trinity is polytheism. However, they still claim descent from Abraham, and still claim the same god as him.

If you admit that Muslims reject Christian polytheism, you've just refuted yourself. Just because they claim the same deity does not mean that it IS the same deity, there is a big difference.

I personally am not religious, but I am a student of history, and I do know that Muslims do not reject the god of Christianity and Judaism (with the exception of rejecting that Jesus was that god or even the son of that god), they merely reject the practices of those religions.

You've just contradicted yourself again. Muslims don't reject the god of Christianity except for rejecting Jesus as being God (who is the god of Christianity)?


You can argue logic for as long as you want, but the fact remains that historically all three of those religions share the same god.

You havn't been able to address the logic. So far, everything I've stated is logically sound. If we evaluate theology, we should be using logic. The fact remains, that by definition, they are different deities. The definitions of each deity is exclusive and conflicting, and thus they can not be the same. To say that they are is illogical, because it violates the logical law of noncontradiction.

Now, its great that you're a student of history. You're only partially correct when you say that historically they all share the same God. The God that is worshiped in these three religions has the same etymology and historical origin. This does not mean that they historically all share a God, only that their God shares the same origin and root word/concept. Throughout history, these concepts have changed and created radically different gods with different definitions.

For example, do Jews share the same god as ancient pagans because we use terms like Adonai and El-Shaddai that were originally used to refer to pagan deities in a pantheon? Most people would say no. We've simply taken those names and attributed it to our deity, we don't worship the same pagan deities that were worshipped by the Sumerians under those same names.

The use of a common name, tradition, historical origin, etymology, etc. of a belief does not mean that it is the same tradition or belief. It simply means that it has the same origin or etymology. The Christian Jehovah is radically different from the Jewish Jehovah, regardless of the fact that they have the same names. This is due to the fact they have different and conflicting definitions.

I'm also tired of hearing about flies and cars. These analogies so far have been fallacious, they commit the fallacy of questionable/false analogy. For an analogy to be valid, two things must be similiar enough for something to be inferred about the latter from the former. Cars and flies aren't similiar enough to deities in world religions and people to make a valid analogy.

Let's call Y viewed from perspective 1 Y1, followed by Y2 and Y3 ( you get the idea, and I'm in a hurry, for it wont do to miss a family dinner ).

You have to allow for the possibility that the worshipped object is not Y, but that in fact the object of worship is Y1, ie, not Y, but exactly Y as viewed from perspective 1, and no other viewpoint at all, nor from an objective POV either.


Sir, my math is not flawed. You're ( imho ) led astray by your insistence on objectivity ( which I consider a paradoxical thing when entering the realm of metaphysics ). My argument rests upon the impossibility of objectivity in the case of theology!

If your argument rests upon the "impossibility of objectivity in the case of theology" why do you perpetuate a 'proof' that implies an empirical ability to assign values?

The whole point is - If you see O from one point, it looks like a circle. See it from another point, it's clearly an ellipse. Seen from a third point, it can ONLY be a line.

Three visions stemming from the same object, altered ONLY by perspective.

But it would be madness to claim the three visions were actually different things.

God isn't the same in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Like I stated before, according to Judaism, Christians worship an idol.


Wrong... according to Judaism, Christians worship an idol in ADDITION to the true god... and they think this process perverts the worship of the true god.

The doctrines on God are quite different in Judaism and Islam than they are in Christianity.


Doctrines are not the flesh of gods.

The only thing that the gods have in common are names and traditions.


And the 'nature' of the God.

The actual doctrines of the deities, the definition, is quite different.

You are confusing what is CLAIMED by man, with the nature of God. Doctrine is shaped by perspective... by our interface with God.

I didn't say anything about false prophets or idols. I am talking, as you were, about actual "other" gods.

Have you ever heard the story of the 3 blind men and the elephant? It goes essentially like this:

3 blind men who have never been around an elephant are brought to where they can be in contact with one. The first blind man walks towards the elephant from the rear and grips its tail. He calls out to the other two, "This animal is much like a snake, with an end like a broom." The second approaches from the side, and comes in contact with the leg of the animal. He calls out, "You are crazy. This animal is much like a tree, large and round and rough to the touch." The third man approached from the front, and came in contact with the ear of the elephant. He called out, "You are both wrong. This animal is much like a large fan. There is nothing like a tree or snake here."

Which of them was correct? Which was wrong? Were they all touching the same elephant? When it comes down to it, none of them were wrong, or fully correct, and they were all touching the exact same animal.

You may believe, as I do, that Christians have touched more of the elphant (to keep with the metaphor), but that does not mean that Jews and Muslims are not observing the same one.

I enjoy stories like this.

There are a few problems with using stories like this and the analogy of the flies, etc. to evaluate this situation

1. This assumes that there is an original source that gave an experience directly to all three religions.
a. This doesn't take into account the possibility that there is no original source, or God.
b. It doesn't take into account the possibility that God gave revelation to only one group, and that the other two simply modified the doctrine.

When you evaluate the situation based on definition alone, you can avoid these pitfalls. If we define what God is and is not in all three religions, we see that the definitions of God are different. Therefore, by definition, the God is different in all three as well. There is no need to make any assumptions, like the existence of God or that God gave all three/only one group revelation.

Wrong... according to Judaism, Christians worship an idol in ADDITION to the true god... and they think this process perverts the worship of the true god.

According to the Talmud, you can't worship God and an idol. This is why Christians worship an idol alone, and not an idol in addition to the God we worship. That is what the sages ruled on a scripture that went something like, "If you serve baal, serve baal, if you serve the God if Israel, serve him"

I hope you're Jewish to be telling me what we believe.

Wrong... according to Judaism, Christians worship an idol in ADDITION to the true god... and they think this process perverts the worship of the true god.

Doctrines are not the flesh of gods.

And the 'nature' of the God.

You are confusing what is CLAIMED by man, with the nature of God. Doctrine is shaped by perspective... by our interface with God.

Your position requires the assumption that there IS an object that was viewed and then described differently by different witnesses. For your conclusion to be reached, that they all viewed the same original source, we must assume two things, one, that the object cannot control how it is revealed and two, that it actually existed and was witnessed on at least three different occasions.

According to the Talmud, you can't worship God and an idol. This is why Christians worship an idol alone, and not an idol in addition to the God we worship. That is what the sages ruled on a scripture that went something like, "If you serve baal, serve baal, if you serve the God if Israel, serve him"

I hope you're Jewish to be telling me what we believe.

I'm an Atheist, but I have Jewish family.

I appreciate that you can't have 'another god'... but if it wasn't for that pesky Jesus fellow, the God would be the same - as I said - it is the Jesus element of the story that perverts the concept. (After all, it is the Jesus element of the story that 'detracts' from Torah.

I hope you're Jewish to be telling me what we believe.

I'm Jewish ... can I tell you what you believe? :D

Go forth and worship plums. Yes, plums. Go.

Go forth and worship plums.
The Plum (http://web1.msue.msu.edu/vanburen/pclarva.jpg) has been tainted!

Who cares what invisible imaginary sky-daddy they pray to. The voices in their heads cause more trouble than their worth.

I'm feeling kind of disgusted with religion lately.


You too, eh?

The Plum (http://web1.msue.msu.edu/vanburen/pclarva.jpg) has been tainted!

SATAN!

For your conclusion to be reached, that they all viewed the same original source, we must assume two things, one, that the object cannot control how it is revealed and two, that it actually existed and was witnessed on at least three different occasions.
If you're assuming that the object exists, isn't the uncontrolability of observation a reasonable follow-up assumption? After all, what single entity in the entire of existence can choose to suddenly appear to other people through sheer will? Nothing has that degree of control either over an observer's senses or spatial location; everything is governed by causality.

Your position requires the assumption that there IS an object that was viewed and then described differently by different witnesses. For your conclusion to be reached, that they all viewed the same original source, we must assume two things, one, that the object cannot control how it is revealed and two, that it actually existed and was witnessed on at least three different occasions.

No, no... not at all.

All that is necessarily assumed is that the concept is introduced, one time, and that further iterations of that concept may be conceived based on that first concept.

My personal opinion is that Judaism was actually an artifact, based on even earlier ideas, and reinforced by cross-pollination from other concepts. Islam and Christianity, I see as being just continued variations on a theme.

So - I don't feel any need for a source to have existed in any 'real' way... the evolutionary perspective process works with, or without, the subject being 'real'.

What people are saying is believing in different gods is not that, but actually different beliefs in god. There is a difference. The Christians generally believe themselves to be worshipping the same gods as the Jews, and so therefore they are. They just have different beliefs in it. They believe that Jesus is that/is part of/is distinct from (ach the trinity concept is completely fucked up if you ask me) that same god. The still believe in that god, especially as they split off/moved out of from Judiasm, and not because they decided that they had found that the Jewish god didnt exist and they found the real one, but because they felt they had discovered the true nature of that same god the Jews served. Think about it, if there is this one God, and it is the Jewish one, both the Jews, the Muslims and Christians all worship him, they just believe different things about what that god is like. Believeing in different forms of that God, even completely contradictory ones does not make it a different god you are worshipping.

Otherwise you just get to the stage where you are arguing everyone is worshipping their own seperate god, as almost everyone has different ideas of what the god is like.

No, no... not at all.

All that is necessarily assumed is that the concept is introduced, one time, and that further iterations of that concept may be conceived based on that first concept.

My personal opinion is that Judaism was actually an artifact, based on even earlier ideas, and reinforced by cross-pollination from other concepts. Islam and Christianity, I see as being just continued variations on a theme.

So - I don't feel any need for a source to have existed in any 'real' way... the evolutionary perspective process works with, or without, the subject being 'real'.


At, but the evolutionary speciation has separated the blue bird from the eagle, and neither is the dinosaur with feathers that they both originate from.

At, but the evolutionary speciation has separated the blue bird from the eagle, and neither is the dinosaur with feathers that they both originate from.

You extend your metaphor a little too far.

Judaism is Malus domestica, Christianity is a Braeburn, and Islam is a Red Astrachan.

All three are apples... all three are derived from the root 'malus' stock... but Braeburn and Red Astrachan have spent centuries becoming more and more specialised.

At heart, though... they are really just crabapples with fancy manners.

What people are saying is believing in different gods is not that, but actually different beliefs in god. There is a difference. The Christians generally believe themselves to be worshipping the same gods as the Jews, and so therefore they are.

Hindus believe that everything is a part of Brahma, and that by practicing any religion you are worshipping Brahma. Jesus has also become a figure of worship in Hinduism. Does that mean that Hindus worship the same God as Jews now, because they believe themselves to be? Because Hindus believe that Jesus is Brahma, that means that its the case?

Keep in mind that these aren't different beliefs in some vague god figure. Each religion has a clearly defined doctrine about God, with distinct characteristics and nature. Because the God in each of these three religions doesn't share the same characteristics as the next, it doesn't make sense to say that its the same deity.

They just have different beliefs in it. They believe that Jesus is that/is part of/is distinct from (ach the trinity concept is completely fucked up if you ask me) that same god.

Think about it, if there is this one God, and it is the Jewish one, both the Jews, the Muslims and Christians all worship him, they just believe different things about what that god is like. Believeing in different forms of that God, even completely contradictory ones does not make it a different god you are worshipping.

If there is one God, and its the Jewish one, then that would mean Christians are idolators and do not worship God because that is what Judaism teaches. Judaism is an exclusive religion when it comes to Christianity, and if one is true then the other must be false. Their doctrines, and their deities, make them incompatable.

And yes, two contradictory definitions does equal two different things. You can't logically define one thing in two opposing ways for the same context.

You extend your metaphor a little too far.

Judaism is Malus domestica, Christianity is a Braeburn, and Islam is a Red Astrachan.

All three are apples... all three are derived from the root 'malus' stock... but Braeburn and Red Astrachan have spent centuries becoming more and more specialised.

At heart, though... they are really just crabapples with fancy manners.

That is the crux of the posit though, I don’t think the metaphor went to far at all.

Where the apple must remain an apple after any number of generations, religions are not apples, they CAN fall far from the tree (Pun and beyond intended), meaning that they are not required to have the same characteristics of their predecessors that they spawned from, i.e., they can choose their own form and don’t have to remain limited to apple types. The offspring you refer to when you talk of Christianity from Jew and Islam from Jew, in this analogy, is the offspring/product are not restricted to remaining apples like their ancestor was/is/were. The form of each religion defines itself and qualifies it's own definitions of God, they are not equal to each other nor even need to be regarded as relatives to each other because there isn’t a genetic heritage involved restricting their definition of self.

That is the crux of the posit though, I don’t think the metaphor went to far at all.

Where the apple must remain an apple after any number of generations, religions are not apples, they CAN fall far from the tree (Pun and beyond intended), meaning that they are not required to have the same characteristics of their predecessors that they spawned from, i.e., they can choose their own form and don’t have to remain limited to apple types. The offspring you refer to when you talk of Christianity from Jew and Islam from Jew, in this analogy, is the offspring/product are not restricted to remaining apples like their ancestor was/is/were. The form of each religion defines itself and qualifies it's own definitions of God, they are not equal to each other nor even need to be regarded as relatives to each other because there isn’t a genetic heritage involved restricting their definition of self.

And, I see the error being that you confuse 'god' with 'religion'.

Originally Posted by DubyaGoat
That is the crux of the posit though, I don’t think the metaphor went to far at all.

Where the apple must remain an apple after any number of generations, religions are not apples, they CAN fall far from the tree (Pun and beyond intended), meaning that they are not required to have the same characteristics of their predecessors that they spawned from, i.e., they can choose their own form and don’t have to remain limited to apple types. The offspring you refer to when you talk of Christianity from Jew and Islam from Jew, in this analogy, is the offspring/product are not restricted to remaining apples like their ancestor was/is/were. The form of each religion defines itself and qualifies it's own definitions of God, they are not equal to each other nor even need to be regarded as relatives to each other because there isn’t a genetic heritage involved restricting their definition of self.
And, I see the error being that you confuse 'god' with 'religion'.
It sounds to me more like he is implying an "error" (to use another analogy) -- like when you make copies of something, the copy is never exact and subsequent copies become less and less exact until the later version is no longer the same as the original version.

The argument seems to be that there is an original concept of god and that this concept is defined by a religion. Then different religions pick up that same concept but, because they are not the original, they are necessarily different. The base assumption seems to be that that it is not possible for there to be different paths to the same god. So if there are different paths, there must necessarily be different gods -- one per path. Thus, even if Islam starts out with the Judaic god, just by virtue of being in the Islamic religion, this god becomes transformed into something else. Like a copy of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa. If you make art out of your copy then you have a whole new thing that has nothing to do with whatever you started with.

In the apple analogy, we have to accept the underlying "apple-ness" of all three versions. This different faiths = different gods argument seems to be rejecting that.

And, I see the error being that you confuse 'god' with 'religion'.

Aha, but not actual. Are you assuming a 'real' God definition after asserting for your own belief that there is no God? Outside of religion and their own definition of the God they worship, which God would you care to define for this discussion? Can you have it both ways? No real God and a God not defined by the religion that worships it? I don't think so. But nice try.

I didn't say anything about false prophets or idols. I am talking, as you were, about actual "other" gods.

Have you ever heard the story of the 3 blind men and the elephant? It goes essentially like this:

3 blind men who have never been around an elephant are brought to where they can be in contact with one. The first blind man walks towards the elephant from the rear and grips its tail. He calls out to the other two, "This animal is much like a snake, with an end like a broom." The second approaches from the side, and comes in contact with the leg of the animal. He calls out, "You are crazy. This animal is much like a tree, large and round and rough to the touch." The third man approached from the front, and came in contact with the ear of the elephant. He called out, "You are both wrong. This animal is much like a large fan. There is nothing like a tree or snake here."

Which of them was correct? Which was wrong? Were they all touching the same elephant? When it comes down to it, none of them were wrong, or fully correct, and they were all touching the exact same animal.

You may believe, as I do, that Christians have touched more of the elphant (to keep with the metaphor), but that does not mean that Jews and Muslims are not observing the same one.

In this view, even the Christians have seen the entire elephant and are right that it's an elephant and the Muslims and Jews are wrong that it's a snake or a tree doesn't mean they aren't still describing the same animal. No matter how you slice, being wrong about God doesn't make it a different God.

Unless of course you're trying to take on an air of superiority over your 'lesser' brethren, as seems to be so prevalent on this forum.

Hindus believe that everything is a part of Brahma, and that by practicing any religion you are worshipping Brahma. Jesus has also become a figure of worship in Hinduism. Does that mean that Hindus worship the same God as Jews now, because they believe themselves to be? Because Hindus believe that Jesus is Brahma, that means that its the case?

Well, that is a different case, as that is an established religion that has incorporated another religion's firgures into itself, rather than a religion that has developed out of another, but to a degree, it could be said that they worship the same god, yes.


Keep in mind that these aren't different beliefs in some vague god figure. Each religion has a clearly defined doctrine about God, with distinct characteristics and nature. Because the God in each of these three religions doesn't share the same characteristics as the next, it doesn't make sense to say that its the same deity.

That is WHAT god is, not WHO he/she/it is.


If there is one God, and its the Jewish one, then that would mean Christians are idolators and do not worship God because that is what Judaism teaches. Judaism is an exclusive religion when it comes to Christianity, and if one is true then the other must be false.

By the "Jewish God" I meant the "one god" that all three of those religions believe in, rather than another religion might have a "one god" belief that is completely seperate. And again, what you said is not true, at least in some outcomes of the whole "if there is a god what form does he take?" question. If the Christian interpretation is right, for example, then the Jewish God exists (as they believe they worship the same God, and so if they are "right", they do), but that the form that God takes is the one suggested by them.

Their doctrines, and their deities, make them incompatable.

It is their doctrines of what their deities that make the religions incompatible, and yes, even the form of god, but not which god is god.


And yes, two contradictory definitions does equal two different things. You can't logically define one thing in two opposing ways for the same context.

Well, it can if holders of the two differing definitions cannot know for certain if either is true. If you believe something exists, but cannot know for certain what it is like, someone else can believe in the same thing, but define it to be completely different. This applis even if you know that it is exists, but dont know for certain what form something takes.

Aha, but not actual. Are you assuming a 'real' God definition after asserting for your own belief that there is no God? Outside of religion and their own definition of the God they worship, which God would you care to define for this discussion? Can you have it both ways? No real God and a God not defined by the religion that worships it? I don't think so. But nice try.

Do all Christians worship the same God in your opinion?

Which traditional Christian viewpoint are you thinking of that doesn't include teaching about avoiding false prophets and/or idols or the worship of false gods?
Does this mean that when you say "different faiths = different gods" you are really saying "non-Christian = false"?

I just like to be clear about what the argument really is. How people understand the nature of god is one debate topic. Whether there are any legitimate gods/religions other than yours is a different topic.

You assume the elephant can't talk.

Edit: I should say, your story/analogy assumes the elephant can't talk.
Elephants can't talk.

Your comment seems to assume that what is being observed/experienced not only can talk but will and does. You seem to be further assuming that it only has one thing to say, so if anyone hears something different, then they weren't hearing the "elephant."

That is WHAT god is, not WHO he/she/it is.
Brief point; I'd have thought that the three monotheisms were more focused on the Who than the What. Each makes several clear attempts to apply personal traits to the divine, and it's these aspects in which they primarily differ.

Similarly, would I be vastly wrong in saying that the big influence on one's opinion on this depends on how you view the notion of personal relationship with God? It seems as though those likely to separate the three put more emphasis on his character than his state of being, whereas those who unify the three think of God in a more conceptual sense.

You assume the elephant can't talk.

Edit: I should say, your story/analogy assumes the elephant can't talk.

Yes, but even if the elephant can talk and tell them it's an elephant and they ignore it, they are still describing the elephant as they see it. They're just wrong.

It sounds to me more like he is implying an "error" (to use another analogy) -- like when you make copies of something, the copy is never exact and subsequent copies become less and less exact until the later version is no longer the same as the original version.

The argument seems to be that there is an original concept of god and that this concept is defined by a religion. Then different religions pick up that same concept but, because they are not the original, they are necessarily different. The base assumption seems to be that that it is not possible for there to be different paths to the same god. So if there are different paths, there must necessarily be different gods -- one per path. Thus, even if Islam starts out with the Judaic god, just by virtue of being in the Islamic religion, this god becomes transformed into something else. Like a copy of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa. If you make art out of your copy then you have a whole new thing that has nothing to do with whatever you started with.

In the apple analogy, we have to accept the underlying "apple-ness" of all three versions. This different faiths = different gods argument seems to be rejecting that.

Allah might 'look' different to Yahweh. The God of the New Testament might 'look different' to the Hebrew version... but, they are all three the same entity, deep down.

It can be argued that a religion is all about DESCRIBING god... but, that doesn't mean that religion DETERMINES god.

If there were ONE god, it wouldn't matter how different religions described him/her/it... it would still be the same entity... just described differently, no?

You assume the elephant can't talk.

Edit: I should say, your story/analogy assumes the elephant can't talk.

I assume no such thing. God does and can talk. However, we, as fallible human beings, will never fully comprehend God. We can only attempt to get as close as possible.


There are a few problems with using stories like this and the analogy of the flies, etc. to evaluate this situation

1. This assumes that there is an original source that gave an experience directly to all three religions.
a. This doesn't take into account the possibility that there is no original source, or God.

It doesn't have to. The fact that we are talking about God at all assumes God's existence. If there is no God, then no religion worships any God.

b. It doesn't take into account the possibility that God gave revelation to only one group, and that the other two simply modified the doctrine.

Maybe not. That might be because I believe that all human beings can have a personal relationship with God.

When you evaluate the situation based on definition alone, you can avoid these pitfalls. If we define what God is and is not in all three religions, we see that the definitions of God are different. Therefore, by definition, the God is different in all three as well. There is no need to make any assumptions, like the existence of God or that God gave all three/only one group revelation.

God is not defined by what humans think of God, any more than I am defined by what you think of me. You may think of me as a short, dark-skinned man with a mohawk, but that is not what I am.

Aha, but not actual. Are you assuming a 'real' God definition after asserting for your own belief that there is no God? Outside of religion and their own definition of the God they worship, which God would you care to define for this discussion? Can you have it both ways? No real God and a God not defined by the religion that worships it? I don't think so. But nice try.

First - you misquote me. I have not said "there is no God".

I have an 'absence of belief' on the matter, not a 'belief of absence'.

If we argue gods as 'real', then the 'real' god described in Torah, is also described in the New Testament, and the Koran. Thus - we have just one god.

If we argue that gods are 'not real', then we have a concept generated my the Hebrews, and borrowed by the Christians and the Muslims. Thus - we STILL have just one 'god'.

Allah might 'look' different to Yahweh. The God of the New Testament might 'look different' to the Hebrew version... but, they are all three the same entity, deep down.

It can be argued that a religion is all about DESCRIBING god... but, that doesn't mean that religion DETERMINES god.

If there were ONE god, it wouldn't matter how different religions described him/her/it... it would still be the same entity... just described differently, no?

Yes, I always find this argument amusing. If we assume there is a God and I, of course, do, then any religion trying to explain the purposes and design of that God are wrong or right, but they must by definition all be describing the same God. If you and I describe the donkey that carried Jesus, you can describe it as a black donkey and I can call it a horse, and someone else can call it a pig, but we are all undeniably describing the same creature. It's just that some or all of us are wrong in the description of that creature that carried Jesus into town.

For your conclusion to be reached, that they all viewed the same original source, we must assume two things, one, that the object cannot control how it is revealed and two, that it actually existed and was witnessed on at least three different occasions.

You leave out a possible assumption - one backed up in the doctrines of all three religions being discussed - the doctrine that human perception is fallible - that we are imperfect beings trying to comprehend that which is perfect.

And I'm not talking about 3 different occasions. Every human being can witness God, and will put that through their own perception and try to define it. So we are looking at as many possible witnesses as there are human beings.

In this view, even the Christians have seen the entire elephant and are right that it's an elephant and the Muslims and Jews are wrong that it's a snake or a tree doesn't mean they aren't still describing the same animal. No matter how you slice, being wrong about God doesn't make it a different God.

Unless of course you're trying to take on an air of superiority over your 'lesser' brethren, as seems to be so prevalent on this forum.

I would say that no human being has actually seen the entire elephant - that we should all keep exploring to try and see its entirety, but that is my opinion.

On the rest of it, this is exactly what I was getting at.


Hindus believe that everything is a part of Brahma, and that by practicing any religion you are worshipping Brahma. Jesus has also become a figure of worship in Hinduism. Does that mean that Hindus worship the same God as Jews now, because they believe themselves to be? Because Hindus believe that Jesus is Brahma, that means that its the case?

According to you, God is defined solely by human defiinitions. Therefore, if the Hindus believe that Jesus is Jehova is Yahweh is Allah is Brahma, then this is true, precisely because they have defined it as such.

If, on the other hand, God is not limited by human definition....

And yes, two contradictory definitions does equal two different things.

But the religions themselves say that they are worshipping the same God. Thus, by your own logic, they are worshipping the same God, because they define it as such.

Allah might 'look' different to Yahweh. The God of the New Testament might 'look different' to the Hebrew version... but, they are all three the same entity, deep down.

It can be argued that a religion is all about DESCRIBING god... but, that doesn't mean that religion DETERMINES god.

If there were ONE god, it wouldn't matter how different religions described him/her/it... it would still be the same entity... just described differently, no?
I agree with you. I was just trying to follow Dubyagoat's argument. He starts out by saying all three monotheisms start from the same source, but ends by saying they worship different gods. I think the copy analogy explains that reasoning.

But I also think he's wrong. All three monotheisms worship the same god: Mithra. :D

According to you, God is defined solely by human defiinitions. Therefore, if the Hindus believe that Jesus is Jehova is Yahweh is Allah is Brahma, then this is true, precisely because they have defined it as such.

If, on the other hand, God is not limited by human definition....

But the religions themselves say that they are worshipping the same God. Thus, by your own logic, they are worshipping the same God, because they define it as such.

I never stated that God is defined by human definitions.

Of course, every definition that exists in any human language is a human definition. You can't understand God, or any other concept in language, without a definition. To discuss things outside of human definitions is going to get you on the slippery slope of being illogical.

Furthermore, if God is as the Koran, NT, or Torah states, then God defined Himself in a human context with human definitions. So any person adhering to any of these three religions should have no problem giving a human definition to God, since that is what the religious texts do.

And no, the religions don't say that they are worshipping the same God. Like I just got done saying, Christianity is idolatry according to Judaism. We do not believe that Christians worship the same God we do. Furtermore, many a Muslim do not believe that Christians and Jews worship the same God they do. The same can be said of Christianity, where many Christians (as we've seen in this thread, for example) do not believe that Muslims worship the same God they do.

Even if they did, it wouldn't make it the case, and I never said it would. In fact, I argued against that point. Unless the definitions of God in each religion match, then they worship different deities. You can go back to "oh, but they are human definitions" all you like, but the definitions suppossedly come from the religions, i.e. a divine source, rather than a human one.

I never stated that God is defined by human definitions.

Of course, every definition that exists in any human language is a human definition. You can't understand God, or any other concept in language, without a definition. To discuss things outside of human definitions is going to get you on the slippery slope of being illogical.

Furthermore, if God is as the Koran, NT, or Torah states, then God defined Himself in a human context with human definitions. So any person adhering to any of these three religions should have no problem giving a human definition to God, since that is what the religious texts do.

And no, the religions don't say that they are worshipping the same God. Like I just got done saying, Christianity is idolatry according to Judaism. We do not believe that Christians worship the same God we do. Furtermore, many a Muslim do not believe that Christians and Jews worship the same God they do. The same can be said of Christianity, where many Christians (as we've seen in this thread, for example) do not believe that Muslims worship the same God they do.

Even if they did, it wouldn't make it the case, and I never said it would. In fact, I argued against that point. Unless the definitions of God in each religion match, then they worship different deities. You can go back to "oh, but they are human definitions" all you like, but the definitions suppossedly come from the religions, i.e. a divine source, rather than a human one.
They all believe in 1 god. Therefor they must all believe in the same god. They just ascribe different capabilities (for lack of a better word) to him.

They all believe in 1 god. Therefor they must all believe in the same god. They just ascribe different capabilities (for lack of a better word) to him.

A belief in one God doesn't mean that they all believe in the same God. By your reasoning, every monotheistic religion believes in the same God. It just doesn't work.

What if I believe in the flying spaghetti monster as one God? Does that mean I believe in the same God as Zoroastrians? Is Ahura Mazda the same God as Jesus?

I would say that no human being has actually seen the entire elephant - that we should all keep exploring to try and see its entirety, but that is my opinion.

On the rest of it, this is exactly what I was getting at.
The point is that it doesn't matter if a particular brand of Christianity, namely DubyaGoat's brand (which I find HIGHLY suspect), is absolutely correct, that only makes the other relgions wrong. However, an religion that acknowledges that a single being that created and controls the universe is clearly describing right or wrong that single being that created and controls the universe.

If Christians and Muslims truly worshipped the same god, then Muslims would be saved by the Christian god. There is no mention of this in the Bible.

The Qu'ran, however, states that good Christians and Jews will be saved (tell that to al-Qaeda).

The point is really moot: the important question is which religion is right.

I never stated that God is defined by human definitions.

Yes, you did. Every time you say that, because human beings ascribe different definitions, they are worshipping different dieties, you have stated that God is defined by human beings, rather than by God's own existence.

And no, the religions don't say that they are worshipping the same God. Like I just got done saying, Christianity is idolatry according to Judaism.

No, worshipping Christ or seeing him as the Messiah is idolatry. Worship of YHWH is not - and, hate to break it to you, but Christians worship YHWH.

When it comes right down to it, Christianity is Judaism. The difference is that Christians believe we have found the Messiah, while Jews are still waiting.

We do not believe that Christians worship the same God we do.

You may not believe it, but the general doctrines of your religion would state otherwise. Unless, of course, there is more than one YHWH?

Furtermore, many a Muslim do not believe that Christians and Jews worship the same God they do. The same can be said of Christianity, where many Christians (as we've seen in this thread, for example) do not believe that Muslims worship the same God they do.

Most of that has to do with them not actually knowing anything about the other religion, except for, "Those are those other guys." It also has to do with the false proposition that God is defined by humans, rather than by God's own existence.

A belief in one God doesn't mean that they all believe in the same God. By your reasoning, every monotheistic religion believes in the same God. It just doesn't work.

What if I believe in the flying spaghetti monster as one God? Does that mean I believe in the same God as Zoroastrians? Is Ahura Mazda the same God as Jesus?

I think it would depend on some basic definitions. If you are all talking about the creator and master of the universe and everything in it, I think it would be clear that everyone describing that creator are talking about the same being and simply describing it differently.

You leave out a possible assumption - one backed up in the doctrines of all three religions being discussed - the doctrine that human perception is fallible - that we are imperfect beings trying to comprehend that which is perfect.

And I'm not talking about 3 different occasions. Every human being can witness God, and will put that through their own perception and try to define it. So we are looking at as many possible witnesses as there are human beings.



I would say that no human being has actually seen the entire elephant - that we should all keep exploring to try and see its entirety, but that is my opinion.

On the rest of it, this is exactly what I was getting at.



According to you, God is defined solely by human defiinitions. Therefore, if the Hindus believe that Jesus is Jehova is Yahweh is Allah is Brahma, then this is true, precisely because they have defined it as such.

If, on the other hand, God is not limited by human definition....



But the religions themselves say that they are worshipping the same God. Thus, by your own logic, they are worshipping the same God, because they define it as such.

The elephant metaphor does not work in this case, because of the first assumption: that each has touched the same being, that is, each has touched part of the elephant.

A more apt analogy would be that three blind men are walking through a park. One touched a bee, and got stung. Another touched a cat, and got scratched. And the third touched a dog, and got licked. And someone talking to all three assumed that they each touched part of the same thing, when in fact they did not, and tried to come up with a single animal that embodied all three qualities.

Reminds me of the times that I have been walking down the street, and someone has called out the name of one of my younger brothers, thinking that I am he. But once they get closer, they realize their error. I wear glasses, he does not. My hair is black with grey patches, his is brown with blonde patches. My eyes are brown, his are green. He is one inch taller. His ass is flat, and mine is not. Etc, etc, etc. But for a few moments, someone thought that we were one and the same person.

No matter how many times this occurs, we are still two different and distinct individuals.

And no matter how many times people try to ignore the contradictory aspects of the God they claim to worship, that it is one and the same God. Not so.

Even if we go by the elephant analogy, if the important aspect of a religion is what that religion says about God, then contradictory and mutually exclusive statements cannot be reconciled by saying that one or more misunderstood some aspect of God.

And if there is a real God, then one or more religion is saying what is actually true about God, and the others are not.

Either way, they are not the same God.

I could probably say all this better, but I gotta go. Nature calls.

It is impossible for us to determine whether or not two religions worship the same gods. The only person who can accurately determine that is God. Anyone have him on speed dial?

The elephant metaphor does not work in this case, because of the first assumption: that each has touched the same being, that is, each has touched part of the elephant.

A more apt analogy would be that three blind men are walking through a park. One touched a bee, and got stung. Another touched a cat, and got scratched. And the third touched a dog, and got licked. And someone talking to all three assumed that they each touched part of the same thing, when in fact they did not, and tried to come up with a single animal that embodied all three qualities.

Reminds me of the times that I have been walking down the street, and someone has called out the name of one of my younger brothers, thinking that I am he. But once they get closer, they realize their error. I wear glasses, he does not. My hair is black with grey patches, his is brown with blonde patches. My eyes are brown, his are green. He is one inch taller. His ass is flat, and mine is not. Etc, etc, etc. But for a few moments, someone thought that we were one and the same person.

No matter how many times this occurs, we are still two different and distinct individuals.

And no matter how many times people try to ignore the contradictory aspects of the God they claim to worship, that it is one and the same God. Not so.

Even if we go by the elephant analogy, if the important aspect of a religion is what that religion says about God, then contradictory and mutually exclusive statements cannot be reconciled by saying that one or more misunderstood some aspect of God.

And if there is a real God, then one or more religion is saying what is actually true about God, and the others are not.

Either way, they are not the same God.

I could probably say all this better, but I gotta go. Nature calls.

That cannot possibly be true, however. See they all started from the same religion. Unless that religion was false, in which case Christianity MUST be, by definition, then all three religions MUST be talking about the same God since the description was correct at one point. There was no point where Christianity chose a different God, where Judaism chose a different God or Muslims chose a different God. All that was chosen was how they viewed the same God.

Can you tell me when exactly Christianity decided to worship a different God? I don't recall that occurring, but feel free to explain to me where this new God came from.

The elephant metaphor does not work in this case, because of the first assumption: that each has touched the same being, that is, each has touched part of the elephant.

A more apt analogy would be that three blind men are walking through a park. One touched a bee, and got stung. Another touched a cat, and got scratched. And the third touched a dog, and got licked. And someone talking to all three assumed that they each touched part of the same thing, when in fact they did not, and tried to come up with a single animal that embodied all three qualities.

So you are arguing that there exist at least three Gods? Sorry. Polytheism isn't my thing.

And no matter how many times people try to ignore the contradictory aspects of the God they claim to worship, that it is one and the same God. Not so.

Even if we go by the elephant analogy, if the important aspect of a religion is what that religion says about God, then contradictory and mutually exclusive statements cannot be reconciled by saying that one or more misunderstood some aspect of God.

If one person says that I have blue eyes, and another that I have green, and yet another that they are hazel, does that mean there exist three of me? Or does it mean that someone saw my eyes in the wrong light and mistook the color for something else? Or, could it mean that my eyes are all three, simply at different times?

And if there is a real God, then one or more religion is saying what is actually true about God, and the others are not.

Not necessarily. Every religion could have some things right and some things wrong.

Either way, they are not the same God.

This is only true if God does not actually exist, and is only defined by the characteristics that humans place upon God.

Yes, you did. Every time you say that, because human beings ascribe different definitions, they are worshipping different dieties, you have stated that God is defined by human beings, rather than by God's own existence.

The religions don't state that human beings ascribe different definitions. They state that their religion-specific definition is the absolutely correct one and is the result of divine inspiration or revelation. If one religion is correct in its definition, then its definition is divine and the rest of them are false and manmade. In any case, only the one with the correct definition can be said to be worshipping the correct God. The rest of them have created false gods based on the original revelation.


No, worshipping Christ or seeing him as the Messiah is idolatry. Worship of YHWH is not - and, hate to break it to you, but Christians worship YHWH.

Yes, the worship of Jesus is idolatry. The majority of Christians do worship Jesus worldwide. Its the minor denominations today that don't attribute divinity to Jesus. To attribute divinity to Jesus in any way is idolatry. This is what the sages have outlined, for example, in the first chapter of Maimonide's Guide for the Perplexed. Its simply a tenant of Judaism. This is why most Christians, according to us, are idolators.

When it comes right down to it, Christianity is Judaism. The difference is that Christians believe we have found the Messiah, while Jews are still waiting.

No it isn't. Unless a Christian has been born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism as outlined in the Torah, then they aren't Jewish. Virtually none of the practices and traditions of Christianity are rooted in Judaism anymore. Christians don't keep the sabbath, holidays, the mitzvot, or any other such thing as outlined in Judaism. But most importantly, they aren't Jews, and thus can not practice Judaism. In fact, according to Judaism, the Talmud, etc. if you are a Jew that converts to Christianity you lose your Jewish status and heritage. You are no longer Jewish. You can't even move to the state of Israel under the law of return at that point.

You may not believe it, but the general doctrines of your religion would state otherwise. Unless, of course, there is more than one YHWH?

No, they don't. Judaism teaches that Christians do not worship the same God we do. See Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, he starts on it in the very first chapter. The sages have really ruled that Christians dont worship the same God we do.

Most of that has to do with them not actually knowing anything about the other religion, except for, "Those are those other guys." It also has to do with the false proposition that God is defined by humans, rather than by God's own existence.

If the God of one of the three monotheistic religions is true, then the definition of God in one of those three monotheistic religions is true. It isn't a definition of humans, but rather a definition given by God through divine revelation. It only takes one definition to be true to demonstrate that they don't worship the same God, because each definition is different and in contradiction with the next.

The religions don't state that human beings ascribe different definitions. They state that their religion-specific definition is the absolutely correct one and is the result of divine inspiration or revelation. If one religion is correct in its definition, then its definition is divine and the rest of them are false and manmade. In any case, only the one with the correct definition can be said to be worshipping the correct God. The rest of them have created false gods based on the original revelation.



Yes, the worship of Jesus is idolatry. The majority of Christians do worship Jesus worldwide. Its the minor denominations today that don't attribute divinity to Jesus. To attribute divinity to Jesus in any way is idolatry. This is what the sages have outlined, for example, in the first chapter of Maimonide's Guide for the Perplexed. Its simply a tenant of Judaism. This is why most Christians, according to us, are idolators.



No it isn't. Unless a Christian has been born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism as outlined in the Torah, then they aren't Jewish. Virtually none of the practices and traditions of Christianity are rooted in Judaism anymore. Christians don't keep the sabbath, holidays, the mitzvot, or any other such thing as outlined in Judaism. But most importantly, they aren't Jews, and thus can not practice Judaism. In fact, according to Judaism, the Talmud, etc. if you are a Jew that converts to Christianity you lose your Jewish status and heritage. You are no longer Jewish. You can't even move to the state of Israel under the law of return at that point.



No, they don't. Judaism teaches that Christians do not worship the same God we do. See Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, he starts on it in the very first chapter. The sages have really ruled that Christians dont worship the same God we do.



If the God of one of the three monotheistic religions is true, then the definition of God in one of those three monotheistic religions is true. It isn't a definition of humans, but rather a definition given by God through divine revelation. It only takes one definition to be true to demonstrate that they don't worship the same God, because each definition is different and in contradiction with the next.

It doesn't matter if one of them is true and the others are false. Simply because I fail to describe something correctly doesn't mean I am describing something else. If I declare that you are a 111-year-old hobbit with nine fingers and the one true ring, I am definitely talking about you. Because I'm wrong doesn't change the object I am describing.

Christianity is a form of Judaism. Christians consider the Old Testament to be sacred, and worship Jesus, who happened to be Jewish. While Christians don't pretend to be Jewish, Christianity is Judaism with a Messiah and new covenant.

It doesn't matter if one of them is true and the others are false. Simply because I fail to describe something correctly doesn't mean I am describing something else. If I declare that you are a 111-year-old hobbit with nine fingers and the one true ring, I am definitely talking about you. Because I'm wrong doesn't change the object I am describing.

Oh no, you would be describing a different me who is a 111-year-old hobbit with nine fingers and the one true ring. You would not be describing me, because it isn't an accurate definition. Thats how definitions work.

Oh no, you would be describing a different me who is a 111-year-old hobbit with nine fingers and the one true ring. You would not be describing me, because it isn't an accurate definition. Thats how definitions work.
He IS describing you. He is just wrong. That doesn't mean he isn't describing you.

The religions don't state that human beings ascribe different definitions.

Of course they don't. To do so would be to admit their own human fallibility, and no one likes to do that!

They state that their religion-specific definition is the absolutely correct one and is the result of divine inspiration or revelation. If one religion is correct in its definition, then its definition is divine and the rest of them are false and manmade. In any case, only the one with the correct definition can be said to be worshipping the correct God. The rest of them have created false gods based on the original revelation.

They haven't actually created anything. They simply aren't worshipping correctly. Just as you, if you said I had brown eyes, would still be talking about me, but would be incorrect about me.

Yes, the worship of Jesus is idolatry.

In your opinion.

But it doesn't change the fact that Christians worship YHWH. We believe that Jesus and YHWH are one and the same, but YHWH nonetheless. If this is incorrect, then we are incorrect about an aspect of God, not about what actual God we are trying to follow.

No it isn't.

Yes, it really is. Christ was a Jewish man, and those who followed Him were Jews. The difference is that, for Christians, the Messiah has been found. This obviously changes things quite a bit, but the root is still the same.

No, they don't. Judaism teaches that Christians do not worship the same God we do.

Seems odd, considering that every single Rabbi I've ever talked to or heard talk on the subject has contradicted you.

If the God of one of the three monotheistic religions is true, then the definition of God in one of those three monotheistic religions is true.

Of course it could also be that each of the definitions are partially true and partially untrue. What then?

It isn't a definition of humans, but rather a definition given by God through divine revelation.

Does divine revelation automatically make a human being infallible? In the Torah, when it is written that insects have four legs, or that rabbits chew the cud, does that mean that God was wrong about biology? Or did it mean that human beings were fallible in their interpretation of divine revelation?

It only takes one definition to be true to demonstrate that they don't worship the same God, because each definition is different and in contradiction with the next.

The human description is not what defines God, unless God doesn't exist, in which case none of the definitions can be true. If God exists, and I believe God does, then God is defined by that existence, by the actual traits God possesses. Any descritption attempted by human beings, whether through divine revelation or not, is an attempt to define this same God.

Oh no, you would be describing a different me who is a 111-year-old hobbit with nine fingers and the one true ring. You would not be describing me, because it isn't an accurate definition. Thats how definitions work.

Wow, how many of you are there? There's only one me, no matter how many traits people get wrong about me. It must be interesting to have lots of yous around.

Oh no, you would be describing a different me who is a 111-year-old hobbit with nine fingers and the one true ring. You would not be describing me, because it isn't an accurate definition. Thats how definitions work.

There is no different you. Being wrong doesn't mean I'm talking about this magical 'other' you. If someone said, who are you describing? I'd say, this dude on NS that calls himself Tropical Sands.

"What's that bird?"
"A robin"
"No, it's not. It's a sparrow."
"Well, we're both right, because according to Tropical Sands if I say the wrong thing, I'm not longer talking about THAT bird, but some other bird which IS, in fact, a robin."
"Cool. Now there is no such thing as being wrong."

Things are not defined by how we describe them. We describe things that have a definition and we are either right or wrong in our description. If I incorrectly describe my house to you, I'm still describing my house.

Christianity is a form of Judaism. Christians consider the Old Testament to be sacred, and worship Jesus, who happened to be Jewish. While Christians don't pretend to be Jewish, Christianity is Judaism with a Messiah and new covenant.

Uh no, it isn't. And thats offensive to Jews and anti-Semitic. Its like saying Islam is a form of Christianity because they recognize Jesus as a prophet.

Samaritans keep the Torah and consider it sacred, too. But they are not Jews, and what they practice is not Judaism. I would suggest looking the word Judaism up:

1 : a religion developed among the ancient Hebrews and characterized by belief in one transcendent God who has revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets and by a religious life in accordance with Scriptures and rabbinic traditions
2 : conformity to Jewish rites, ceremonies, and practices
3 : the cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices of the Jews
4 : the whole body of Jews : the Jewish people

1. Christianity was not developed among the ancient Hebrews. It was developed among post-Hellenistic Hebrews and Greeks. It does not recognize rabbinic tradition, either. Thus, it fails according to the first definition.
2. Christianity does not conform to Jewish rites, ceremonies, and practices. Such as official Jewish conversion.
3. Christianity is not historically a cultural, social, or religious belief and practice of the Jews. It became predominately Goy before the end of the first century and when it began to develop its core doctrines. Jesus did not practice Christianity, nor did the apostles. They were Jews.
4. Christians aren't Jews. To be a Jew you have to be born of a Jewish mother or convert to Judaism. Judaism also rejects those who convert to other religions, like Christianity, as being Jews. You can't even return to Israel as a Jew if you convert to Christianity.

Christianity simply isn't Judaism by definition. It fails when held up to the criteria of what defines Judaism.

Wow, how many of you are there? There's only one me, no matter how many traits people get wrong about me. It must be interesting to have lots of yous around.

Apparently, everytime time someone refers to you as a male, they aren't talking to you, but rather a person they created. I didn't realize human beings are so magical.

Of course it could also be that each of the definitions are partially true and partially untrue. What then?



This is not true, because many points of the religions are contradictory. Either Jesus is the Messiah, or he isn't. Either Muhammad is the Prophet, or he isn't. The religions are fundamentally different.

On another note, it doesn't really matter whether or not they worship the same god if their beliefs about that god are completely different.

There is no different you. Being wrong doesn't mean I'm talking about this magical 'other' you. If someone said, who are you describing? I'd say, this dude on NS that calls himself Tropical Sands.

"What's that bird?"
"A robin"
"No, it's not. It's a sparrow."
"Well, we're both right, because according to Tropical Sands if I say the wrong thing, I'm not longer talking about THAT bird, but some other bird which IS, in fact, a robin."
"Cool. Now there is no such thing as being wrong."

Things are not defined by how we describe them. We describe things that have a definition and we are either right or wrong in our description. If I incorrectly describe my house to you, I'm still describing my house.

Let me explain to you how definitions work, in logic. Your examples have been what are called demonstrative definitions. They require an example or something with existential import. When talking about God, we use a lexical definition, which outlines the criteria beforehand without existential import.

You can point at something round and say "look, its a square!" while someone else says "No, its a circle!", but those are demonstrative definitions. They havn't been the type I've been using or referring to when talking about deities.

When we talk about the deities in religions, we have definitions beforehand. These outline the attributes and nature of God without any demonstrative import. If something doesn't meet the criteria of a lexical definition, in logic, then it is not the thing in question.

For example, in Judaism one thing that defines God is "not being Jesus." Its simplistic, but its true. If you have a God that is Jesus, then it doesn't meet the criteria of the lexical definition of God in Judaism, and thus is not the Jewish God by definition. Thats simply how definitions in logic work.

You can't use a demonstrative definition unless you have something wiith demonstrative import. Unless you can point to God and say "lookie" like you can with me or a robin, then you can't use a demonstrative definition. Demonstrative definitions are also much more weak than lexical definitions and often overlap and cause contradictons.

Thus, the way to see that they don't worship the same God is to view the lexical definitions that are given in the tenents of each religion. Because each definition is contradictory, then they can't refer to the same object.

I'm sorry for not clarifying this, I realize that everyone isn't familiar with logic and the way we use definitions in logic to prove and disprove things.

Do all Christians worship the same God in your opinion?

All Christians do not worship the same God.

Some worship the Triune God (single deity composed of Father, Son and Holy Spirit-three persons in one being).

Some worship a God with a single personality who pretends to be Triune.

Some worship a cosmic butler or jinni who must give them everything they desire.

Some worship a God who is about 6 feet tall and lives on a planet called Heaven.

Some worship a God who was once a man, and pulled himself up by his own bootstraps.

Some worship a God who has many begotten Sons.

And they all call themselves Christians.

So you are arguing that there exist at least three Gods? Sorry. Polytheism isn't my thing.



If one person says that I have blue eyes, and another that I have green, and yet another that they are hazel, does that mean there exist three of me? Or does it mean that someone saw my eyes in the wrong light and mistook the color for something else? Or, could it mean that my eyes are all three, simply at different times?



Not necessarily. Every religion could have some things right and some things wrong.



This is only true if God does not actually exist, and is only defined by the characteristics that humans place upon God.

The correct analogy is that one saw two blue eyes, one saw a left hazel eye and one right violet and yellow eye, and another said you have one eye in the middle of your forehead.

And we would surmise that your face is constantly in flux, so that no two people ever see the same eyes in your face.

Or maybe one person saw you, another person saw someone else standing where you were supposed to be, and another was in the wrong place, wrong time, and saw a movie poster...

No polytheism here. Just trying to point out that someone may be wrong, not seeing different aspects of the same person or elephant, but seeing different things entirely.

Seems odd, considering that every single Rabbi I've ever talked to or heard talk on the subject has contradicted you.


Why is it that Christians always argue with Jews about Judaism? Who really knows more?

Moses Maimonides, considered to be the greatest rabbi to ever live, outlined how Christianity is idolatry in the very first chapter of his Guide to the Perplexed. Furthermore, that the worship of Jesus is idolatry and that Jesus was a false messiah/prophet is outlined in Maimonides' commentary on the Mishnah Torah, Avodat Kochanim.

If you want to hear Rabbis today explain how Jesus and Christianity is idolatry, I can give you a few sites. And please, PLEASE, tell me which Rabbis you've suppossedly talked to so I can give them a ring.

Here is a nice site by a Rabbi, where he outlines that the worship of Jesus is idolatry.
http://whatjewsbelieve.org/
Jews for Judaism, run by Tovia Singer, one of the leading Rabbis in Israel and host of a popular show on Israeli National Radio. I've heard him say that when Christians die they will not have an afterlife on multiple occassions.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/
Messiah Truth - these guys are great. The largest counter-missionary organization in the states. You can read about how Christianity is idolatry here, too.
http://www.messiahtruth.com/

There, now you have a host of Rabbis, classical and modern, who agree with me. You can't say every one you've heard of has contradicted me now.

I would also like to note that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe was vehemently against Christianity, and advocated that in the ideal halachic world Christians would be executed for converting Jews, for bringing them into idolatry.

Let me explain to you how definitions work, in logic. Your examples have been what are called demonstrative definitions. They require an example or something with existential import. When talking about God, we use a lexical definition, which outlines the criteria beforehand without existential import.

Um, no. The lexicon does that because it can say He does or does not exist. However, in an absolute sense He exists or He does not exist. Religions assume he exists, so there is either no God at all, in which case you could possibly have a point or they are all talking about the same God. It's all rather elementary when one is not just trying to be contradictory.

You can point at something round and say "look, its a square!" while someone else says "No, its a circle!", but those are demonstrative definitions. They havn't been the type I've been using or referring to when talking about deities.

When we talk about the deities in religions, we have definitions beforehand. These outline the attributes and nature of God without any demonstrative import. If something doesn't meet the criteria of a lexical definition, in logic, then it is not the thing in question.

Not true. Again, this assumes the being does not exist or may not exist. The lexicon makes this assumption, but the religions certainly do not. That makes the comparison much closer to me pointing at you and describing you as 111-year-old hobbit with nine fingers and the one true ring. I may be wrong, but I'm most certainly talking about you, provided I say I'm talking about you.

For example, in Judaism one thing that defines God is "not being Jesus." Its simplistic, but its true. If you have a God that is Jesus, then it doesn't meet the criteria of the lexical definition of God in Judaism, and thus is not the Jewish God by definition. Thats simply how definitions in logic work.

Wow, the power you give humans. Assuming a God exists, he is not defined by his existence but instead by humans. And here I thought it was He who defined us.

Judaism does not define God. If God exists, they either describe him properly or do not. All three religions are most certainly trying to describe the same being. Unless of course you can point to the moment where each religion declared a seperate God. Because Christians believe the Messiah arrived but they absolutely believe in the God that Jews believe in. Some Jews may claim otherwise, and Some Christians may claim otherwise, but both started with the same God and added descriptions as they diverged. Unless you can tell me one or the other said they were no longer talking about the original God, then they are still talking about that God. Last I checked both religions claim to have been talking about the same God since the time when they were one religion.

You can't use a demonstrative definition unless you have something wiith demonstrative import. Unless you can point to God and say "lookie" like you can with me or a robin, then you can't use a demonstrative definition. Demonstrative definitions are also much more weak than lexical definitions and often overlap and cause contradictons.

Okay, so you claim God does not exist. That's fine for you. The religions do not make such a claim. As such He is not a concept but an object.

Thus, the way to see that they don't worship the same God is to view the lexical definitions that are given in the tenents of each religion. Because each definition is contradictory, then they can't refer to the same object.

I'm sorry for not clarifying this, I realize that everyone isn't familiar with logic and the way we use definitions in logic to prove and disprove things.

See, the problem is these aren't definitions. They're things. And regardless of what we say about something, if we are talking about the same thing, we are talking about the same thing. I can lie about it. Be wrong about it. Be right about it. Abstain from saying things about it. But I'm still talking about the same thing.

See things aren't defined by who's talking about them. Rather things that exist already have a definition, things about them that are true and descriptive. If I point at a thing that exists and talk about it, there is no doubt I am talking about it. If you point at it also, there is no doubt that we are talking about the same thing.

According to you we could never have a logical disagreement because if we disagree we're automatically talking about different things. We'd ALWAYS be comparing apples and oranges whenever we disagree.

Apparently, everytime time someone refers to you as a male, they aren't talking to you, but rather a person they created. I didn't realize human beings are so magical.

I posted on this above, but I thought I would clarify. Lexically, if you define me as something else, you've created a new concept of me, a new object. If you demonstratively define me as something that doesn't fit in actuality, its just untrue.

In reference to Gods in religions that have lexical definitions and no demonstrative import, we use lexical definitions.

Why is it that Christians always argue with Jews about Judaism? Who really knows more?

Moses Maimonides, considered to be the greatest rabbi to ever live, outlined how Christianity is idolatry in the very first chapter of his Guide to the Perplexed. Furthermore, that the worship of Jesus is idolatry and that Jesus was a false messiah/prophet is outlined in Maimonides' commentary on the Mishnah Torah, Avodat Kochanim.

If you want to hear Rabbis today explain how Jesus and Christianity is idolatry, I can give you a few sites. And please, PLEASE, tell me which Rabbis you've suppossedly talked to so I can give them a ring.

Here is a nice site by a Rabbi, where he outlines that the worship of Jesus is idolatry.
http://whatjewsbelieve.org/
Jews for Judaism, run by Tovia Singer, one of the leading Rabbis in Israel and host of a popular show on Israeli National Radio. I've heard him say that when Christians die they will not have an afterlife on multiple occassions.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/
Messiah Truth - these guys are great. The largest counter-missionary organization in the states. You can read about how Christianity is idolatry here, too.
http://www.messiahtruth.com/

There, now you have a host of Rabbis, classical and modern, who agree with me. You can't say every one you've heard of has contradicted me now.

I would also like to note that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe was vehemently against Christianity, and advocated that in the ideal halachic world Christians would be executed for converting Jews, for bringing them into idolatry.

I suppose it depends on who you talk to. You're not automatically an authority on Judaism because you're a Jew. I'll be that GnI can tell you more about the development of your religion than 90% of the Jews on this forum and definitely knows Christianity better than 90% of the Christians on this forum.

People who claim being part of a group makes them an authority do so because they have no other way to prove they are an authority. Speak and prove your point or go home, but no on is buying the "I know better than you because I say I know better than you" argument.

I posted on this above, but I thought I would clarify. Lexically, if you define me as something else, you've created a new concept of me, a new object. If you demonstratively define me as something that doesn't fit in actuality, its just untrue.

In reference to Gods in religions that have lexical definitions and no demonstrative import, we use lexical definitions.

You are not a concept. You are an object. Unless I created a new object, then I am still talking about you. Objects exist. Does this new object exist, my friend? Wow, I must be powerful if I just created an object that is an object. I declare this book on my desk to be a beautiful woman with big jugs.

Even your own description of logic outlines this. Objects and concepts are not the same. Your argument holds no weight if God exists. Are you arguing that God does not exist?

All Christians do not worship the same God.

Some worship the Triune God (single deity composed of Father, Son and Holy Spirit-three persons in one being).

Some worship a God with a single personality who pretends to be Triune.

Some worship a cosmic butler or jinni who must give them everything they desire.

Some worship a God who is about 6 feet tall and lives on a planet called Heaven.

Some worship a God who was once a man, and pulled himself up by his own bootstraps.

Some worship a God who has many begotten Sons.

And they all call themselves Christians.

Wow, I didn't know we are constantly creating Gods. Humans are so powerful. You ascribe them God-like powers. Hey, even more than that. They create Gods. Amazing.

I suppose it depends on who you talk to. You're not automatically an authority on Judaism because you're a Jew. I'll be that GnI can tell you more about the development of your religion than 90% of the Jews on this forum and definitely knows Christianity better than 90% of the Christians on this forum.

People who claim being part of a group makes them an authority do so because they have no other way to prove they are an authority. Speak and prove your point or go home, but no on is buying the "I know better than you because I say I know better than you" argument.

I cited my sources and supported my point well. I told you where to find that Christianity is idolatry in Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed and his Mishneh Torah. If you want something authoritative in Judaism, Maimonides is where to go.

Unlike him, who said "every Rabbi I've spoken to..." Which Rabbis? Who?

You are not a concept. You are an object. Unless I created a new object, then I am still talking about you. Objects exist. Does this new object exist, my friend? Wow, I must be powerful if I just created an object that is an object. I declare this book on my desk to be a beautiful woman with big jugs.

Even your own description of logic outlines this. Objects and concepts are not the same. Your argument holds no weight if God exists. Are you arguing that God does not exist?

Actually if God has actual existence then its irrelevent for a demonstrative definition, because a demonstrative definition requires demonstrative import. Unless you can put God in a demonstrative situation, like "hey look, there's God, thats what I mean, see" then a demonstrative definition falls apart. Something that exists, but is not there for the demonstration, doesn't meet the criteria.

Like I said, if you make a new lexical definition, you've created a new concept. Thats simply the way lexical definitions in logic work. Keep in mind that logic is a science, and it has rules and principles like this that you need to make yourself familiar with.

Now, if you define me demonstratively and incorrectly, its just a bad definition. But we can't use demonstrative definitions on any God. Every example you've given regarding birds, hobbits, and myself simply don't work because they are demonstrative when we need lexical.

That cannot possibly be true, however. See they all started from the same religion. Unless that religion was false, in which case Christianity MUST be, by definition, then all three religions MUST be talking about the same God since the description was correct at one point. There was no point where Christianity chose a different God, where Judaism chose a different God or Muslims chose a different God. All that was chosen was how they viewed the same God.

Can you tell me when exactly Christianity decided to worship a different God? I don't recall that occurring, but feel free to explain to me where this new God came from.

Do you mean to say that they all started from the same religion, or all from the same God? Those are two different statements.

Of course, Christianity is Messianic Judaism, that is, we believe that Messiah has come already, and will return, and that Messiah is God.

Judaism is still awaiting Messiah.

Islam was founded many hundreds of years after Christianity, and thousands of years after Judaism, and rejects the Christian Messiah.

If every prophet spoke the objective truth, then there would have to be at least three Gods or one trickster God.

How is that conclusion at all avoidable?

Um, no. The lexicon does that because it can say He does or does not exist. However, in an absolute sense He exists or He does not exist. Religions assume he exists, so there is either no God at all, in which case you could possibly have a point or they are all talking about the same God. It's all rather elementary when one is not just trying to be contradictory.

Okay, no one is talking about a lexicon first off. We're talking about lexical definitions vs demonstrative definitions in logic, and why the latter, the type you've been using, can't be applied to a deity with no demonstrative import. You seem to be confused.

No, religions don't all assume that one God exists. Nor do they all assume that they same God exists. Some assume their God exists while assuming others dont, and some assume that multiple exist. In any case, its absurd to say that they are all talking about the same God when all of their deities are lexically, and thus logically, defined as being different.

Not true. Again, this assumes the being does not exist or may not exist. The lexicon makes this assumption, but the religions certainly do not. That makes the comparison much closer to me pointing at you and describing you as 111-year-old hobbit with nine fingers and the one true ring. I may be wrong, but I'm most certainly talking about you, provided I say I'm talking about you.

Yes, once again, no one is talking about a lexicon. I would suggest googling the term "lexical definition" so you are familiar with the terms we use in logic when analyzing these types of things.

When you point at me, you aren't using a lexical definition. You're using what is called a demonstrative definition. Demonstrative definitions can't be applied to things that are not physically able to be viewed and pointed at, such as Gods. This is why in logic we can't use a demonstrative definition, like you've been trying to, to analyze God. Comparing a demonstrative definition and a lexical definition in the way that you're doing commits a fallacy, too. The fallacy of false/questionable analogy. You would have to be able to point and show me God for your analogy to be valid.

Wow, the power you give humans. Assuming a God exists, he is not defined by his existence but instead by humans. And here I thought it was He who defined us.

Assuming that one God exists as defined by one religion, then the God would be exactly as that religion defines it. The reason for this is that, because that God exists, then the revelation given from God in that religion would exist. Thus, when using a lexical definition given by any religion, assuming only one religion is true, at least one lexical definition is not defined by humans but by God. Thus, it only takes Christianity, Islam, or Judaism to be true for a non-human, divine lexical definition to occur and demonstrate that the three do not lexically, and logically, worship the same God.

Judaism does not define God. If God exists, they either describe him properly or do not.

If Judaism is correct, the definition of God given in Judaism was given to Jews by God. It would be God defining Himself, rather than Judaism defining God. Same thing applies if Christianity or Isalm is true.

All three religions are most certainly trying to describe the same being.

I agree, although by creating different discriptions/definitions of the same being lexically, they have invented three different deities. This is the way it works with lexical definitions.

Unless of course you can point to the moment where each religion declared a seperate God.

They declared separate Gods, logically, when they created separate lexical definitions for God. Keep in mind when I use the term "logic" I'm not using it the way laypersons do, but within the context of the formal science of logic.

Some Jews may claim otherwise, and Some Christians may claim otherwise, but both started with the same God and added descriptions as they diverged. Unless you can tell me one or the other said they were no longer talking about the original God, then they are still talking about that God. Last I checked both religions claim to have been talking about the same God since the time when they were one religion.

The argument that they both started with one God, and but later broke off with their definitions of this God, refers back to the type of definition called an etymological definition. Yes, all three Gods do indeed have the same etymological definition. Etymologically, they are the same God. However, a lexical definition is stronger than an etymological definition, and lexically they are different

Okay, so you claim God does not exist. That's fine for you. The religions do not make such a claim. As such He is not a concept but an object.

I never claimed that God doesn't exist. This is the fallacy of the non sequitur. Furthermore, we don't objectify God in Judaism. We moved away from that since Maimonides realized that objectifying God removed God's quality of unity. See his Guide for the Perplexed.

See, the problem is these aren't definitions. They're things. And regardless of what we say about something, if we are talking about the same thing, we are talking about the same thing. I can lie about it. Be wrong about it. Be right about it. Abstain from saying things about it. But I'm still talking about the same thing.

Well, they are definitions. And like I said above, we don't objectify God in Judaism, so God isn't a "thing" to us. Yes, if you are talking about the same thing, you are talking about the same thing. That was redundant. However, if you have different lexical definitions, you are not talking about the same thing.

See things aren't defined by who's talking about them. Rather things that exist already have a definition, things about them that are true and descriptive. If I point at a thing that exists and talk about it, there is no doubt I am talking about it. If you point at it also, there is no doubt that we are talking about the same thing.

You've reverted back to a demonstrative definition again. Unless you can point at God and show me, then you can't use a demonstrative definition logically. Lexically, things are defined by who is talking about them, and lexical definitions are the ones given in every religious text for God. If God exists, and one religion is true, then one lexical definition is true and from God. From that starting point, we can reason that all others that are not identical are of different Gods.

According to you we could never have a logical disagreement because if we disagree we're automatically talking about different things. We'd ALWAYS be comparing apples and oranges whenever we disagree.

This is another non sequitir. I've been very clear in defining between lexical definitions, demonstrative definitions, and etymological definitions. With a good lexical definiton, things are very clear. The problem is that you've been trying to use a demonstrative definition for something with no demonstrative import. I'm starting to think that you may not be familiar with these concepts and terms, as well. Please ask if you have any questions.

I cited my sources and supported my point well. I told you where to find that Christianity is idolatry in Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed and his Mishneh Torah. If you want something authoritative in Judaism, Maimonides is where to go.

Unlike him, who said "every Rabbi I've spoken to..." Which Rabbis? Who?
Him? You just created a new person. She said what her experience was. Instead of just citing your sources you had to make a generalized statement that is patently ridiculous. Being a Jew doesn't make you educated, just Jewish.

Meanwhile, you evidence my point. You were clearly talking about Dem, but you called her a him. That makes you wrong, but it also means you're talking about Dem. The fact that you were wrong about her sex doesn't change the person you were talking about. Thank you for evidencing my point.

Do you mean to say that they all started from the same religion, or all from the same God? Those are two different statements.

Of course, Christianity is Messianic Judaism, that is, we believe that Messiah has come already, and will return, and that Messiah is God.

Judaism is still awaiting Messiah.

Islam was founded many hundreds of years after Christianity, and thousands of years after Judaism, and rejects the Christian Messiah.

If every prophet spoke the objective truth, then there would have to be at least three Gods or one trickster God.

How is that conclusion at all avoidable?

No one said they were right. Being wrong doesn't mean you're talking about someone else. People refer to Dem all the time as a man, including me when I first met her. That doesn't mean that were talking about someone other than her. All of them started with the same view of God and added or changing aspects of the being they were referring to. That makes some or all of them wrong, but it doesn't make God any different or the fact that they are all describing the same creator not still a fact.

The fact is they can't all be objectively true. That's the point. So there are not three Gods. They are all describing the same God, but some are wrong. See how that works?

*snip*

Ha. I love when people can't tell the difference between concepts and objects.

Evidenced or not, the God that these three religions worship is a being not simply a concept. They can be wrong about the existence of that being. They can be wrong about the description of that being. But they are all describing or attempting to describe the same being.

Meanwhile, they consider it a being and all three religions started with the same beinbg. All three not only started with the same exact being belief and then morphed it to what it is today, but all three hold that the being belief that existed at the time when they were all three the same belief was a true belief. All three of them hold this. None of them changed to believing in a different God during all that time. There was no switch to another God. They simply added aspects or took some away over time. But the being they were talking about is still the same.

Meanwhile, I am done until you learn what lexical definition means. It refers to the definition that comes form a lexicon, a dictionary. Next time you decide to act pompous, try not to embarrass yourself.
Your argument fails at every level.

If Christians and Muslims truly worshipped the same god, then Muslims would be saved by the Christian god. There is no mention of this in the Bible.

The Qu'ran, however, states that good Christians and Jews will be saved (tell that to al-Qaeda).

The point is really moot: the important question is which religion is right.
No one religion can be declared right because for that to happen the others would have to be proven wrong, and that's impossible. Only facts can be proven or disproven, and religion isn't about facts.

If every prophet spoke the objective truth,[/b] then there would have to be at least three Gods or one trickster God.


All hail Loki!

This is pointless. You are only begging for attention and argument.

*Technically,* you are correct. However, this is only so because of a mis-application of logic.

Lexical definitions do not enter into the argument because none of the religions under discussion defines or claims to define God. There IS NO lexical definition. One of the things that each religion agrees upon is that God is impossible to describe precisely in human terms.

indescribable=no definition.

In fact, in Judaism it is forbidden to attempt to exactly describe God. This is essentially the same as saying his name (also forbidden), because to know someone's true name and speak it (in the culture which gave birth to Judaism) is to have power over it, and no one is allowed to have power over God.

Therefore, while it is true that each religion describes God differently, they are each, historically, describing the same God. According to classroom "logical analysis," using the loophole you've employed, there is a different God for each of these three religions. However, your argument is just that: a loophole. You claim a necessity for lexical definition of something which is manifestly AND DEFINITIVELY undefineable (and yes, I appreciate the apparent contradiction there; it is a rhetorical device; my actual meaning should be apparent unless you are trying to be deliberately difficult, in which case you aren't worth the paper you're printed on and should be considered a troll).

Your argument is fallatious. You ARE the weakest link. Good-Bye.

This is pointless. You are only begging for attention and argument.

*Technically,* you are correct. However, this is only so because of a mis-application of logic.

Lexical definitions do not enter into the argument because none of the religions under discussion defines or claims to define God. There IS NO lexical definition. One of the things that each religion agrees upon is that God is impossible to describe precisely in human terms.

indescribable=no definition.

In fact, in Judaism it is forbidden to attempt to exactly describe God. This is essentially the same as saying his name (also forbidden), because to know someone's true name and speak it (in the culture which gave birth to Judaism) is to have power over it, and no one is allowed to have power over God.

Judaism gives lexical definitions for God, and defines the Jewish God, probably more than any other. The entire Talmud is full of definitions and exact, absolute statements about God's nature. There is not a single prohibition on describing God anywhere. It was Moses Maimonides who first began to say it was impossible to describe God because it violated his essence, so instead he defined God by negatives - things that God is not. Both are applicable to lexical definitions.

To start, and prove you wrong, lets see how the Talmud does indeed exactly describe God:

"I am one and alone in the universe" - Deut Rabbah 31
"The attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, are unlike those of a human being. The latter instructs others what they are to do but may not practice it himself. Not so is the Holy One, ,blessed be He; whatever He does He commands Israel to perform." - Exodus Rabbah 30, 9
"He fills the upper regions and the lower" - Midrash on Psalm 24, 103a
"The Holy One, blessed be He, is the place of His Universe, but HIs Universe is not His place" - Gen Rabbah 68, 9
"God knows what is to be in the future" - Sanhn. 90b
"Before a man speaks, He knows what is in his heart" - Exodus Rabbah 21, 3
"Everything decays but Thou dost not decay" - Lev Rabbah 29, 2
"He is a God who lives and reigns forever" - lev Rabbah 26 I
"Behold, ,I am pure, My abode is pure, My ministers are pure" - Lev Rabbah 18, 1

I could go on and on, giving more and more exact descriptions of God. It evenn goes so far as to say that God wears tallit and tefillin. There are many metaphorical and non-metaphorical descriptions of God that are exact and lexical, probably moreso than any other religion. There is a quite clear and solid definition and doctrine on God in Judaism.

Did you claim that saying God's name is forbidden in Judaism? Lets see what the Talmud says about that:

"In the Sanctuary the Name was pronounced as written" Sot 7, 6
"On the occasion I followed my uncles on to the dais, and I inlined my ear to catch what the High Priest said. I heard him cause the Name to be drowned by the singing of his brother-priests" Kiddushin 71a

Now, pay close attention to this one. It clearly refutes your false claim.
"It was ordered that a man should greet his friends by mentioning the Name" - Ber 9, 5

Now, there is a prohibition on writing the Name carelessly, because it could be desecrated or destroyed. I think you'll also be able to provide little to no support for your claim that Hebrew culture was one where to know someone's name was to have power over them. Please, support that claim if you can.

All religions give lexical definitions for God. The Koran is full of them; every other verse calls him "oft forgiving, most merciful" and things such as "God has no son."

Now, you don't need a positive statement to form a lexical definition. You can make them based on negative statements, as well. Such as, God is NOT this or that. God can't sin, God can't lie, etc. are all common lexical definitions given by Christians. The statement "Jesus is God" is an example of a lexical definition in Christianity. "God is the Word" is another one.

And, when we compare the lexical definitions, we find that the lexical definitions in all three religions are contradictory and incompatable. Therefore, the Gods in question are three different Gods.

Judaism gives lexical definitions for God, and defines the Jewish God, probably more than any other. The entire Talmud is full of definitions and exact, absolute statements about God's nature. There is not a single prohibition on describing God anywhere. It was Moses Maimonides who first began to say it was impossible to describe God because it violated his essence, so instead he defined God by negatives - things that God is not. Both are applicable to lexical definitions.

To start, and prove you wrong, lets see how the Talmud does indeed exactly describe God:

"I am one and alone in the universe" - Deut Rabbah 31
"The attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, are unlike those of a human being. The latter instructs others what they are to do but may not practice it himself. Not so is the Holy One, ,blessed be He; whatever He does He commands Israel to perform." - Exodus Rabbah 30, 9
"He fills the upper regions and the lower" - Midrash on Psalm 24, 103a
"The Holy One, blessed be He, is the place of His Universe, but HIs Universe is not His place" - Gen Rabbah 68, 9
"God knows what is to be in the future" - Sanhn. 90b
"Before a man speaks, He knows what is in his heart" - Exodus Rabbah 21, 3
"Everything decays but Thou dost not decay" - Lev Rabbah 29, 2
"He is a God who lives and reigns forever" - lev Rabbah 26 I
"Behold, ,I am pure, My abode is pure, My ministers are pure" - Lev Rabbah 18, 1

I could go on and on, giving more and more exact descriptions of God. It evenn goes so far as to say that God wears tallit and tefillin. There are many metaphorical and non-metaphorical descriptions of God that are exact and lexical, probably moreso than any other religion. There is a quite clear and solid definition and doctrine on God in Judaism.

Did you claim that saying God's name is forbidden in Judaism? Lets see what the Talmud says about that:

"In the Sanctuary the Name was pronounced as written" Sot 7, 6
"On the occasion I followed my uncles on to the dais, and I inlined my ear to catch what the High Priest said. I heard him cause the Name to be drowned by the singing of his brother-priests" Kiddushin 71a

Now, pay close attention to this one. It clearly refutes your false claim.
"It was ordered that a man should greet his friends by mentioning the Name" - Ber 9, 5

Now, there is a prohibition on writing the Name carelessly, because it could be desecrated or destroyed. I think you'll also be able to provide little to no support for your claim that Hebrew culture was one where to know someone's name was to have power over them. Please, support that claim if you can.

All religions give lexical definitions for God. The Koran is full of them; every other verse calls him "oft forgiving, most merciful" and things such as "God has no son."

Now, you don't need a positive statement to form a lexical definition. You can make them based on negative statements, as well. Such as, God is NOT this or that. God can't sin, God can't lie, etc. are all common lexical definitions given by Christians. The statement "Jesus is God" is an example of a lexical definition in Christianity. "God is the Word" is another one.

And, when we compare the lexical definitions, we find that the lexical definitions in all three religions are contradictory and incompatable. Therefore, the Gods in question are three different Gods.

Dude, seriously. Look up lexical definition. You're using a fancy word for dictionary definition.

Dude, seriously. Look up lexical definition. You're using a fancy word for dictionary definition.

Definitions in dictionaries are instances of lexical definitions. They aren't the only ones, however. We use the term a bit differently in logic. A lexical definition a definition "used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language" according to Hurley's Logic, 8th edition. Because God has been defined in each religion, the definition of God in those contexts is a lexical definition. My point was that you were attempting to use a demonstrative definition in a place it was inappropriate, while disregarding the lexical definition that the terms already have.

It goes on to state that lexical definitions are strong because they reduce ambiguity and distinguish between subtle shadings in meaning. For example, the ambiguity someone at first glance might see between the use of "God" in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The lexical definition of the term given by each religion removes the ambiguity that would normally be there.

I fail to see any way in which you are not attempting to slip through a logical loophole. None of those things exactly describes, nor exactly defined, God. They all partially described him. None exactly described him (that is to say, described him in his totality, or offered an unmistakable definition of him).

As for the other bits....
You appear to have bested me with your knowledge of Judaism; I yield to your superior knowledge. I appear to have been wrong about the legality of speaking the name of God (incidentally, the bit about having power over people was part of most religions around the time that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, although to say "people" may be misleading: it was really gods and certain other religious beings who could be controlled by saying their names). This doesn't change my main point, which is that you are deliberately misunderstanding or misinterpreting all of our posts. This isn't a proper argument: you're just trying to show us all how much better than us you are.

Now that I think about it a little more carefully, in fact....you really can't use logical rules in debating these religions: none of them has its foundation in logic, and each contains many internal inconsistencies. Therefore, all we really have to go on is that each of the three religions claims to worship the same God (and if you say 'the christians worship Jesus, not Yahweh' one more time I'll knock your teeth out: the Trinity means that Jesus IS Yahweh, as far as Christians are concerned [and who else really cares, or matters in the scope of this discussion?]).

Definitions in dictionaries are instances of lexical definitions. They aren't the only ones, however. We use the term a bit differently in logic. A lexical definition a definition "used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language" according to Hurley's Logic, 8th edition. Because God has been defined in each religion, the definition of God in those contexts is a lexical definition. My point was that you were attempting to use a demonstrative definition in a place it was inappropriate, while disregarding the lexical definition that the terms already have.

Do you know what a lexicon is, my friend? The list of words in usage. In other words, I reference the word properly. Your use of the term is flawed. That's why the term is call *gasp* a LEXICal definition. Notice the similarities. You should probably take another class, because your skill in this area needs a little buffing.

It goes on to state that lexical definitions are strong because they reduce ambiguity and distinguish between subtle shadings in meaning. For example, the ambiguity someone at first glance might see between the use of "God" in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The lexical definition of the term given by each religion removes the ambiguity that would normally be there.
Lexical definitions are a terrible way to make logical desitinctions. Stipulative definitions are much more useful. In the case of God, each religion has much closer to what could be refered to as a stipulative definition, only it is because it's a specific reference and not generalized, one would and should call it demonstrative.

I love these people that come here after their first course in logic and try to throw out terms they barely understand and act all pompous. They use the terms because their logic isn't strong enough to demonstrate their skills so the mask it with the jargon they just learned. We can spot you a mile away. I sincerely suggest that if you wish to learn how to debate you come with a little humility and try being more reasonable while you hone your skills. I haven't the patience for helping people cut their teeth, particularly when they behave as you have.

Do you know what a lexicon is, my friend? The list of words in usage. In other words, I reference the word properly. Your use of the term is flawed. You should probably take another class, because your skill in this area needs a little buffing.

I gave you the definition of a lexical definition and its usage right out of a logic textbook. What you have to keep in mind is that in specific fields, terms become specialized. The way you're defining lexical is different than the way we use it in logic, as can be seen from the definition given right out of the logic textbook I cited.

Lexical definitions are a terrible way to make logical desitinctions. Stipulative definitions are much more useful. In the case of God, each religion has much closer to what could be refered to as a stipulative definition, only it is because it's a specific reference and not generalized, one would and should call it demonstrative.

Each type of definition has a context when it should and shouldn't be used. Stipulative definitions are only used to define new words or terms that don't have definitions already. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have already defined the term God ad nauseum. You don't use a stipulative definition when there are lexical definitions in existence.

I love these people that come here after their first course in logic and try to throw out terms they barely understand and act all pompous. They use the terms because their logic isn't strong enough to demonstrate their skills so the mask it with the jargon they just learned. We can spot you a mile away. I sincerely suggest that if you wish to learn how to debate you come with a little humility and try being more reasonable while you hone your skills. I haven't the patience for helping people cut their teeth, particularly when they behave as you have.

I fail to see any way in which you are not attempting to slip through a logical loophole. None of those things exactly describes, nor exactly defined, God. They all partially described him. None exactly described him (that is to say, described him in his totality, or offered an unmistakable definition of him).
...

It is not a logical loophole. If witness A says Named-Object has a Son and witness B says Named-Object has no Son, to be able to determine that the Named-Object spoken of by witness A cannot be the same Named-Object spoken of by witness B is not a loophole, it’s rudimentary.

As to the physical violence threatening stuff that I didn’t quote from your post, meaningless colloquial speech or not, please refrain from further use of it, and also avoid further personal insults, thank you.

I gave you the definition of a lexical definition and its usage right out of a logic textbook. What you have to keep in mind is that in specific fields, terms become specialized. The way you're defining lexical is different than the way we use it in logic, as can be seen from the definition given right out of the logic textbook I cited.

Each type of definition has a context when it should and shouldn't be used. Stipulative definitions are only used to define new words or terms that don't have definitions already. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have already defined the term God ad nauseum. You don't use a stipulative definition when there are lexical definitions in existence.



I tip my hat to you Sir.

But not just for this last post of yours either. Your seemingly endless patience is an example to us all. I suspect that further personal implied insults will be coming at you now, more frequently and regular anyway, there is a ‘deliberate nastiness’ of tone that will likely prevail against you as your opponents get more desperate. Thank you for your efforts, you’ve been systematically thorough and concise, I’m personally impressed.

Definitions in dictionaries are instances of lexical definitions. They aren't the only ones, however. We use the term a bit differently in logic. A lexical definition a definition "used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language" according to Hurley's Logic, 8th edition. <snip>
The only problem with logic is that it's really just a means of composing ideas or of testing the structural integrity of ideas. It doesn't test the ideas for truth or even meaning.

The best lies are the ones with the soundest logic. That doesn't make them true.

Once upon a time, there were logical arguments proving that the Earth is a flat disk. It's not a flat disk. Logic built "proofs" out of false data.

A good paranoid schizophrenic can explain with perfect logic both how and why the CIA is beaming messages to Venus through his teeth, but that doesn't mean that he's not delusional. He is hearing voices in his head, but he is factually wrong about how and why that is happening, the logic of his explanation notwithstanding.

Just three examples to show that logic isn't helpful by itself. You have to start with a sound premise.

It is not a logical loophole. If witness A says Named-Object has a Son and witness B says Named-Object has no Son, to be able to determine that the Named-Object spoken of by witness A cannot be the same Named-Object spoken of by witness B is not a loophole, it’s rudimentary.
<snip>
Or Witness B could just be mistaken. There don't have to be two Named-Objects, one with Son and one without. That's a possibility, but not the only one.

If your argument rests upon the "impossibility of objectivity in the case of theology" why do you perpetuate a 'proof' that implies an empirical ability to assign values?

The whole point is - If you see O from one point, it looks like a circle. See it from another point, it's clearly an ellipse. Seen from a third point, it can ONLY be a line.

Three visions stemming from the same object, altered ONLY by perspective.

But it would be madness to claim the three visions were actually different things.

I'd say: for Brevity's sake.

We haven't proven ( and cannot ) that the object that is the 'source' of the perspectives or visions actually exists. The perspectives or visions might actually be non-existent, other than as illusions in minds. I don't think so, but it cannot be proven otherwise.

It's Russell 101 - we cannot have sense-data, THEREFORE nothing objective or definite can be said about our object - THEREFORE, any claim of identity of vision is beyond proof.

Which is a long way of saying what I implied in post 8: no claim of identity could be proven at all in this case - even if it ( identity ) was indeed correct.

Or Witness B could just be mistaken. There don't have to be two Named-Objects, one with Son and one without. That's a possibility, but not the only one.


Could be. But we don't have a reason to go there, there is no problem created by the testimony of witness B and witness A as they are. Unless we have a 'reason' to question the credibility of either witness’s testimony we first have to proceed with the assumption that both witness A and witness B are credible sources of what they testify (i.e., we must first assume is that Islam is a credible witness of Allah and that the Christian Bible is a credible witness of Jesus/God before we conclude that they don’t know what they are talking about). Then, proceeding, we see when we compare their definitions of God that they don’t define the same God (one has a Son the other does not, etc.,) we wrap up (until further evidence presents itself) with the answer that they are NOT talking about the same God.

I gave you the definition of a lexical definition and its usage right out of a logic textbook. What you have to keep in mind is that in specific fields, terms become specialized. The way you're defining lexical is different than the way we use it in logic, as can be seen from the definition given right out of the logic textbook I cited.

No, it's not. A lexical definition is exactly what I referenced. It doesn't change dramatically, it just doesn't limit itself to words in the dictionary. It does however limit itself to words in the lexicon.

Each type of definition has a context when it should and shouldn't be used. Stipulative definitions are only used to define new words or terms that don't have definitions already. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have already defined the term God ad nauseum. You don't use a stipulative definition when there are lexical definitions in existence.

Not true. Stipulative definitions are used make defiinitions more specific in particular usage. Technically JARGON is a stipulative definition. It's not necessarily a new usage, but it is definitely more specific than a lexical definition. It's use is to prevent equivocation. I'm sure that term is in your textbook as well. Look it up. Stipulative definitions are NOT new definitions, just definitions made specific for particular discussions or particular types of discussions.

Not all versions of those religions agree. That is why people within a given sect agree to a stipulative definition that is different than one in the general lexicon.

I'm sure many experts don't recognize the intrinsic link between the lexical definition and the lexicon. It's a matter of debate all over the world. Yep. That's what it is.



I'm not whining, just bored. If you step to this discussion with a little humility, I would simply quietly correct you and move on to the topic. However, you came here to attack people with your new-found terms and, oddly enough, when you got pwned on their misusage instead of just moving on, you continued to charge ahead. This tells me two things for certain. You're clearly very young in both experience generally and experience in logical debate. Since you're 'lecturing' on logic, perhaps you should take a lesson and realize that it is illogical to continue to defend a position when you've been shown to be objectively and severely mistaken.

EDIT: DubyaGoat got something right. I tend to react to agression with agression. It is something I'm not very proud of. A very easy way to avoid such thing is simply to treat me exactly as you wish to be treated. I am a mirror in that way.

It is not a logical loophole. If witness A says Named-Object has a Son and witness B says Named-Object has no Son, to be able to determine that the Named-Object spoken of by witness A cannot be the same Named-Object spoken of by witness B is not a loophole, it’s rudimentary.

Hmmmm... That's odd. When I started here I thought my office manager had no children. My coworkers thought otherwise. Apparently it's rudimentary that when I was talking about her to my coworkers we were talking about two different people. Carry on.


I tip my hat to you Sir.

But not just for this last post of yours either. Your seemingly endless patience is an example to us all. I suspect that further personal implied insults will be coming at you now, more frequently and regular anyway, there is a ‘deliberate nastiness’ of tone that will likely prevail against you as your opponents get more desperate. Thank you for your efforts, you’ve been systematically thorough and concise, I’m personally impressed.
Amusing. He attacked my proper usage of the word, saying I was ignorant of the use in logic and didn't understand, and when I correct him, I'm out of line. Good thing you're not biased or anything.

I tend to be a mirror, which I admit is not a good thing. I can disagree with polite posters and be nothing but polite. If you've had problems with me, and you have, perhaps you should look to yourself, as I have. I know it upsets you that I keep catching you, like when you claimed that MN does not have abstinence-only education, when it IN FACT does, but correcting you is not rude. It's actually a wonderful gift to give to some, the gift of knowledge.

I agree with you. I was just trying to follow Dubyagoat's argument. He starts out by saying all three monotheisms start from the same source, but ends by saying they worship different gods. I think the copy analogy explains that reasoning.

But I also think he's wrong. All three monotheisms worship the same god: Mithra. :D

Certainly, Christianity bears more than a passing resemblence to Mithraism. I suspect, however, that the actual root of the Abrahamic religion may have been "An" (Sumerian) - though, maybe not directly...

A belief in one God doesn't mean that they all believe in the same God. By your reasoning, every monotheistic religion believes in the same God. It just doesn't work.


Why doesn't it work?

You could argue that EVERY monotheism deity is actually the 'same god'... and, even, that every polytheistic deity is merely an 'aspect' of one common god.

I posted on this above, but I thought I would clarify. Lexically, if you define me as something else, you've created a new concept of me, a new object. If you demonstratively define me as something that doesn't fit in actuality, its just untrue.

In reference to Gods in religions that have lexical definitions and no demonstrative import, we use lexical definitions.

So - you see, your toolbox is not up to the job.

My science cannot measure God, and your logic cannot 'define' God - but that is because our tools are wrong for that job.

If every prophet spoke the objective truth, then there would have to be at least three Gods or one trickster God.


Prophets are a human conduit, and thus flawed, fallible... and subjective.

That's the point - we (maybe) cannot HAVE an 'objective' view of God.

Judaism gives lexical definitions for God, and defines the Jewish God, probably more than any other. The entire Talmud is full of definitions and exact, absolute statements about God's nature. There is not a single prohibition on describing God anywhere. It was Moses Maimonides who first began to say it was impossible to describe God because it violated his essence, so instead he defined God by negatives - things that God is not. Both are applicable to lexical definitions.

To start, and prove you wrong, lets see how the Talmud does indeed exactly describe God:

"I am one and alone in the universe" - Deut Rabbah 31
"The attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, are unlike those of a human being. The latter instructs others what they are to do but may not practice it himself. Not so is the Holy One, ,blessed be He; whatever He does He commands Israel to perform." - Exodus Rabbah 30, 9
"He fills the upper regions and the lower" - Midrash on Psalm 24, 103a
"The Holy One, blessed be He, is the place of His Universe, but HIs Universe is not His place" - Gen Rabbah 68, 9
"God knows what is to be in the future" - Sanhn. 90b
"Before a man speaks, He knows what is in his heart" - Exodus Rabbah 21, 3
"Everything decays but Thou dost not decay" - Lev Rabbah 29, 2
"He is a God who lives and reigns forever" - lev Rabbah 26 I
"Behold, ,I am pure, My abode is pure, My ministers are pure" - Lev Rabbah 18, 1

I could go on and on, giving more and more exact descriptions of God. It evenn goes so far as to say that God wears tallit and tefillin. There are many metaphorical and non-metaphorical descriptions of God that are exact and lexical, probably moreso than any other religion. There is a quite clear and solid definition and doctrine on God in Judaism.

Did you claim that saying God's name is forbidden in Judaism? Lets see what the Talmud says about that:

"In the Sanctuary the Name was pronounced as written" Sot 7, 6
"On the occasion I followed my uncles on to the dais, and I inlined my ear to catch what the High Priest said. I heard him cause the Name to be drowned by the singing of his brother-priests" Kiddushin 71a

Now, pay close attention to this one. It clearly refutes your false claim.
"It was ordered that a man should greet his friends by mentioning the Name" - Ber 9, 5

Now, there is a prohibition on writing the Name carelessly, because it could be desecrated or destroyed. I think you'll also be able to provide little to no support for your claim that Hebrew culture was one where to know someone's name was to have power over them. Please, support that claim if you can.

All religions give lexical definitions for God. The Koran is full of them; every other verse calls him "oft forgiving, most merciful" and things such as "God has no son."

Now, you don't need a positive statement to form a lexical definition. You can make them based on negative statements, as well. Such as, God is NOT this or that. God can't sin, God can't lie, etc. are all common lexical definitions given by Christians. The statement "Jesus is God" is an example of a lexical definition in Christianity. "God is the Word" is another one.

And, when we compare the lexical definitions, we find that the lexical definitions in all three religions are contradictory and incompatable. Therefore, the Gods in question are three different Gods.

Sefer Torah, I have been told, presents a 'definitive' definition of 'god'... if one could ever fully understand the entirety of the 'word' or 'name' that it makes.

Other than that (and, I think it could be argued none fully comprehends that 'name'), any other 'definition' of 'god', MUST logically be incomplete and, therefore, imperfect.

It is not a logical loophole. If witness A says Named-Object has a Son and witness B says Named-Object has no Son, to be able to determine that the Named-Object spoken of by witness A cannot be the same Named-Object spoken of by witness B is not a loophole, it’s rudimentary.


Or witness B simply failed to see something that witness A had a different perspective on....

I'd say: for Brevity's sake.

We haven't proven ( and cannot ) that the object that is the 'source' of the perspectives or visions actually exists. The perspectives or visions might actually be non-existent, other than as illusions in minds. I don't think so, but it cannot be proven otherwise.

It's Russell 101 - we cannot have sense-data, THEREFORE nothing objective or definite can be said about our object - THEREFORE, any claim of identity of vision is beyond proof.

Which is a long way of saying what I implied in post 8: no claim of identity could be proven at all in this case - even if it ( identity ) was indeed correct.

Just because it cannot be 'proved'.... doesn't mean it isn't 'right'.

Could be. But we don't have a reason to go there, there is no problem created by the testimony of witness B and witness A as they are. Unless we have a 'reason' to question the credibility of either witness’s testimony we first have to proceed with the assumption that both witness A and witness B are credible sources of what they testify (i.e., we must first assume is that Islam is a credible witness of Allah and that the Christian Bible is a credible witness of Jesus/God before we conclude that they don’t know what they are talking about). Then, proceeding, we see when we compare their definitions of God that they don’t define the same God (one has a Son the other does not, etc.,) we wrap up (until further evidence presents itself) with the answer that they are NOT talking about the same God.
I see -- we don't have to go anywhere that isn't where you want us to go.

Here's a nice old rule of investigative and diagnostic practice: If you are in a town and you hear hoofbeats outside your window, it's more likey that a horse is passing by than a zebra. Sure, there could be two Named-Objects, but it is more likely that the two Witnesses are merely in possession of different sets of incomplete data about one Named-Object.

The histories of law, medicine, science, and philosophy all prove that, if a person insists on the more exotic explanation right from the start, they probably have some personal interest in promoting that explanation and are, therefore, biased and untrustworthy as sources of information. Such biased approaches always fall apart when tested.

For instance, others have pointed out that you cannot claim that there is more than one god and still claim to be a monotheist. This is a fatal self-contradiction. I say you fell into this contradiction because your interest in proving the existence of more than one Named-Object has an ulterior motive. You were simply so focused on that, that you failed to anticipate that this internal conflict would be brought out. It's okay. You can't anticipate everything.

Or witness B simply failed to see something that witness A had a different perspective on....
Or either of the witnesses was deliberately lying...

Or they both were...

Just because it cannot be 'proved'.... doesn't mean it isn't 'right'.
True, but no matter how right a thing may be, if it can't be proved, then it cannot be declared to be more right than anything else. We may accept its rightness, but we must acknowledge that we are merely choosing to do so.

No, it's not. A lexical definition is exactly what I referenced. It doesn't change dramatically, it just doesn't limit itself to words in the dictionary. It does however limit itself to words in the lexicon.

You didn't reference anything. You said that a lexical definition was a fancy word for a dictionary definition. Then I cited what a logic textbook says, contradicting you. Now, you've changed it to say that it doesn't limit itself to words in the dictionary

Not true. Stipulative definitions are used make defiinitions more specific in particular usage. Technically JARGON is a stipulative definition. It's not necessarily a new usage, but it is definitely more specific than a lexical definition. It's use is to prevent equivocation. I'm sure that term is in your textbook as well. Look it up. Stipulative definitions are NOT new definitions, just definitions made specific for particular discussions or particular types of discussions.

I'll prove you wrong again, from the same logic textbook, Hurley' Logic 8th edition. "A stipulative definition assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may incolve either coining a new word for giving a new meaning to an old world."

Now, is the use of a stipulative definition more specific? Seems like the science of logic disagrees with you again, from the text, "The purpose of a stipulative definition is to replace a more complex expression with a simpler one."

Now, what does it say on the strength of a stipulative definition (since you said they are stronger than lexical definitions)? "Because a stipulative definition is a cocmpletely arbitrary assignment of a meaning to a word for the first time, ther ecan be no such thing as a true or false stipulative definition." "Furthermore, for the same reason, a stipulative definition cannot provide any new information about the subject matter of the definiendum."

Not all versions of those religions agree. That is why people within a given sect agree to a stipulative definition that is different than one in the general lexicon.

If a body of persons agrees to a definition and adheres to it, then it isn't one defined for the first time. For something to be a stipulative definition, it must "assign a new meaning to a word for the first time" as we see defined in the logic text. Its a lexical definition.

I'm sure many experts don't recognize the intrinsic link between the lexical definition and the lexicon. It's a matter of debate all over the world. Yep. That's what it is.

You just seem to be confused about the specialized use of the term "lexical" in logic. Thats probably why you've redefined a "lexical definition" twice, in a contradictory way, despite the definition of the term I've been posting over and over out of an old logic book.

If you step to this discussion with a little humility, I would simply quietly correct you and move on to the topic. However, you came here to attack people with your new-found terms and, oddly enough, when you got pwned on their misusage instead of just moving on, you continued to charge ahead. This tells me two things for certain. You're clearly very young in both experience generally and experience in logical debate. Since you're 'lecturing' on logic, perhaps you should take a lesson and realize that it is illogical to continue to defend a position when you've been shown to be objectively and severely mistaken.

EDIT: DubyaGoat got something right. I tend to react to agression with agression. It is something I'm not very proud of. A very easy way to avoid such thing is simply to treat me exactly as you wish to be treated. I am a mirror in that way.

I see -- we don't have to go anywhere that isn't where you want us to go.

Here's a nice old rule of investigative and diagnostic practice: If you are in a town and you hear hoofbeats outside your window, it's more likey that a horse is passing by than a zebra. Sure, there could be two Named-Objects, but it is more likely that the two Witnesses are merely in possession of different sets of incomplete data about one Named-Object.

The histories of law, medicine, science, and philosophy all prove that, if a person insists on the more exotic explanation right from the start, they probably have some personal interest in promoting that explanation and are, therefore, biased and untrustworthy as sources of information. Such biased approaches always fall apart when tested.

For instance, others have pointed out that you cannot claim that there is more than one god and still claim to be a monotheist. This is a fatal self-contradiction. I say you fell into this contradiction because your interest in proving the existence of more than one Named-Object has an ulterior motive. You were simply so focused on that, that you failed to anticipate that this internal conflict would be brought out. It's okay. You can't anticipate everything.


The bolded part is erroneous. The witnesses at hand both look at the description the other witness has given and have said, "no, that's not it." The rest of your post about deciding what is the most likely is then applied to that evidence/statement. The most likely explanation is that they are both correct in saying that the other’s description is not what they are talking about.

You project your personal opinion that there is one Named-Object/God and that both witnesses must have viewed it from different angles (or whatever) and you then attempt to force the scenario to end favoring that position. However, you have failed to show 'why' either of the witnesses must be wrong, and since there is no reason to assume that either witness is wrong then your deduction is NOT the first and easiest solution to the question. Your conclusion requires a witness to be wrong, and you have no reason to bring their testimony into question outside of the fact that it doesn't fit your preconceived, desired result.

The last part of your post about all monotheism religions always worshiping the same God because there cannot be other God could only be correct IF there was in fact no way to worship a non-God, which you have not proven, nor even suggested why that might be true, thus, is an erroneous conclusion as well.

Certainly, Christianity bears more than a passing resemblence to Mithraism. I suspect, however, that the actual root of the Abrahamic religion may have been "An" (Sumerian) - though, maybe not directly...
I was just being snarky, history-nerd style.

Do you know what a lexicon is, my friend? The list of words in usage. In other words, I reference the word properly. Your use of the term is flawed. That's why the term is call *gasp* a LEXICal definition. Notice the similarities. You should probably take another class, because your skill in this area needs a little buffing.


Lexical definitions are a terrible way to make logical desitinctions. Stipulative definitions are much more useful. In the case of God, each religion has much closer to what could be refered to as a stipulative definition, only it is because it's a specific reference and not generalized, one would and should call it demonstrative.

I love these people that come here after their first course in logic and try to throw out terms they barely understand and act all pompous. They use the terms because their logic isn't strong enough to demonstrate their skills so the mask it with the jargon they just learned. We can spot you a mile away. I sincerely suggest that if you wish to learn how to debate you come with a little humility and try being more reasonable while you hone your skills. I haven't the patience for helping people cut their teeth, particularly when they behave as you have.

Reading is fundamental.

Why doesn't it work?

You could argue that EVERY monotheism deity is actually the 'same god'... and, even, that every polytheistic deity is merely an 'aspect' of one common god.
And indeed, many polytheists do in fact say that.

Or either of the witnesses was deliberately lying...

Or they both were...

Oh, absolutely... that wouldn't necessarily disclude them either/both lying about the SAME thing, though...

True, but no matter how right a thing may be, if it can't be proved, then it cannot be declared to be more right than anything else. We may accept its rightness, but we must acknowledge that we are merely choosing to do so.

The point I was aiming for is - if a thing can be neither 'proved' nor 'disproved'... there is no logical mechanism to enable us to verify it against another, similarly unproved/undisproved concept.

I tend to be a mirror, which I admit is not a good thing. I can disagree with polite posters and be nothing but polite. If you've had problems with me, and you have, perhaps you should look to yourself, as I have. I know it upsets you that I keep catching you, like when you claimed that MN does not have abstinence-only education, when it IN FACT does, but correcting you is not rude. It's actually a wonderful gift to give to some, the gift of knowledge.

This wasn't a response to me, but I thought I would point out something I noticed in it.

Jocabia, you've committed the straw man fallacy.
Attempting to pull out an event that is unrelated to the current topic in an attempt to bolster your position is what does it.

Saying things like "I'm a mirror" and "you got pwned" sound pretty arrogant. Along with triumphial cries of "you've been shown to be mistaken" and "I know you feel <such and such emotion>" and "you're very young in experience." In fact, when you digress to statements about the person rather than their argument, you commit the ad hominem fallacy. The latter example of you I cited there does this.

Now, I don't know where you got this idea that you're a mirror. It seems to me like people have been correcting you, and instead of being accountable and taking a look at what you've been corrected on you want to pretend like they are seeing themselves in you. Keep in mind that while I never once posted a personal insult, an ad hominem, nor did DG - you in fact did. The same goes with the other type of personal attack we saw in your post here, the straw man.

I was just being snarky, history-nerd style.

:)

I just love that whole 'Mesopotamian history' thing.

The bolded part is erroneous. The witnesses at hand both look at the description the other witness has given and have said, "no, that's not it." The rest of your post about deciding what is the most likely is then applied to that evidence/statement. The most likely explanation is that they are both correct in saying that the other’s description is not what they are talking about.
Well, now you are changing your own scenario. I saw no reference in your original scenario that had the two witnesses comparing notes in order to come up with a single coherent account. Nice try, but lame tactic.

As for your criticism that I am just assuming that both witnesses cannot be 100% right about the Named-Object -- aren't you equally assuming that they *are* both right? You cannot invalidate one assumption by citing another. My assumption is at least in accordance with common empirical experience. That in itself does not prove that it is the fact, but it at least gives it a legitimate claim to be the first possibility investigated. Let's get specific here -- the "Named-Object" is god, and the witnesses are people professing to know something about god. Well, it's my understanding that god is whole, complete, perfect, and infallible, while human beings are fallible and incapable of comprehending the whole nature of god. If that is so, then why should I assume that human witnesses cannot be wrong or in possession of incomplete data? Clearly, my assumption is more likely than yours.

You project your personal opinion that there is one Named-Object/God and that both witnesses must have viewed it from different angles (or whatever) and you then attempt to force the scenario to end favoring that position. However, you have failed to show 'why' either of the witnesses must be wrong, and since there is no reason to assume that either witness is wrong then your deduction is NOT the first and easiest solution to the question. Your conclusion requires a witness to be wrong, and you have no reason to bring their testimony into question outside of the fact that it doesn't fit your preconceived, desired result.

See my response above. You project your personal opinion there are two Named-Objects/Gods and that both witnesses are giving complete accounts of two different things and you then attempt to force the scenario to end favoring that position. However, you have failed to show 'why' either of the witnesses must be right, and since there is no reason to assume that either witness is right then your deduction is NOT the first and easiest solution to the question. Your conclusion requires a witness to be right, and you have no reason to accept their testimony without question outside of the fact that it does fit your preconceived, desire result.

Wow, that was easy and fun. Humans are fallible and prone to mistakes. If you want to claim that, in this instance, it is impossible for either of these particular humans to be wrong, you are going to have show me how you tested their statements for accuracy, or else I am going to work with what I already know, i.e. that humans are fallible and prone to mistakes.

The last part of your post about all monotheism religions always worshiping the same God because there cannot be other God could only be correct IF there was in fact no way to worship a non-God, which you have not proven, nor even suggested why that might be true, thus, is an erroneous conclusion as well.
No, but I did get you to expose your ulterior motive, which I guess is unfair of me, since so many others went to so much trouble to block you from doing that and turning this into a non-Christian-religion-bashing thread.

Oh, absolutely... that wouldn't necessarily disclude them either/both lying about the SAME thing, though...
Oh, yes, absolutely. *elaborate curtsey of agreement to GnI*

The point I was aiming for is - if a thing can be neither 'proved' nor 'disproved'... there is no logical mechanism to enable us to verify it against another, similarly unproved/undisproved concept.
Oh, yes, absolutely. *second elaborate curtsey of agreement to GnI*

:)

I just love that whole 'Mesopotamian history' thing.
I particularly enjoy citing Mithra because it sounds like Mothra. :D

Allah and God the Father are NOT one in the same. God the Father sen his only son don to Earth, and loves the Jewish people. Allah was a creation of the devil Muhammed used to manipulate people into killing his foes and doing his will. God the Father is the truth, and has existed for all eternity. Allah is a figment of Muslims imagination, Muhammed was very sneaky.

You didn't reference anything. You said that a lexical definition was a fancy word for a dictionary definition. Then I cited what a logic textbook says, contradicting you. Now, you've changed it to say that it doesn't limit itself to words in the dictionary

Since, reading isn't your strong point, I referenced my post above. You're welcome.

I said that it limits itself to the lexicon. A dictionary is an example of a lexicon, but in terms of logic it is expanded to include other definitions that may not be found in the dictionary but are found in popular usage. Dictionaries are just textualized explanations of the lexicon. There are very few lexical definitions, if any, that you won't find in some dictionary or another.

I'll prove you wrong again, from the same logic textbook, Hurley' Logic 8th edition. "A stipulative definition assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may incolve either coining a new word for giving a new meaning to an old world."

It's not a new word nor does it necessarily contradict the dictionary definition. It simply stipulates a use that is different than the common usage. Jargon does this. That's why it's jargon. So does religion. It's different though not contradictary from the lexical definition. Lexical definitions are general usage, stipulative definitions stipulate a usage to be held for the remainder of the 'argument' or disposition of a view. Religions are simply strict forms of illustrating a view. The fact that they still use that stipulative definition changes nothing. The definition was new when they started using it and unless you are claiming there is only one Christianity religion the use of the word God is not common throughout the Christian community. Thus it's actually stipulative.

Now, is the use of a stipulative definition more specific? Seems like the science of logic disagrees with you again, from the text, "The purpose of a stipulative definition is to replace a more complex expression with a simpler one."

Specific doesn't mean more complicated. It means choosing a specific definition so that the more generalized definition doesn't cause equivocation. Take the use of the term "not guilty" in law. It's a stipulative definition because it doesn't mean you are actually not guilty of the crime but that you couldn't be proven guilty for the purposes of the court. Specificity is simpler. Another way stipulation aids in debate is that I can instead of talking about all desks say for the purposes of our debate on we are talking about my desk when talking about desks. That's a stipulation intended to make the term more specific because it makes the discussion simpler and keeps us from arguing points that are not germaine to the discussion itself.

Now, what does it say on the strength of a stipulative definition (since you said they are stronger than lexical definitions)? "Because a stipulative definition is a cocmpletely arbitrary assignment of a meaning to a word for the first time, ther ecan be no such thing as a true or false stipulative definition." "Furthermore, for the same reason, a stipulative definition cannot provide any new information about the subject matter of the definiendum."

You are taking these claims out of context, I'll wager. Context is very important to this point. Stipulative definitions are not completely arbitrary. They are done to make the exposition of a point easier, simpler, more clear. There is nothing arbitrary about this in practice. Nothing at all.

An example of a stipulative definition is -
"For the purposes of this discussion, we will take the term 'child' to mean any human being under the age of 18. We will do so because in our state 18 is the age of majority."

See? It's not arbitrary. It's not a NEW definition or a new word and it is a stipulative definition. It may, in fact, match a dictionary definition of the term. In fact, your requirement to limit lexical definition to the one used in the science of logic is a stipulative definition. You are doing it for the purposes of preventing further equivocation on this matter.

In some cases, things that are quite popular are using stipulative definitions for long periods of time, like in legal documents. And yes, legal stipulations though they are more binding than logic stipulations are done for the same purpose and in the same vein. The meaning of stipulative definition in both cases is VERY similar.

If a body of persons agrees to a definition and adheres to it, then it isn't one defined for the first time. For something to be a stipulative definition, it must "assign a new meaning to a word for the first time" as we see defined in the logic text. Its a lexical definition.

Um, you're wrong. Stipulative definitions just simply aren't what you claim. Seriously, you are either misquoting your text or taking the quotes out of context.

For example, an amusement park or museum may use a precising definition, a subtype of stipulative definition, for the term child in their child fees, but they are not creating a completely new definition. In fact that definition may have been held by the museum since it opened. Run that one past your logic professor and you'll find that your understanding of the terms is fairly limited.

You just seem to be confused about the specialized use of the term "lexical" in logic. Thats probably why you've redefined a "lexical definition" twice, in a contradictory way, despite the definition of the term I've been posting over and over out of an old logic book.

No, I haven't. You're failure to read is your failure not mine. Lexical definition is a fancy term for dictionary definition. I am right, even in logic. I know you feel all high and mighty because you just read your first logic book, but my friend, you should really take a minute and do a little research. It's not limited to the dictionary but it is limited to the lexicon, which is what I initially referenced. A dictionary is just a documentation of the lexicon. My definitions are not contrary. At all.


Amusing. Seriously. You make me feel like a bully because you clearly just learned these terms and your understanding is so limited and you're SO sure you're right.

Another example -
Senior citizen - : an elderly person; especially : one who has retired

However, senior citizen can be a precising definition, a stipulation when used in the term senior citizen discount. Now often in that term it is used as -
Senior citizen - an elderly person age 65 or older.

That usage is common, it's often Jargon and it's clearly a precising definition, a subtype of stipulative definition that incorporates the reportive definition.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/meaning/def.php
M02.4 Precising definition
A precising definition might be regarded as a combination of reportive and stipulative definition. The aim of a precising definition is to make the meaning of a term more precise for some purpose. For example, a bus company might want to give discounts to old people. But simply declaring that old people can get discounts will lead to many disputes since it is not clear how old should one be in order to be an old person. So one might define "old person" to mean any person of age 65 or above. This is of course one among many possible definitions of "old".

However, you cannot claim that this example they use is either new, in the way you are intending it to be used, or outside of popular usage of the term.

Meanwhile, we'll demonstrate what you actually said, since you pretend to know what the hell you're talking about -
Okay, no one is talking about a lexicon first off. We're talking about lexical definitions vs demonstrative definitions in logic, and why the latter, the type you've been using, can't be applied to a deity with no demonstrative import. You seem to be confused.

Yes, once again, no one is talking about a lexicon. I would suggest googling the term "lexical definition" so you are familiar with the terms we use in logic when analyzing these types of things.

Are lexical definitions from the lexicon or not, expert?

By the way, the terms you're using were actually defined by the science of philosophy, not logic. But you knew that, right, expert?

Just because it cannot be 'proved'.... doesn't mean it isn't 'right'.

*shrug*
That's pretty much irrelevant, isn't it?
But we'll let the matter stand: proving the identity of the various objects of worship is an impossibility.
As I've pretty much said all along.

Allah and God the Father are NOT one in the same. God the Father sen his only son don to Earth, and loves the Jewish people. Allah was a creation of the devil Muhammed used to manipulate people into killing his foes and doing his will. God the Father is the truth, and has existed for all eternity. Allah is a figment of Muslims imagination, Muhammed was very sneaky.


Are you basing this on anything other than your own pedjudice?

It's not a new word nor does it necessarily contradict the dictionary definition. It simply stipulates a use that is different than the common usage. Jargon does this. That's why it's jargon. So does religion. It's different though not contradictary from the lexical definition. Lexical definitions are general usage, stipulative definitions stipulate a usage to be held for the remainder of the 'argument' or disposition of a view. Religions are simply strict forms of illustrating a view.

A stipulative definition, according to this text, can be a new word, according to the logic text I've been quoting to you. You keep saying "no it isn't", but you've really yet to address the fact that this logic textook is saying it is.

"A stipulative definition assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may involve either coining a new word or giving a new meaning to an old word." - Hurley's Logic, 8th Edition.

Are they contrary to lexical definitions? You say no, the Hurley's Logic says yes.

"Because a stipulative definition is a completely arbitrary assignment of a meaning to a word for the first time, there can be no such thing as a true or false stipulative definition" - Hurley's Logic.
"In contrast with a stipulative deffinition, which assigns a meaning to a word for the first time, a lexical definition may be true or false."

Here is an example of a stipulative definition of stipulative definitions, that are new words, from Hurley's Logic:

"For example, a few years ago the attempt was made at a certain zoo to crossbreed tigers and lions. because of the genetic simliarity of the two speciies, the attempt succeeded. offspring were produced ffrom a male tiger and a female lion and from a male lion and a female tiger. When the offsprig were born, it became appropriate to give them names. Of course, the names "offspring of a male tiger and female lion" and "offspring of a male liona nd female tiger" could have been used, but these names were hardly convenient. Instead, the names "tigon" and "liger" were selected."



Specific doesn't mean more complicated. It means choosing a specific definition so that the more generalized definition doesn't cause equivocation. Take the use of the term "not guilty" in law. It's a stipulative definition because it doesn't mean you are actually not guilty of the crime but that you couldn't be proven guilty for the purposes of the court. Specificity is simpler. Another way stipulation aids in debate is that I can instead of talking about all desks say for the purposes of our debate on we are talking about my desk when talking about desks. That's a stipulation intended to make the term more specific because it makes the discussion simpler and keeps us from arguing points that are not germaine to the discussion itself.

Once again, according to the logic text, stipulative definitions are less specific, more unclear, and more ambiguous.

"Stipulative definitions are misused in verbal disputes hwne one person covertly uses a word in a particular way and then proceeds to assume that everyone else uses that word in the same way. Under these circumstances that person is said to be using the word "stipulatively." - Hurley's Logic.

You are taking these claims out of context, I'll wager. Context is very important to this point. Stipulative definitions are not completely arbitrary. They are done to make the exposition of a point easier, simpler, more clear. There is nothing arbitrary about this in practice. Nothing at all.

Everything I've cited so far has been a self-contained idea. There are no contextual modifiers, and there are none that can be seen to be missing from what I've cited.

According to the logic textbook, they ARE completely arbitrary. That is exactly what it says, word for word. Here is the entire paragraph, if you question the context:

"Because a stipulative definition is a completely arbitrary assignment of a meaning to a word for the first time, there can be no such thing as a "true" or "false" stipulative definition. Furthermore, for the same reason, a stipulative definition cannot provide any new informationa bout the subject matter of the definiendum. The fact that the word "tigon" was selected to replace "offspring of a male tiger and af emale lion" tells us nothing new about the nature of the animal in question.

So lets recap:

1. You claimed that a stipulative definition is not a new word.
2. Hurley's Logic, 8th Edition disagrees
1. You claim that it isn't contrary to the dictionary definition
2. Hurley's Logic, 8th Edition disagrees
1. You claimed that stipulative definitions are more specific
2. Hurley's Logic, 8th Edition says they are more vague
1. You claimed that they are not totally arbitrary
2. Hurley's Logic, 8th Edition says they are totally arbitrary
1. You claimed that my citations were out of context
2. I've provided full and complete context.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/meaning/def.php
M02.4 Precising definition
A precising definition might be regarded as a combination of reportive and stipulative definition. The aim of a precising definition is to make the meaning of a term more precise for some purpose. For example, a bus company might want to give discounts to old people. But simply declaring that old people can get discounts will lead to many disputes since it is not clear how old should one be in order to be an old person. So one might define "old person" to mean any person of age 65 or above. This is of course one among many possible definitions of "old".

Who said anything about precising definitions? This is the fallacy of the red herring. While precising definitions are used to reduce vagueness, stipulative definitions are not precising definitions. Nor does this website claim that. It simply says that they "may be regarded" as th combination of such. This really doesn't support anything you've claimed about stipulative definitions.

It's not a new word nor does it necessarily contradict the dictionary definition.

Now, its interesting that you would post from a website that actually refutes one of your previous claims.
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/meaning/def.php

A stipulative definition is not used to explain the existing meaning of a term. It is used to assign a new meaning to a term, whether or not the term has already got a meaning. If the stipulative definition is accepted, then the term is used in the new way that is prescribed. For example, suppose a stipulative definition is proposed to define "MBA" to mean married but available. Accepting such a definition, we can then go about describing other people as MBAs.

The website you cited, even though you cited when it was talking about a precising definition rather than a stipulative definition, disagrees with what you claimed here as well. It is not used to explain the existing meaning of a term. Therefore, it is necessarily in contradiction with a lexical definition. We can prove this using a syllogism.

All lexical definitions are used to define the existing meanings of terms
No stipulative definitions are used to define the existing meanings of terms
Therefore, no lexical definitions are stipulative definitions

All L are E
No S are E
No L are S

We see that this syllogism is of the mood and form (AEE-2) and thus is valid.

Of course it could also be that each of the definitions are partially true and partially untrue. What then?
This is not true, because many points of the religions are contradictory. Either Jesus is the Messiah, or he isn't. Either Muhammad is the Prophet, or he isn't. The religions are fundamentally different.

You didn't contradict me here. Christianity could be correct that Jesus is the Messiah, but not correct that Jesus is God. In that sense, Judaism would be correct that Jesus is not God. Each could hold truths and untruths about God. There is no way that we can say, "This religion has everything 100% right and all other religions are 100% wrong." We cannot do this for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that many religions agree on at least some points. You are correct that they cannot all be right in those things that they disagree on, but some religions may be right in some of the disagreements and wrong in others.

On another note, it doesn't really matter whether or not they worship the same god if their beliefs about that god are completely different.

It just means that it is idiotic to say, "They don't worship the same God!" Of course they do, they just do so differently. And maybe one is right. Or maybe they are all partially right and partially wrong.

Why is it that Christians always argue with Jews about Judaism? Who really knows more?

Whoever has studied it the most. I would not be surprised, for instance, if a rabbi knew more about the history of Christianity than I, since he would have spent his life studying religion, and I have studied other subjects more than religion.

Moses Maimonides, considered to be the greatest rabbi to ever live,

Considered that by who? You? Teachers are teachers. Sometimes they contradict each other. It is up to the student to try and determine which are correct.

If you want to hear Rabbis today explain how Jesus and Christianity is idolatry,

I never said it wasn't. I asked you to show me a single rabbi who would suggest that Christians do not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You failed to do so, as I don't see any such thing on any of your sites. In fact, all I do see is a fanatical fear of Christian ministries and a backlash against Jews for Jesus. But even in these sites, no one ever states that Christians and Jews do not worship the same God.

And please, PLEASE, tell me which Rabbis you've suppossedly talked to so I can give them a ring.

One is at a synagogue in Savannah, it's been a while since I talked to him. Another in Atlanta. Others have spoken on NPR, on a variety of subjects.

Here's a site for you:

http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/dabruemet.html

Jews and Christians worship the same God. Before the rise of Christianity, Jews were the only worshippers of the God of Israel. But Christians also worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; creator of heaven and earth. While Christian worship is not a viable religious choice for Jews, as Jewish theologians we rejoice that, through Christianity, hundreds of millions of people have entered into relationship with the God of Israel.

Signed by quite a few rabbis: http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/signers.html

You going to call them all?

There, now you have a host of Rabbis, classical and modern, who agree with me. You can't say every one you've heard of has contradicted me now.

Actually, not a single site backed you up. All they said was why they think Christianity is wrong, not that it involves any other God.

Who said anything about precising definitions? This is the fallacy of the red herring. While precising definitions are used to reduce vagueness, stipulative definitions are not precising definitions. Nor does this website claim that. It simply says that they "may be regarded" as th combination of such. This really doesn't support anything you've claimed about stipulative definitions.

But precising definitions are stipulative definitions, so it directly refutes your point. It's not a red herring. It's evidence.

They are a subype of stipulative definitions.

Seriously, I know you've been studying this for part of a semester and everything, so you're an expert, but you're using the terms wrong. I showed you examples of stipulative definitions, how they are specific and how they are used.

Tigons and ligers are examples of what it can be, but not what it has to be. You used completely new words. We are talking about words in existence. Meanwhile, you fail in addressing that the lexical definition IS referencing the lexicon, though you claimed they are unrelated.

You claimed a stipulative definition IS more vague and IS arbitrary, but the example you gave of tigon and liger is very specific and not at all arbitrary. The chosen word may be arbitrary but the usage is meant to fulfill a specific purpose. There is nothing arbitrary about that usage.

See, you keep using your one text that you've read, but I can't examine the context of your claims, so it's useless. If you're going to appeal to authority, make it an authority we have access to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently-existing term is given a new meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. This new definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect"; it can only differ from other definitions.

For example, in a well-known riddle of induction by Nelson Goodman, "grue" was stipulated to be "a property of an object that makes it appear green if observed before some future time t, and blue if observed afterward." "Grue" has no meaning in standard English; therefore, Goodman created the new term and gave it a stipulative definition.

Stipulative definitions of existing terms are useful in making theoretical arguments, or stating specific cases. For example:

Suppose we say that to love someone is to be willing to die for that person.
Take "human" to mean any member of the species Homo sapiens.
For the purposes of argument, we will define a "student" to be "a person under 18 enrolled in a local school."
Some of these are also precising definitions, a subtype of stipulative definition that may not contradict, but only extend, the lexical definition of a term.

Many holders of controversial and highly-charged opinions use stipulative definitions in order to attach the emotional or other connotations of a word to the meaning they would like to give it; for example, defining "murder" as "the killing of any living thing for any reason." The other side of such an argument is likely to use a different stipulative definition for the same term: "the premeditated killing of a human being." The lexical definition in such a case is likely to fall somewhere in between.

Notice how it agrees with the quotes you used, but not at all with your extractions from those quotes. Notice the stipulative examples they use are not NEW, but are simply definitions STIPULATED in order to make the argument clearer. Your failure to understand the words you use is again your failure. You are trying to use a denotation in your textbooks are argue the connotation of the terms when it's clear what their intent for use is.

There is no requirement for the term to be newly-coined. It can be or it can be a word that is already in usage and that is being defined differently, for a specific purpose. Religions take the lexical definition of God and make it specific to their beliefs. They STIPULATE the use of the term God for the purposes of their view by creating a stipulative definition. At the time they created it, it WAS new.

For example, liger and tigon are now the common term for those animals. Does that mean the stipulative definition is no longer stipulative?

Let me explain to you how definitions work, in logic. Your examples have been what are called demonstrative definitions. They require an example or something with existential import. When talking about God, we use a lexical definition, which outlines the criteria beforehand without existential import.

I don't know about you, but my definition of God comes from my own personal experience of God, just as my definition of you would come from my own personal experience with you.

When we talk about the deities in religions, we have definitions beforehand.

Really? So before a religion ever existed, the definition of God used by that religion popped into existence? Or did, perhaps, the definition develop out of the religious experiences of those starting the religion?

These outline the attributes and nature of God without any demonstrative import.

If you believe no one has ever had experience of God, why do you believe God exists in the first place?

I'm sorry for not clarifying this, I realize that everyone isn't familiar with logic and the way we use definitions in logic to prove and disprove things.

Nice backhanded comment that demonstrates your own insecurities with what you are saying.

When you point at me, you aren't using a lexical definition. You're using what is called a demonstrative definition. Demonstrative definitions can't be applied to things that are not physically able to be viewed and pointed at, such as Gods. This is why in logic we can't use a demonstrative definition, like you've been trying to, to analyze God. Comparing a demonstrative definition and a lexical definition in the way that you're doing commits a fallacy, too. The fallacy of false/questionable analogy. You would have to be able to point and show me God for your analogy to be valid.

You don't actually have to be able to physically observe God for God to exist. And, if God does exist, then the definition of God is derived from that existence, not from what we can and cannot perceive.

Assuming that one God exists as defined by one religion, then the God would be exactly as that religion defines it.

Why assume this? Since when are humans infallible?

If Judaism is correct, the definition of God given in Judaism was given to Jews by God. It would be God defining Himself, rather than Judaism defining God. Same thing applies if Christianity or Isalm is true.

Which definition? That put forth in Torah by the Priestly author? That put forward by the Yahwist? They are rather different. Or are you, perhaps, working off of a general sense derived from both?

Now, its interesting that you would post from a website that actually refutes one of your previous claims.
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/meaning/def.php



The website you cited, even though you cited when it was talking about a precising definition rather than a stipulative definition, disagrees with what you claimed here as well. It is not used to explain the existing meaning of a term. Therefore, it is necessarily in contradiction with a lexical definition. We can prove this using a syllogism.

All lexical definitions are used to define the existing meanings of terms
No stipulative definitions are used to define the existing meanings of terms
Therefore, no lexical definitions are stipulative definitions

All L are E
No S are E
No L are S

We see that this syllogism is of the mood and form (AEE-2) and thus is valid.

Amusing. The problem is you are still using the term out of context. I have to say, I'm actually enjoying this now, so thank you. You keep digging that hole and I'll keep piling dirt on top of you.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tigon
Main Entry: ti·gon
Pronunciation: 'tI-g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: tiger + lion
: TIGLON

Whoops. That would be checkmate.

It appears that tigon is part of the lexicon, the common usage. It was still a stipulative definition when it was created, which was the point I was making about religious definitions of God. Each sect creates a definition of God that is stipulative. It is also precising because it takes a lexical definition and makes it more precise so that the lexical definition gets narrowed down to meaning their description of the one and only creator.

I recommend you copy this topic to your professor. He's gonna laugh. He'll also help you better understand the terms so you don't embarrass yourself in the future.

The correct analogy is that one saw two blue eyes, one saw a left hazel eye and one right violet and yellow eye, and another said you have one eye in the middle of your forehead.

No, my analogy works just fine, thanks. But even if this were true, it simply means that they perceived me differently, not that there were more than one of me.

Or maybe one person saw you, another person saw someone else standing where you were supposed to be, and another was in the wrong place, wrong time, and saw a movie poster...

No polytheism here. Just trying to point out that someone may be wrong, not seeing different aspects of the same person or elephant, but seeing different things entirely.

You just claimed different religions actually saw different gods "where [God] was supposed to be". That is polytheisum, my friend. If they are seeing "different things entirely" and all worshipping gods, then there are more gods than one.

Amusing. The problem is you are still using the term out of context. I have to say, I'm actually enjoying this now, so thank you. You keep digging that hole and I'll keep piling dirt on top of you.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tigon
Main Entry: ti·gon
Pronunciation: 'tI-g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: tiger + lion
: TIGLON

Whoops. That would be checkmate.

It appears that tigon is part of the lexicon, the common usage. It was still a stipulative definition when it was created, which was the point I was making about religious definitions of God. Each sect creates a definition of God that is stipulative. It is also precising because it takes a lexical definition and makes it more precise so that the lexical definition gets narrowed down to meaning their description of the one and only creator.

I recommend you copy this topic to your professor. He's gonna laugh. He'll also help you better understand the terms so you don't embarrass yourself in the future.

Tigon and liger are not stipulative definitions anymore, they are lexical definitions. They were stipulative definitions when the zoo gave the new animals the new names, like the textbook said. Stipulative definitions can become lexical definitions, but then they are no longer stipulative definitions, because the two are mutually exclusive. The syllogism proved that much.

Could be. But we don't have a reason to go there, there is no problem created by the testimony of witness B and witness A as they are. Unless we have a 'reason' to question the credibility of either witness’s testimony we first have to proceed with the assumption that both witness A and witness B are credible sources of what they testify (i.e., we must first assume is that Islam is a credible witness of Allah and that the Christian Bible is a credible witness of Jesus/God before we conclude that they don’t know what they are talking about). Then, proceeding, we see when we compare their definitions of God that they don’t define the same God (one has a Son the other does not, etc.,) we wrap up (until further evidence presents itself) with the answer that they are NOT talking about the same God.

Oh dear. More polytheism. It's fine if you are a polytheist, of course, it's just that I thought you had suggested you were Christian, which is generally decidedly monotheistic...

See, if you "know" (or believe, in this case), that there truly is only one God, then you do have reason to think that one witness of God which contradicts another is wrong. Now, how you will figure out which is wrong is another issue entirely, but you do have a reason to say one is wrong, because you are aware that there is only one deity to speak of in the first place...

I particularly enjoy citing Mithra because it sounds like Mothra. :D

Can't think of a better reason. :)

(No more curtseys, please... I'll be hell to live with...)

But precising definitions are stipulative definitions, so it directly refutes your point. It's not a red herring. It's evidence.

They are a subype of stipulative definitions.

They are not. The website you posted didn't make that claim, either. This is something you've just made up. Precising definitions are not subtypes of stipulative definitions.

You claimed a stipulative definition IS more vague and IS arbitrary, but the example you gave of tigon and liger is very specific and not at all arbitrary. The chosen word may be arbitrary but the usage is meant to fulfill a specific purpose. There is nothing arbitrary about that usage.

No, I cited a textbook that claimed that. It wasn't my off the wall claim, it is what is being peer-reviewed and published as logic works today. You've yet to really provide any evidence against it, and you've flat out denied what the logic textbook says.

I don't know why you've drawn a dichotomy between specific and arbitrary. The two are not antonyms. Something can be arbitrary and specific. Because the words tigon and liger didn't exist previously, they are arbitrary by definition. Just like the logic textbook says they are.

See, you keep using your one text that you've read, but I can't examine the context of your claims, so it's useless. If you're going to appeal to authority, make it an authority we have access to.

Wikipedia isn't exactly an authority. To be fair, it often has accurate and nice information, but if you're going to try and refute what a textbook on logic that is accepted and used as standard in universities throughout the nation and peer-reviewed says don't give me a open-source encyclopedia article.

There is no requirement for the term to be newly-coined. It can be or it can be a word that is already in usage and that is being defined differently, for a specific purpose. Religions take the lexical definition of God and make it specific to their beliefs. They STIPULATE the use of the term God for the purposes of their view by creating a stipulative definition. At the time they created it, it WAS new.

Yes, at the time they created it, then it was new. After it comes into common usage within a group, it becomes a lexical definition.


For example, liger and tigon are now the common term for those animals. Does that mean the stipulative definition is no longer stipulative?

Yes, now you're getting it. Those two words are no longer stipulative, they were only stipulative at the time they were first coined. They have become lexical definitions because they have common definitions and common uses of the words.

Allah and God the Father are NOT one in the same. God the Father sen his only son don to Earth, and loves the Jewish people. Allah was a creation of the devil Muhammed used to manipulate people into killing his foes and doing his will. God the Father is the truth, and has existed for all eternity. Allah is a figment of Muslims imagination, Muhammed was very sneaky.

Yahweh and the 'pretend' god of Christianity are NOT the same. Yahweh promised the Hebrews that there would be NO other 'gods' before him, and loves the Jewish people. The 'pretend' god of Christianity was a creation of the devil so-called 'apostles', used to manipulate people into killing their foes and doing their will. Yahweh is the truth, and has existed for all eternity. The 'pretend' god of Christianity is a figment of Christian's imaginations, the so-called apostles were very sneaky.



Hey, this is a game ANYONE can play!

*shrug*
That's pretty much irrelevant, isn't it?
But we'll let the matter stand: proving the identity of the various objects of worship is an impossibility.
As I've pretty much said all along.

Is it irrelevent?

If there is no empirical way to prove or disprove the connection, or lack thereof, then we should (surely) rely on witness testimony... no?

And, the witnesses seem to think they are describing one entity. Unless you can refute that, shouldn't we take it as a reasonable assumption?

Tigon and liger are not stipulative definitions anymore, they are lexical definitions. They were stipulative definitions when the zoo gave the new animals the new names, like the textbook said. Stipulative definitions can become lexical definitions, but then they are no longer stipulative definitions, because the two are mutually exclusive. The syllogism proved that much.

They aren't mutually exclusive. A stipulative definition does not necessarily contradict a dictionary definition, it's just stipulated. That means that it can say for the purposes of an argument, a view or a discussion, it's not the vague dictionary definition, but a specific definition which may or may not agree with all or part of the lexical definition.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Stipulative_definition

Legal documents often use stipulative definitions that are absolutely fouind in the lexicon. It is necessary for them to do so because in absense of a stipulative definition, any lexical definition will do that fits the context and this may cause equivocation.

Meanwhile -
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lexical_definition
When the breadth or vagueness of a lexical definition is unacceptable, a precising definition or a stipulative definition is often used.

Precising definitions are intended to make a lexical definition more precise but must include one or more of the definitions in the common usage. Stipulative definitions are to make it stipulate a particular, specific definition that may or may not be a precising definition, may or may not be a new word and may or may not agree with the lexical definition.

Oh dear. More polytheism. It's fine if you are a polytheist, of course, it's just that I thought you had suggested you were Christian, which is generally decidedly monotheistic...

See, if you "know" (or believe, in this case), that there truly is only one God, then you do have reason to think that one witness of God which contradicts another is wrong. Now, how you will figure out which is wrong is another issue entirely, but you do have a reason to say one is wrong, because you are aware that there is only one deity to speak of in the first place...

You have completely abandoned the topic at hand, of defining if the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are the same or not. Youespouse a different scenario for the topic of, "you believe there is most likely a ‘true’ deist God that accepts true worship from everyone… " But that’s a different question. I’ll have to remind you of the topic at hand from the limits set in the OP.

...
If anyone should argue that the ‘true’ God (of any of the above or all of the above and more) accepts true worship from everyone, I am not going to argue with them. Because that, IMO, is distinctly a different question.

The problem with your argument is that it is a different question than the one posted in the OP. Your hypothesis requires a different question and can’t be deduction be examination of the Christianity~Islam testimonies. Your posit ‘can’t’ be proven right or wrong, you are espousing belief in an non-provable, nor provable, ‘new’ creation, not described by either Christianity or Islam, but is itself a third belief altogether. In other words, you’ve simply changed the topic.

Is it irrelevent?

If there is no empirical way to prove or disprove the connection, or lack thereof, then we should (surely) rely on witness testimony... no?

And, the witnesses seem to think they are describing one entity. Unless you can refute that, shouldn't we take it as a reasonable assumption?

No. Russell's Razor. Any assumption - no matter how reasonable - makes the 'proof' suspect to the point that it must be considered as false.

And btw: witnesses does not equate proof.
Unless you - as an atheist - want to accept the proposition that [a] God exists, since you have a long strand of witness-testimony to say so.

Considered that by who? You? Teachers are teachers. Sometimes they contradict each other. It is up to the student to try and determine which are correct.

Moses Maimonides is commonly considered to be the greatest Rabbi in both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism. We have a phrase that goes "From Moses to Moses there is none like Moses." Its offensive and anti-Semitic to not recognize or deny the fact that Rambam is commonly accepted to be the greatest in the major sects of Judaism.

I never said it wasn't. I asked you to show me a single rabbi who would suggest that Christians do not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You failed to do so, as I don't see any such thing on any of your sites. In fact, all I do see is a fanatical fear of Christian ministries and a backlash against Jews for Jesus. But even in these sites, no one ever states that Christians and Jews do not worship the same God.

You must have missed the articles titled "Is Jesus God?" and "Is the Trinity found in the Torah?" then, where Rabbi Yosef outlines that Christians are polytheists that worship a multi-part god. I guess you never checked up on Rambam (From Moses to Moses...) and what he had to say about the Christian deity.

I would also keep in mind that the Talmud calls Christians idolators, and it also states that it is impossible to worship God and be an idolator at the same time. See Avodah Zarah 2a. The sages have ruled on this.

One is at a synagogue in Savannah, it's been a while since I talked to him. Another in Atlanta. Others have spoken on NPR, on a variety of subjects.

Thats vague. I'm not surprised you can't give me the names of any Rabbis you claimed to have spoken with.

Here's a site for you:

http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/dabruemet.html



Signed by quite a few rabbis: http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/signers.html

You going to call them all?

It doesn't seem like this site is Orthodox, Conservative, or that it conforms to Halacha. Therefore, it does not represent Judaism by definition. When studying Judaism, my advice would be to go to the sources. See the sages, the Talmud, and modern Orthodox Rabbis.

They are not. The website you posted didn't make that claim, either. This is something you've just made up. Precising definitions are not subtypes of stipulative definitions.

Oh?

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

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently-existing term is given a new meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. This new definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect"; it can only differ from other definitions.

For example, in a well-known riddle of induction by Nelson Goodman, "grue" was stipulated to be "a property of an object that makes it appear green if observed before some future time t, and blue if observed afterward." "Grue" has no meaning in standard English; therefore, Goodman created the new term and gave it a stipulative definition.

Stipulative definitions of existing terms are useful in making theoretical arguments, or stating specific cases. For example:

Suppose we say that to love someone is to be willing to die for that person.
Take "human" to mean any member of the species Homo sapiens.
For the purposes of argument, we will define a "student" to be "a person under 18 enrolled in a local school."
Some of these are also precising definitions, a subtype of stipulative definition that may not contradict, but only extend, the lexical definition of a term.

Hmmmmm..... Looks like his site *does* say that.

Wikipedia isn't exactly an authority. To be fair, it often has accurate and nice information, but if you're going to try and refute what a textbook on logic that is accepted and used as standard in universities throughout the nation and peer-reviewed says don't give me a open-source encyclopedia article.

If you think it is wrong, try and change it. Chances are you'll get a scathing email from an actual Ph.D. within a few hours.

You have completely abandoned the topic of defining the God of Christianity and Islam and finding them different for the topic of, you believe there is most likely a ‘true’ deist God that accepts true worship from everyone… That’s a different question. I’ll have to remind you of the topic at hand from the limits set in the OP.

That's quite an elaborate strawman you created. Never mind that I haven't done any such thing.

If a God exists, and there is only one, as all three religions believe, then they can only possibly be describing the same deity, even if some of them are wrong.

I never once said that there is a "deist God that accepts true worship from everyone," and I challenge you to find anything I said that even suggested it. I simply said that there is one God, and some (or all of us) are wrong about some of the aspects of said God.

There is no "God of Christianity" and "God of Islam". There is a God, and either Christianity or Islam may be correct about that God. We also might all be wrong. Or we might be partially right and partially wrong.


...
If anyone should argue that the ‘true’ God (of any of the above or all of the above and more) accepts true worship from everyone, I am not going to argue with them. Because that, IMO, is distinctly a different question.

The problem with your argument is that it is a different question than the one posted in the OP. Your hypothesis requires a different question and can’t be deduction be examination of the Christianity~Islam testimonies. Your posit ‘can’t’ be proven right or wrong, you are espousing belief in an non-provable, nor provable, ‘new’ creation, not described by either Christianity or Islam, but is itself a third belief altogether. In other words, you’ve simply changed the topic.

My argument has nothing to do with suggesting that the true God does or does not accept worship from everyone. I don't claim to know that.

The OP posits the suggestion that Christians worship a different God from other religions. Unless there are multiple Gods, this is not possible. I have not come up with any new creation. Both Christianity and Islam describe God, albeit with different descriptions. Depending on who you talk to, someone might say I am a bitch, and someone else might say I am a polite person. It doesn't mean that they are talking about someone else. The same is true of God. If God exists, and I believe God does, then we can attempt to describe God, whether we are correct or incorrect.

They aren't mutually exclusive. A stipulative definition does not necessarily contradict a dictionary definition, it's just stipulated. That means that it can say for the purposes of an argument, a view or a discussion, it's not the vague dictionary definition, but a specific definition which may or may not agree with all or part of the lexical definition.

I've already cited a syllogism that demonstrates they are mutally exclusive. You never did address it.


Meanwhile -
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lexical_definition
When the breadth or vagueness of a lexical definition is unacceptable, a precising definition or a stipulative definition is often used.

Precising definitions are intended to make a lexical definition more precise but must include one or more of the definitions in the common usage. Stipulative definitions are to make it stipulate a particular, specific definition that may or may not be a precising definition, may or may not be a new word and may or may not agree with the lexical definition.

I thought we were going to use real authorities to demonstrate our points? Why are you still using an open-source internet encyclopedia to try and contradict what a logic textbook states?

Oh?

Hmmmmm..... Looks like his site *does* say that.

I was referring to the first site he posted, rather than the open-source internet encyclcopedia. If you pull up wikipedia, when I have logic textbooks in front of me that say otherwise, I'll have to go with the latter.

I've already cited a syllogism that demonstrates they are mutally exclusive. You never did address it.

I can't address your book, because I don't have your book. What you are posting appears to be out of context, as I could get the same information from the sites I posted, but in context they explain exactly what I am explaining.

I thought we were going to use real authorities to demonstrate our points? Why are you still using an open-source internet encyclopedia to try and contradict what a logic textbook states?
What logic textbook. I've not seen one. I've only seen your claims that you are citing that textbook. Kind of useless on the internet, but then you knew that.

Moses Maimonides is commonly considered to be the greatest Rabbi in both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism. We have a phrase that goes "From Moses to Moses there is none like Moses." Its offensive and anti-Semitic to not recognize or deny the fact that Rambam is commonly accepted to be the greatest in the major sects of Judaism.

You really have a serious persecution complex, don't you? Every time it is suggested that someone *might* disagree with you, you label such disagreement as anti-Semitic.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever other than, "Tropical Sands said so," to suggest that he is considered to be the greatest rabbi by anyone but you. I have seen quite a bit that he is a revered rabbi, and considered to be a great philosopher, but little to suggest that your average Jewish person goes around talking about how he is the greatest rabbi to have ever lived.

You must have missed the articles titled "Is Jesus God?" and "Is the Trinity found in the Torah?" then, where Rabbi Yosef outlines that Christians are polytheists that worship a multi-part god. I guess you never checked up on Rambam (From Moses to Moses...) and what he had to say about the Christian deity.

This still has nothing to do with there being a separate God that Christians worship. Christians still worship YHWH, we simply have a different view. YHWH is described in a different manner that Judaism holds to be wrong. That doesn't mean that there is a different God worhsipped, and none of your sites claimed that it does.

Thats vague. I'm not surprised you can't give me the names of any Rabbis you claimed to have spoken with.

Like I said, it's been a while.

It doesn't seem like this site is Orthodox, Conservative, or that it conforms to Halacha. Therefore, it does not represent Judaism by definition. When studying Judaism, my advice would be to go to the sources. See the sages, the Talmud, and modern Orthodox Rabbis.

Oh, I see. So it's only Judaism if it is your personal view of Judaism. Never mind that there are entire sects of Judaism outside of your personal view. Never mind that they are Jews, just as you are. You are exactly the same as a Baptist claiming that no one else is Christian. You and Socialist Whittier should get together in the pride discussion. You have quite a bit in common.

I would also like to point out that, if we assume that a precising definition is a subclass of a stipulative definition, you still can't use any criteria surrounding a precising definition to evaluate a stipulative definition. If you try, you commit a formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. It goes like this:

All B are A,
Therefore, all A are B

This is what Jocabia did by attempting to use the definition of a precising definition (which she claimed was a subclass of a stipulative definition) to define a stipulative definition.

I was referring to the first site he posted, rather than the open-source internet encyclcopedia. If you pull up wikipedia, when I have logic textbooks in front of me that say otherwise, I'll have to go with the latter.


And in defense of that practise, we may quote the longuish article ( as well as advertisement ) in Monday's London Times, debunking the notion advanced by the publishers of Nature, that Wikipedia was as reliable as, say, the Enc. Brit.

Nature's article was entirely based on falsehoods, misquotations, miscompilations, and even direct invention of articles quoted that as far as anyone could verify, did not even exist at all.

Wikipedia is based on opinions, not on facts.
Opinions may be right and correct - but the keyword here is may.
Therefore, Wikipedia may be right and correct - but the keyword here is may.

This is what Jocabia did by attempting to use the definition of a precising definition (which she claimed was a subclass of a stipulative definition) to define a stipulative definition.

Oops. You just created a new Jocabia. Jocabia is actually a man, but you made a new female version.

I never once said that there is a "deist God that accepts true worship from everyone," and I challenge you to find anything I said that even suggested it.

See below:

I simply said that there is one God, and some (or all of us) are wrong about some of the aspects of said God.

There is no "God of Christianity" and "God of Islam". There is a God, and either Christianity or Islam may be correct about that God. We also might all be wrong. Or we might be partially right and partially wrong.

See, you have redefined both Christianity and Islam's holy books. You have equally validated and invalidated everything they say and have replaced it with your new definition. Simply put, you are not confining yourself to the issue of Different Faiths/Different Gods (as is my posit) and instead of trying to say Christianity accepts Allah worship or that Islam accepts worship in the name of Jesus, you say something defined only by you.

Side note: your deduction that they all worship the one singular monotheistic God again ignores the possibility of no Gods and or false Gods...

You really have a serious persecution complex, don't you? Every time it is suggested that someone *might* disagree with you, you label such disagreement as anti-Semitic.

No, its your blatent disrespect for Rambam that is anti-Semitic.

This still has nothing to do with there being a separate God that Christians worship. Christians still worship YHWH, we simply have a different view. YHWH is described in a different manner that Judaism holds to be wrong. That doesn't mean that there is a different God worhsipped, and none of your sites claimed that it does.

Alright, perhaps this will make it more clear. This is what I've pulled off the forums on the Messiah Truth website, under the "Ask a Rabbi" section:

Islam is a monotheistic religion.
There is nothing wrong with a Jew entering or praying in a mosque.

It is forbidden to step foot in a church sanctuary.

Now, this is very very clear. This is a response to a Christian, where Rabbi Daniel clearly states that Muslims DO worship the God of Israel, but Christians do not.

They worship One true G-d regardless of how little they know of Him.
You don't.

This is always what I was taught as well. A Jew can convert to Islam, but NO OTHER RELIGION. Because in no other religion do they worship the same God, and they are all idolators. Christianity included.

I can't address your book, because I don't have your book. What you are posting appears to be out of context, as I could get the same information from the sites I posted, but in context they explain exactly what I am explaining.

I posted the entire paragraphs. You've yet to demonstrate how they are out of context, or how that is even possible, considering the extensive examples and surrounding context I've posted for you.

What logic textbook. I've not seen one. I've only seen your claims that you are citing that textbook. Kind of useless on the internet, but then you knew that.

I'm sorry, ignorance isn't an excuse. I've cited my sources. I've given you more context than necessary, since I've given you the entire paragraphs rather than just singled out quotes or excerpts. I'm not required to do any more than I've done to support my point in any academic setting.

I posted the entire paragraphs. You've yet to demonstrate how they are out of context, or how that is even possible, considering the extensive examples and surrounding context I've posted for you.

I can't demonstrate it. I don't have your book. You suggested using the internet to me and when I did, rejected it. Again, show this conversation to your professor or someone who actually UNDERSTANDS the text you're reading and you'll find that your extractions from what the text says are inaccurate. I posted you references on sites that agreed both with the citations from the text and with me. That says you are the one struggling here. I know you're new to it and I'm sorry that you're struggling, but if you don't respect the information I'm giving you or me, get with someone you KNOW understands this stuff so you won't continue to travel down a path you clearly don't understand.


I'm sorry, ignorance isn't an excuse. I've cited my sources. I've given you more context than necessary, since I've given you the entire paragraphs rather than just singled out quotes or excerpts. I'm not required to do any more than I've done to support my point in any academic setting.
You cited your source. Your source is useless on the internet. I'm not claiming ignorance is an excuse. I'm saying you used an invalid source. Kjelstrom, The Issues of Logic, 4th Edition, declares "sources cited on an internet forum must in the interest of not being completely and ridiculously useless be actually *gasp* available on the internt." Yep, that's what it says. Prove me wrong.

You have failed in every way in this conversation and your evidence of the merit of your argument is to address your book directly, a book you know I don't have, or to admit defeat. Sorry, but that's a sad excuse for an argument. The sources I've found that we can both examine disagree with you and, by coinicidence (not really coincidence I don't really like totally pwning you) agree with the quotes you gave in context. Seriously, again, show this to someone who isn't taking their first logic course, because you are so outside of the actual logical definitions here.

EDIT: I'm out of town for the next week. Let your professor correct you, young padawan. They get paid to do so. I know you feel all wonderful because you starting to learn logic and it's exciting, but you really should check the size of your britches.

I can't demonstrate it. I don't have your book. You suggested using the internet to me and when I did, rejected it.

You cited one source from an academic institution, which was okay. I didn't reject it, but I did use a syllogism to demonstrate how it didn't support your point. Then I pointed out you were using it in the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.

And like I said, ignorance is not an excuse. I realize you don't have my book, but with what I posted, you don't need it. I gave you the sources, the context, examples, and virtually everything in the material that relates to it. The "I don't have your book" thing doesn't fly in the academic world, internet or not. Not having the resources or knowhow to check a source does not make it an "invalid source" as you would claim.

An open-source internet encyclopedia, however, is at the very least a questionable if not invalid source.

See below:

See, you have redefined both Christianity and Islam's holy books.

I didn't even mention the holy books, much less given them any definition. You have created yet another strawman.

You have equally validated and invalidated everything they say and have replaced it with your new definition.

I have neither validated nor invalidated anything either has to say. In fact, I specifically stated that they might be right and they might be wrong. I can't say either way.

Simply put, you are not confining yourself to the issue of Different Faiths/Different Gods (as is my posit)

Actually, I am. What you seem to mean is that I am not confining myself to agreeing with you. That is true. You posit that different faiths equates to different gods. I point out that, if God exists, and there truly is one God, then there can be no "different Gods", only people who are right or wrong about the God that exists.

and instead of saying Christianity accepts Allah or that Islam accepts worship in the name of Jesus

At what point did I suggest that Christianity accepts Allah or that Islam accepts worship in the name of Jesus? Obviously, they do not. That doesn't change the fact that Allah, YHWH, and the trinity are all descriptions of the same being, which may or many not exist.

Side note: your deduction that they all worship the one singular monotheistic God again ignores the possibility of no Gods and or false Gods...

If there are no gods, then there are no gods. No faith worships a god at all. By saying that a faith has a God at all, you have already assumed that such a being exists.

No, its your blatent disrespect for Rambam that is anti-Semitic.

At what point did I demonstrate any disrespect for him? How does pointing out that he is seen as a great philosopher and teacher demonstrate disrespect?

Alright, perhaps this will make it more clear. This is what I've pulled off the forums on the Messiah Truth website, under the "Ask a Rabbi" section:


Islam is a monotheistic religion.
There is nothing wrong with a Jew entering or praying in a mosque.

It is forbidden to step foot in a church sanctuary.

Now, this is very very clear. This is a response to a Christian, where Rabbi Daniel clearly states that Muslims DO worship the God of Israel, but Christians do not.

Which is rather idiotic, considering that Christians worship YHWH and use Jewish scripture in so doing. Interestingly enough, Muslims worship YHWH under the name Allah, and also revere Jewish scripture.

Which is rather idiotic, considering that Christians worship YHWH and use Jewish scripture in so doing. Interestingly enough, Muslims worship YHWH under the name Allah, and also revere Jewish scripture.

Well now there you go, calling the beliefs of Orthodox Judaism and the words of this rabbi idiotic.

As oppossed as I am to Christianity and many of the opinions in logic discussed in this thread, I've managed to go this entire time without ever using a purjorative or deragatory term. Yet from the opposition I see purjoratives being thrown at me or at Judaism in every other post.

No. Russell's Razor. Any assumption - no matter how reasonable - makes the 'proof' suspect to the point that it must be considered as false.

And btw: witnesses does not equate proof.
Unless you - as an atheist - want to accept the proposition that [a] God exists, since you have a long strand of witness-testimony to say so.

Why would I accept that God exists? I've seen no evidence convincing enough to make that a logical assumption.

But then, if I wanted to know about the nature of 'god' (perhaps, so that I knew whether I could believe)... I would look to one (or more) of those witness testimonies for some kind of qualitative evidence.

I think you use a different Russell's Razor to me - mine says "When possible, replace an inferred entity with a logical fiction" and "Accept the smallest number of simple undefined things and the smallest number of undemonstrated premises that you need to define the things that need to be defined and prove the things that need to be proved".

I don't see how that reinforces the point you were trying to make?

Well now there you go, calling the beliefs of Orthodox Judaism and the words of this rabbi idiotic.

If they can't be logically backed up...

It's basically someone saying, "We don't like what you believe, so it must be bad..."

Meanwhile, I have yet to see any evidence that this is the belief of all Jews or even all Orthodox Jews. Your comments are like me saying, "I believe X, therefore all Christians believe it. Look, Reverend Smith backs me up."

As oppossed as I am to Christianity and many of the opinions in logic discussed in this thread, I've managed to go this entire time without ever using a purjorative or deragatory term. Yet from the opposition I see purjoratives being thrown at me or at Judaism in every other post.

I haven't thrown a single insult at you, although you have used quite a few backhanded ones with Jocabia. You have continually talked down to people, all the while creating strawmen arguments and accusing everyone around you of anti-Semitism because they disagree with you. You may not have used any specific deragatory term, but the tone of your posts has been combative and insulting. Meanwhile, it isn't as if I called anyone an idiot. I simply pointed out the problem with an idea held by someone who may not be, himself, idiotic.

I have no problem with Judaism or Jews, orthodox or otherwise. But when it comes down to it, there is no logical reason to claim that Muslims and Jews worship the same God, but Christians and Jews do not. At least when someone was claiming that all three worshipped different Gods (oh wait, that was you claiming that), it made a little bit of sense.

If they can't be logically backed up...

It's basically someone saying, "We don't like what you believe, so it must be bad..."

Meanwhile, I have yet to see any evidence that this is the belief of all Jews or even all Orthodox Jews. Your comments are like me saying, "I believe X, therefore all Christians believe it. Look, Reverend Smith backs me up."

No, calling someone idiotic or what they say idiotic is not the same as saying "it can't logically be backed up."

And I don't know why you say you havn't seen any evidence. I've cited Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, his Mishneh Torah, the Talmud, and this current Rabbi. The Talmud alone is enough to let you know, hey, Orthodox Jews believe this - and if they don't, they should, because its halacha and they are functioning outside of Orthodoxy.

No, calling someone idiotic or what they say idiotic is not the same as saying "it can't logically be backed up."

There is a huge difference between calling a comment idiotic and a person idiotic. I refrained from doing the latter on purpose. I don't know anything about this rabbi other than one comment he made which is completely illogical, and thus idiotic.

And I don't know why you say you havn't seen any evidence. I've cited Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, his Mishneh Torah, the Talmud, and this current Rabbi.

The only source you have brought forth that has actually said what you said is this current rabbi - one person. The rest of it explained over and over again why Judaism holds that Christianity is wrong, but never suggested that Christians do not worship YHWH. Being wrong and discussing a different deity are not the same thing.

The Talmud alone is enough to let you know, hey, Orthodox Jews believe this - and if they don't, they should, because its halacha and they are functioning outside of Orthodoxy.

Every scripture can be twisted to say different things. Every scripture can be and is interpreted in different lights. The Talmud is no different in this respect.

The only source you have brought forth that has actually said what you said is this current rabbi - one person. The rest of it explained over and over again why Judaism holds that Christianity is wrong, but never suggested that Christians do not worship YHWH. Being wrong and discussing a different deity are not the same thing.

No, thats not true at all. I told you where in Maimonide's Guide for the Perplexed it states they are not the same. I also told you where in his Mishneh Torah it states that Christians are idolators and that idolators can't worship the same God as the Jews. Furthermore, I showed you in the Talmud, Avodah Zarah, where it states that Christians are idolators and thus don't worship the same God as the Jews.

No, thats not true at all. I told you where in Maimonide's Guide for the Perplexed it states they are not the same. I also told you where in his Mishneh Torah it states that Christians are idolators and that idolators can't worship the same God as the Jews. Furthermore, I showed you in the Talmud, Avodah Zarah, where it states that Christians are idolators and thus don't worship the same God as the Jews.

Actually, what you have done is say, "These documents agree with me," and expected me to take your word for it. They may or may not. It's not as if I can read them in their entirety before posts, even if I could get a copy of each.

This is always what I was taught as well. A Jew can convert to Islam, but NO OTHER RELIGION. Because in no other religion do they worship the same God, and they are all idolators. Christianity included.
With all due respect, people can "convert" to whatever the hell they want. If they believed that the Jewish way was correct enough to be worth sticking to, they wouldn't convert in the first place; if they didn't, why would they bother "converting"?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, while I understand where you're coming from, and give you due credit on holding your side of the discussion well, I feel that there is a slightly simpler way of taking on the problem. Hope Jocabia doesn't mind me borrowing his terminology.

We assume for the minute that the three ideas can be sufficiently simplified to single beliefs rather than the conglomeracies they really are. What we have are three different concepts. Sure, they're similar, but there are subtle differences in detail to separate them. It is reasonable to say that the Christian's concept of God is a different one to the Muslim's concept of Allah. Does this mean that the Christian God is different to the Muslim Allah? It does if you think Gods are defined as or using these concepts, but it doesn't if you view these concepts as attempted descriptions of an object.

My understanding is that there is a little of both of these. The origin of the differences lie in the mind of the individual believer. Each of us creates our own imaginary God in response to certain kinds of experience known in some circles as "revelation"; an experience which I believe originates in a pseudo-existential unity of thought, some say is definitely the personal God itself and yet others dismiss as merely our own mind playing tricks on us.

The point is that the experience is empirical. Behind it lies an objective cause. This cause, while we can come up with all sorts of cooky notions of it, has one previously defined truth. If the cause is indeed a supernatural entity engaging with the individual, then all the people who said as much have that right. It doesn't matter what else they say about it - if it's a person on a higher plane of existence then they've got part of the solution, no matter how else their concepts vary on his personal traits or other actions. Some might have it more right than others, but it's not a black and white hit-or-miss thing.

In truth, whenever you set aside the three religions, you do not just have three concepts. You have three bundles of concepts, all a mesh of different notions and aspects of what the sum total is supposed to represent. Considering again the elephant scenario, no individual has a single idea of what the elephant is. They have little sections that they try to pull together in a sensible way, sometimes adding in or setting aside ideas to formalise the thing they're trying to picture.

Paradoxically then (Incidentally, a lot of what I've written lately seems to be ironically self-contradictory in this respect. It's a funny old world, isn't it?), it could be argued that the Christian, Jewish and Islamic Gods have the same origin and become the same thing on the areas in which they agree with respect to that origin, but that they branch off and become separate concepts on the areas on which they disagree, even when the phenomenon they describe remains statically unchanged.

Why? Because, if any of them is shown to be correct in their analysis of the experience then the areas in which they agree with others will similarly grant the other concepts a degree of correctness. If, say, there is only one God that made the world and Allah is indeed his prophet, the bundle of true concepts will include "One God Made World" or some such, thereby validating that aspect of the Jewish beliefs that One God made the World.

(By the way, if this is being argued with a hidden subcontext of there being more value to holding a particular belief than simply being closer to truth, I am disregarding that utterly. The existence of an Afterlife or Judgement based on faith is entirely a part of the localised conceptual filling on the part of humans and has little or nothing to do with the factual search for God.)

Can't think of a better reason. :)

(No more curtseys, please... I'll be hell to live with...)
Fine, be that way. I'll revert to my crappy 21st century manners. :)

You have completely abandoned the topic at hand, of defining if the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are the same or not. Youespouse a different scenario for the topic of, "you believe there is most likely a ‘true’ deist God that accepts true worship from everyone… " But that’s a different question. I’ll have to remind you of the topic at hand from the limits set in the OP.



The problem with your argument is that it is a different question than the one posted in the OP. Your hypothesis requires a different question and can’t be deduction be examination of the Christianity~Islam testimonies. Your posit ‘can’t’ be proven right or wrong, you are espousing belief in an non-provable, nor provable, ‘new’ creation, not described by either Christianity or Islam, but is itself a third belief altogether. In other words, you’ve simply changed the topic.
How can we possibly stick to your topic when you are not being straightforward about what your topic is? I think it should be obvious by now that nobody is going to take your "my religion is the only true religion" bait. Regardless of where you would like to lead this thread it has taken its own path into an examination of the ability of humans to describe god -- which I, for one, find extremely interesting.

As for your criticism of Dem, she has not changed the topic. She is pursuing it exactly the same as all the rest of us. Also, I see nothing in any of her posts that claims a belief in deism. Her point seems quite clear to me: If the 3 monotheist religions claim to come from the same source -- which they do -- then they must be worshipping the same god -- just like they say they do -- even though they describe that god somewhat differently. I fail to see why you think this is impossible. Within Christianity alone, Catholics first broke with Orthodoxy, then Protestants broke with Catholics, and then some Protestants broke with each other -- but they all worship the same god, don't they? Christians disagree about the nature of the trinity, don't they? But they still worship the same god. Then why can't Judaism, Islam, and Christianity simply be 3 versions of belief in the same god -- as they say they are?

The second part of Dem's point is equally clear to me: You cannot posit the existence of three separate gods and still claim that you are a monotheist who only believes in the existence of one god. The minute you declare that three gods exist, you become a polytheist, even if you only worship one of those gods. But to clear this up, you would have to get into your original purpose in making this thread, which everyone already knows but is not interested in. At this point, I think getting into it would be a hijack.

As for your criticism of Dem, she has not changed the topic. She is pursuing it exactly the same as all the rest of us. Also, I see nothing in any of her posts that claims a belief in deism.

Her posts are about her beliefs, which are not shared as doctrine for any version of Islam or Christianity. For example, she says, one may be right, they both may be right and they might both be wrong from time to time. However, neither the Qur'an nor the Christian Bible share that premise as their definition of their witness to the God they worship. They do not hesitate to say, this and this, and not that… She changes the definition of what they say about themselves to what she thinks about them.

Her point seems quite clear to me: If the 3 monotheist religions claim to come from the same source -- which they do --

They do not. Islam comes from Mohammed who is from the pagan worshiping city of Mecca in the sixth century A.D.. Jesus is from a world a thousand years after Moses, one that had been totally remodeled politically and spiritually by the evolving world powers and internal self-examination. Modern day Judaism comes from the Talmud, written by leaders and teachers after the fall of Jerusalem (however, this last one is not one of my topics, I conferred this discussion to people who know more than I). None of them came from the writings of each other. Although they all share a common respect (to differing degrees) of the Torah/Old Testament writings.

then they must be worshipping the same god -- just like they say they do –

They do not say that they worship the same God (s). They distinctly warn against worshiping any God other than the one they witness to.

even though they describe that god somewhat differently. I fail to see why you think this is impossible. Within Christianity alone, Catholics first broke with Orthodoxy, then Protestants broke with Catholics, and then some Protestants broke with each other -- but they all worship the same god, don't they?

Do they? The Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses (as self describes ‘Christian’ groups) might look at each other and then disagree with you. They would not say that they worship the same God nor reach the same enlightenment or have the same goals for their spiritual existence.


Christians disagree about the nature of the trinity, don't they? But they still worship the same god.

Your saying it doesn’t make it true, see above, and imagine the hundred other examples that could be put there.

Then why can't Judaism, Islam, and Christianity simply be 3 versions of belief in the same god -- as they say they are?

They could be, but they are not. See the OP again, I gave many example there that the two books not only disagree with each other, they say that the believer can NOT believe what the other book teaches.

The second part of Dem's point is equally clear to me: You cannot posit the existence of three separate gods and still claim that you are a monotheist who only believes in the existence of one god. The minute you declare that three gods exist, you become a polytheist, even if you only worship one of those gods.

Erroneous conclusion. IF, for a moment, we were to assume that your premise was correct: Then there would be no purpose in the commandment: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, however, we do know that monotheists believers can be turned to worship other gods, Baal comes to mind. Is anyone here presupposing that Baal was/is just yet another facet of the all encompassing ‘one’ God that you suggest for Islam and Christianity?

But no, your premise is flawed. There would be no talk of worshiping false Gods if it wasn’t possible to do so, there would be no concern with eating foods offered to idols. However, these things do exist in the scriptures of the two religions in question. Both Islam and Christianity warn their faithful to avoid the pitfalls of the false worship sponsored by ‘other’ religions, including each other.

From the top:

How can we possibly stick to your topic when you are not being straightforward about what your topic is? I think it should be obvious by now that nobody is going to take your "my religion is the only true religion" bait. Regardless of where you would like to lead this thread it has taken its own path into an examination of the ability of humans to describe god -- which I, for one, find extremely interesting...

Concluding with this:


But to clear this up, you would have to get into your original purpose in making this thread, which everyone already knows but is not interested in. At this point, I think getting into it would be a hijack.

At this point, your are not even trying to hide your personal insults anymore with implied innuendo and they have gone far enough. Stop your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory fantasies which you have directed at me more than once. You have something against my posts and topics, then keep your objections directed at them. Your insults are out of line, misdirected and entirely uncalled for.

Her posts are about her beliefs, which are not shared as doctrine for any version of Islam or Christianity. For example, she says, one may be right, they both may be right and they might both be wrong from time to time.

That isn't my belief. It is a fact. Any statement you make can either be right, wrong, or partially right and partially wrong. That's just the way it is.

However, neither the Qur'an nor the Christian Bible share that premise as their definition of their witness to the God they worship. They do not hesitate to say, this and this, and not that… She changes the definition of what they say about themselves to what she thinks about them.

I never said that human beings necessarily admit their own fallibility, but they are fallible. I have never said that the Qur'an, the Torah, or the Bible state that they might be wrong, right, or otherwise. But they are, by definition, either correct, incorrect, or a mixture of both. It isn't a matter of belief, but a matter of fact.

They do not. Islam comes from Mohammed who is from the pagan worshiping city of Mecca in the sixth century A.D.. Jesus is from a world a thousand years after Moses, one that had been totally remodeled politically and spiritually by the evolving world powers and internal self-examination. Modern day Judaism comes from the Talmud, written by leaders and teachers after the fall of Jerusalem (however, this last one is not one of my topics, I conferred this discussion to people who know more than I). None of them came from the writings of each other. Although they all share a common respect (to differing degrees) of the Torah/Old Testament writings.

You make the point here - although you try to downplay it. It isn't that they all share a common respect for the Torah, but that they all view Torah as Scripture, and as the oldest Scripture they have available - the beginning of the descriptions of God/YHWH/Allah.

They do not say that they worship the same God (s). They distinctly warn against worshiping any God other than the one they witness to.

And yet, scholars from each will tell you that they all worship the same God, just that the others worship in the wrong way, or attribute false traits to God.

Do they? The Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses (as self describes ‘Christian’ groups) might look at each other and then disagree with you. They would not say that they worship the same God nor reach the same enlightenment or have the same goals for their spiritual existence.

They might, but they do not. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses do not claim to worship a different God than any other Christian (or Jew or Muslim). They simply claim that they know better *how* to worship God and that they know better what God wants.

They could be, but they are not. See the OP again, I gave many example there that the two books not only disagree with each other, they say that the believer can NOT believe what the other book teaches.

God is not defined by any book, but by God's own existence. Unless, of course, you don't think God exists, in which case no one is actually worshipping any God at all.

Erroneous conclusion. IF, for a moment, we were to assume that your premise was correct: Then there would be no purpose in the commandment: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, however, we do know that monotheists believers can be turned to worship other gods, Baal comes to mind. Is anyone here presupposing that Baal was/is just yet another facet of the all encompassing ‘one’ God that you suggest for Islam and Christianity?

Are you suggesting that Baal actually exists? If so, you are suggesting polytheism.

But no, your premise is flawed. There would be no talk of worshiping false Gods if it wasn’t possible to do so, there would be no concern with eating foods offered to idols. However, these things do exist in the scriptures of the two religions in question.

"False" gods do not equate to "other" gods.

Both Islam and Christianity warn their faithful to avoid the pitfalls of the false worship sponsored by ‘other’ religions, including each other.

Yes, but neither claims that the other worships a "different" God, simply that they do so in an improper manner. Muslim teachings are clear that both Jews and Christians *do* worship Allah. They are simply said to be misled, or not to have all the information Muslims have. Christians think that Jews and Muslims have less information, in that they do not view Christ as the Son of God - as the Messiah. Jews think that Christians and Muslims need to stop adding on to the things they have. But, when it comes down to it, the root is the same for all three. The difference is in the details, not the source.

Her posts are about her beliefs, which are not shared as doctrine for any version of Islam or Christianity. For example, she says, one may be right, they both may be right and they might both be wrong from time to time. However, neither the Qur'an nor the Christian Bible share that premise as their definition of their witness to the God they worship. They do not hesitate to say, this and this, and not that… She changes the definition of what they say about themselves to what she thinks about them.
I simply disagree with you. I don't think that's what she was saying at all. She is not even really discussing the content of what the religions say about themselves. She is discussing the ways in which people process information and come to know things through observation. In this case, what is being observed is god, and people's understanding of god is expressed in their manner of worship. Dem isn't even talking about god per se, here. She's talking about the worshippers, who are human, fallible, limited in their ability to understand god. Why is it so difficult to accept that different human minds might have differing concepts of what god is? Since we cannot see the whole, why is it so difficult to accept that different people may see different parts of the whole?

They do not. Islam comes from Mohammed who is from the pagan worshiping city of Mecca in the sixth century A.D.. Jesus is from a world a thousand years after Moses, one that had been totally remodeled politically and spiritually by the evolving world powers and internal self-examination. Modern day Judaism comes from the Talmud, written by leaders and teachers after the fall of Jerusalem (however, this last one is not one of my topics, I conferred this discussion to people who know more than I). None of them came from the writings of each other. Although they all share a common respect (to differing degrees) of the Torah/Old Testament writings.
Rome was a pagan worshipping city once, yet it is the seat of the Catholic church today. It became the center of that church hundreds of years after Jesus died. Does that mean Catholics don't worship the Christian god? As for where their writings come from, I would like to see the sources that tell you Judaism, Christianity and Islam did not derive their writings from any common source, because my entire education in history and comparative religion has said otherwise. My teachers as well as all the Christians, Jews and Muslims of my personal acquaintance all seem to be under the impression that Christianity and Islam both used the scripture of the Torah/Old Testament as the basis for their own texts and teachings -- that goes a bit beyond merely respecting the old tradition. If they are to be believed, the Torah/Old Testament is the common source for the two later religions.

They do not say that they worship the same God (s). They distinctly warn against worshiping any God other than the one they witness to.

Which is the same god common to all three religions, according to them. I hear it constantly from religious leaders speaking in public, in the media, writing in publications -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, they all acknowledge the one god worshipped by all of them. Are these religious leaders, spokesmen and pundits lying?

Do they? The Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses (as self describes ‘Christian’ groups) might look at each other and then disagree with you. They would not say that they worship the same God nor reach the same enlightenment or have the same goals for their spiritual existence.

"Would" is a very vague word to use. It makes me think you are guessing at what they would say because it's what you would say. The fact is, as a student of comparative religion, I read source materials on just about every religion I hear about. I have read papers and books about Mormonism, the Witnesses, and the other religions we are discussing here. I have spoken with -- and been preached to -- by representatives of many of these religions. I have never, in my life, heard any of them say what you are saying nor have I read any writings that say what you are saying. They all insist they worship one common god. If they cannot be wrong, are they then lying?

Your saying it doesn’t make it true, see above, and imagine the hundred other examples that could be put there.

My saying it doesn't make *what* true -- that there is controversy or that all Christians worship the same god? BTW, I notice that you expect us to accept your views on nothing but your say-so. Hm.

I am just reporting what I have observed and what I have read in my study of religion. Off the top of my head, I know that there is controversy among Christian denominations about the trinity, the divinity of Christ, Christ's spiritual or physical condition after the resurrection, and among Catholics in particular, there is controversy about the symbolism vs supernatural reality of the sacrament, and the veneration of saints. If there are hundreds of other such controversies, I would like to learn about them. I would also like to hear your ideas of whether this means that people are capable of having differing ideas about the same concept or if it means that some Christians are really idolators and, if so, which ones.

They could be, but they are not. See the OP again, I gave many example there that the two books not only disagree with each other, they say that the believer can NOT believe what the other book teaches.

But they all teach about god and their leaders all say it's the same god common to all three religions. So either at least some of the leaders are wrong (which you seem intent on rejecting as a possibility) or they are lying, or else you have a bit of a problem. Because if, for instance, a Muslim is told not to believe anything in the Jewish texts, but the Jewish texts describe god, then is the Muslim required to stop believing in god? After all, I have heard many practicing Muslims and Muslim scholars describe Allah as being the same as the God of Abraham. Do you see the problem here? On the other hand, the books could just be telling their followers not to "mix their magics," as it were -- not to take up the manner of religion of the other groups in order to maintain their own identity as a group. That has everything to do with maintaining the religion, but nothing at all to do with their concept of god.

Your refusal to accept this possibility as a possibility is based in your a priori assumption that it is impossible for human beings to come to differing understandings of the same god, despite our limited and fallible minds.

Erroneous conclusion. IF, for a moment, we were to assume that your premise was correct: Then there would be no purpose in the commandment: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, however, we do know that monotheists believers can be turned to worship other gods, Baal comes to mind. Is anyone here presupposing that Baal was/is just yet another facet of the all encompassing ‘one’ God that you suggest for Islam and Christianity?

Well, many polytheists would indeed say that Baal may be just one manifestation of a supreme, all-encompassing godhead which can take any form and as many forms as it likes -- but we're not discussing polytheism here.

As far as I know, of the monotheisms, only Christianity makes idols in earthly forms -- i.e. depictions of god, as well as Jesus and the saints (which have been more or less venerated at various times). Judaism does not depict god except by abstract symbolism, and Islam forbids it outright. So I don't understand how the quote about idols applies. It seems obvious to me that the passage is instructing believers very specifically to reject the polytheistic religions of the time it was written. There's a reason why idols were and are a big deal among polytheists, but it's not germaine to this discussion. If you want to expand the passage to apply to the monotheisms, well, the only one that would seem to be in trouble there would be Christianity.

As for whether the fact that the different religions use different words to name god -- are you accounting for the language differences? "Baal" is a proper name. It does not mean just "god." Are you sure that the English, Arabic, and Hebrew words don't actually mean the same thing? I'm sincerely asking, because I'm not certain I know the answer. I think they mean the same thing, but I'm not sure.

But no, your premise is flawed. There would be no talk of worshiping false Gods if it wasn’t possible to do so, there would be no concern with eating foods offered to idols. However, these things do exist in the scriptures of the two religions in question. Both Islam and Christianity warn their faithful to avoid the pitfalls of the false worship sponsored by ‘other’ religions, including each other.
Well, to quote: "Your saying it doesn’t make it true." You interpret the various taboos of the religions as proof that they worship different gods, but there is ample proof in their texts, in their history, and in the writings of their current leaders and scholars that this is not so. The vast majority of their taboos are about lifestyle and rituals, not the definition of god. When they do declare against "other gods," there is ample evidence from history and their current leaders and scholars that they are talking about true idols -- the god-symbols of polytheistic religions -- and about profane symbols of power and value in the modern world -- not about each other's conceptions of god. I'm sorry, but when I've got generations' worth of writings and hundreds of living leaders and scholars telling me one thing and you alone telling me the opposite, I'm going to go with the majority on this.

At this point, your are not even trying to hide your personal insults anymore with implied innuendo and they have gone far enough. Stop your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory fantasies which you have directed at me more than once. You have something against my posts and topics, then keep your objections directed at them. Your insults are out of line, misdirected and entirely uncalled for.
Sorry. I just have a problem with people who are not straightforward with me. In three or four posts in this thread you have specifically referred to the other monotheisms as worshipping "false gods." You did so in the post I'm responding to now. Yet you choose not to come out and declare that you think they are false. Fine. I prefer it that way, but I do wish that, in that case, you would quit complaining about all the other posters in this thread who talk about Jews, Christians and Muslims all worshipping the one true god.

I tend to look at many religions as small villages at the base of a mountain, each one describing a different view of the picture.

Oh, and they both follow the wrong path, since there is no God:)

you better be careful, if the extreme islamist find out your comparing their religion to the religion of the infidels, they will do anything to get their 40 or something virgins

In an attempt to try and end the repeating of our positions ad-nauseum, between me D and M., I will try presenting the position against the modern popular myth (my posit) that Islam and Christianity worship the same God from a different vantage point.

Overview of how each faith regards their fellow Abrahamic religions.

Islam says: Jews and Christians are respected as "People of the Book," but they have wrong beliefs due to corrupted scripture (meaning that Islam does NOT claim to revere the Bible and Torah that we have today, Instead claiming that nobody alive today could have read the ‘real’ books written by Moses and Jesus). Islam teaches that, at best, Christianity is a partial revelation corrupted beyond repair and incapable of leading one to Allah. They believe that the Christians have taught the message of men, not Allah, to teach what they do and that Christ himself (whom they witness to be a Muslim prophet) will himself denounce everyone that ever prayed in his name and will deny he ever told anyone to be a Christian or taught anything other than what Mohammed taught about Allah … Additionally, Islam like Christianity, teaches that Christ will return to earth in the end times, but Islam differentiates from Christianity and testifies that Christ will lose the battle and his life at that time.

To understand how Islam and Christianity can utilize the same names and NOT worship the same God we can look at how they view the divinity of Holy scripture itself. Islam holds that the Prophet Muhammad's own words, sayings and utterances are distinct from God's Words (the Qur'an), but they have a testimony of his personal interactions separately preserved. This is known as Hadith, Traditions, or Sunnah. Muslim scholars maintain that The New Testament, which contains the writings of the disciples of Jesus are really more like the Hadith than like the Qur’an. Whereas the injil (a book the Qur’an says that Jesus wrote himself) has been lost forever, which would have been like the Qur'an if it hadn’t been lost. Accordingly, since the Qur'an has remained unaltered to the present day, (compared to the Bible) Muslims assert that only the Qur'an contains the Words of God -- the truth in total (i.e., the whole truth and nothing but the truth). Whereas the earlier Scriptures/Books such as The New Testament, The Old Testament, etc., contain only partial truths, if any, and thus, Islam does NOT claim to worship the same God witnessed to in the Torah and Bible of today.

Christianity says: Islam is a false religion. Christianity says that Mohammed was not a prophet of God at all by the testimony of the Qur’an’s own teaching, none of the proofs and signs of prophetic Christian teaching, required proof of divine inspiration before accepting the teachings of a witness, is found in it, such as, out-right denying, not just not recognizing, the remission of sin via the blood of Christ on the cross. (Matthew 7:15-23; 15:14; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Acts 20:28-30; 1 John 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; Titus 1:9-14; 2 John 9-11; Romans 16:17,18; Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Peter chap. 2).

Islam is set up to specifically oppose Christianity on every important doctrine. For example, Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity— one God revealed in three persons (or manifestations). Islam, however, vehemently denies the Trinity as blasphemy (Suras 4:171, 5:17, 5:72-75). Accepting the Christian view of God is the only unpardonable sin in Islam, and condemns one to hell. While Islam has a high view of Jesus, it denies his divinity or that Jesus was the Son of God (Suras 9:30, 10:68, 19:35, 43:81-83).

As the people in this thread like to point out, Allah is the Arabic word for God. Linguistically this is true but it is not itself a definition of Allah nor the end of the story. Muslims do recognize that Allah is not the God of the Bible, in Malaysia for example, Christians may not use "Allah" in their Bible translations, books, or hymns.

The position that says Christians and Muslims worship the same God are incorrect, in as much as Christianity and Islam do not agree with that statement. In the two religions, God is defined differently and has different and contradictory attributes. The views of God between the two religions are incompatible. The only arguments I’ve seen so are in this thread that say that they worship the same God are a third scenario, that God is different than either Islam or Christianity says God is (in which case, that’s an altogether different question).

In the end, even if all of their irreconcilable differences are ignored and the posit that they all worship the same God is maintained, does that mean that every religion that calls itself one thing can in fact force a link to exist between it and any other thing it wants, even when that link did not exist before? For example, can the Mormon religion (already used in a different example of a different post) claim to be itself a Native American religion, as well as a Church of Latter day Saints? They claim to have knowledge that tells them that the foundation of Native American tribes was from their history and therefore they follow the same God as Native Americans and Israel. Does this mean then that Native American religious leaders and Mormons really do follow the same God simply because the Mormons say so, hundreds of years after the fact? No, of course not. Native Americans do not have to recognize the Mormon religion as an evolution of their religion, nor have any relationship to it, just because the Book of Latter Day Saints says so, that Native Americans came from Israel and Abraham according to Mormons is irrelevant.

Islam says: Jews and Christians are respected as "People of the Book," but they have wrong beliefs due to corrupted scripture (meaning that Islam does NOT claim to revere the Bible and Torah that we have today, Instead claiming that nobody alive today could have read the ‘real’ books written by Moses and Jesus). Islam teaches that, at best, Christianity is a partial revelation corrupted beyond repair and incapable of leading one to Allah.

Oops. You just made my point. Islam teaches that Christianity and Islam worship the same God. They just say that Christianity has it wrong.

Thanks for proving my point.

They believe that the Christians have taught the message of men, not Allah, to teach what they do and that Christ himself (whom they witness to be a Muslim prophet) will himself denounce everyone that ever prayed in his name and will deny he ever told anyone to be a Christian or taught anything other than what Mohammed taught about Allah … Additionally, Islam like Christianity, teaches that Christ will return to earth in the end times, but Islam differentiates from Christianity and testifies that Christ will lose the battle and his life at that time.

To understand how Islam and Christianity can utilize the same names and NOT worship the same God we can look at how they view the divinity of Holy scripture itself. Islam holds that the Prophet Muhammad's own words, sayings and utterances are distinct from God's Words (the Qur'an), but they have a testimony of his personal interactions separately preserved. This is known as Hadith, Traditions, or Sunnah. Muslim scholars maintain that The New Testament, which contains the writings of the disciples of Jesus are really more like the Hadith than like the Qur’an. Whereas the injil (a book the Qur’an says that Jesus wrote himself) has been lost forever, which would have been like the Qur'an if it hadn’t been lost. Accordingly, since the Qur'an has remained unaltered to the present day, (compared to the Bible) Muslims assert that only the Qur'an contains the Words of God -- the truth in total (i.e., the whole truth and nothing but the truth). Whereas the earlier Scriptures/Books such as The New Testament, The Old Testament, etc., contain only partial truths, if any, and thus, Islam does NOT claim to worship the same God witnessed to in the Torah and Bible of today.

Obviously, they do, since they say that the Torah and Bible are corrupted scriptures about the God that they do worship. Once again, being wrong does not create a new entity.

The position that says Christians and Muslims worship the same God are incorrect, in as much as Christianity and Islam do not agree with that statement. In the two religions, God is defined differently and has different and contradictory attributes.

God is not defined by religions. God is defined by God's own existence.

I tend to look at many religions as small villages at the base of a mountain, each one describing a different view of the picture.

Oh, and they both follow the wrong path, since there is no God:)
Path to what?? Following a path is usually considered to be a spiritual metaphor.

Oops. You just made my point. Islam teaches that Christianity and Islam worship the same God. They just say that Christianity has it wrong.

Thanks for proving my point.

They believe that the Christians have taught the message of men, not Allah, to teach what they do and that Christ himself (whom they witness to be a Muslim prophet) will himself denounce everyone that ever prayed in his name and will deny he ever told anyone to be a Christian or taught anything other than what Mohammed taught about Allah … Additionally, Islam like Christianity, teaches that Christ will return to earth in the end times, but Islam differentiates from Christianity and testifies that Christ will lose the battle and his life at that time.


It does not prove your point. It is no different then to say that because Mormons are able to say that Native Americans share their religion in a corrupted form, claiming that they are the lost tribe of Israel, that they in fact worship the same God as the Native American Religions. From a Mormon point of view they can say and believe anything they want, but from the Native American point of view, the Book of Latter Day Saints has no affect on them despite any claims made in it. The Native Americans do NOT share the same faith as the Mormons and do not worship the same God (unless you keep projecting your 'God is God' and we all worshiping the same God no matter what - a third definition entirely, into it and in effect say that both of them are wrong and you are right).

It does not prove your point. It is no different then to say that because Mormons are able to say that Native Americans share their religion in a corrupted form, claiming that they are the lost tribe of Israel, that they in fact worship the same God as the Native American Religions. From a Mormon point of view they can say and believe anything they want, but from the Native American point of view, the Book of Latter Day Saints has no affect on them despite any claims made in it. The Native Americans do NOT share the same faith as the Mormons and do not worship the same God (unless you keep projecting your 'God is God' and we all worshiping the same God no matter what - a third definition entirely, into it and in effect say that both of them are wrong and you are right).

You really need to make up your mind. First you say that God is completely defined by whatever religion is defining God. Now you say that the definition given to God by a given religion is not the actual definition of God.

Do make up your mind.

You really need to make up your mind. First you say that God is completely defined by whatever religion is defining God. Now you say that the definition given to God by a given religion is not the actual definition of God.

Do make up your mind.

And I still say that the God witnessed to by a particular religion IS the God definition they worship. You try to apply it in a way that any group can determine the God defined by another group simply by claiming alliance with it, despite the fact that the other side objects. But you know as well as I do that I can't tell you how you define God. And neither can Islam tell Christianity that they are an evolution of them, nor could a Mormon claim heritage over the religious rituals of the Inuit, simply because they say so. If the definitions of God between two different faiths are not reconcilable as a singular object, then the definitions are of different things.

And I still say that the God witnessed to by a particular religion IS the God definition they worship. You try to apply it in a way that any group can determine the God defined by another group simply by claiming alliance with it, despite the fact that the other side objects. But you know as well as I do that I can't tell you how you define God. And neither can Islam tell Christianity that they are an evolution of them, nor could a Mormon claim heritage over the religious rituals of the Inuit, simply because they say so. If the definitions of God between two different faiths are not reconcilable as a singular object, then the definitions are of different things.
The point that is being made "Ad Nauseum", as you so aptly put, is that the definitions put on the being by their followers aren't what define the Gods themselves. God objectively exists or doesn't exist independently of human speculation, even if it exists conceptually regardless of objective truth.

The problem here is that God, like people, is suffering from a mythology disorder. I hear about George Bush in the media and leap to my own conclusions based on what I hear, but I've never met the man himself, so for all I know he might actually be a quite reasonable individual in person. What I'm critiquing is a conceptual, made-up entity, not the actual man. The same is true of many people in politics and celebrity in general; there are, in fact, several different entities under a single identity.

I think the same is also true of the divine. We're all creating our own little Gods, just like we do with our own little Tony Blairs or Dick Cheneys, but they all exist to explain the same phenomenon, whatever that is, be it person, emotion or generic spiritual entity.

Why would I accept that God exists? I've seen no evidence convincing enough to make that a logical assumption.

But then, if I wanted to know about the nature of 'god' (perhaps, so that I knew whether I could believe)... I would look to one (or more) of those witness testimonies for some kind of qualitative evidence.

I think you use a different Russell's Razor to me - mine says "When possible, replace an inferred entity with a logical fiction" and "Accept the smallest number of simple undefined things and the smallest number of undemonstrated premises that you need to define the things that need to be defined and prove the things that need to be proved".

I don't see how that reinforces the point you were trying to make?


It was your idea that I should accept the notion of all 3 possible ( out of a more complete collection of possible gods ) gods being the same, cuz you had witnesses saying so. I therefore suggest that you follow your own advice, and start off with accepting their witness testimony as to the effect that ( a ) God exists - thus proving that atheism ( as opposed to agnostism ) is a theory for dullards ( no surprise there, really, see Pascal's Bet ) .

Accepting the testimony of witnesses as logical proof is your bad idea - not mine.

Anyway, as you have already admitted ( despite trying to wriggle ) - it is logically impossible to prove identity for the 3 ideals/visions/dream/phantasms/gods/ghosts/whatever-it-is'es.

As I've maintained since post 8.

You're just trying to string the case along - long after the basic question of wether identity is provable at all was settled.

It was your idea that I should accept the notion of all 3 possible ( out of a more complete collection of possible gods ) gods being the same, cuz you had witnesses saying so. I therefore suggest that you follow your own advice, and start off with accepting their witness testimony as to the effect that ( a ) God exists - thus proving that atheism ( as opposed to agnostism ) is a theory for dullards ( no surprise there, really, see Pascal's Bet ) .


I have already stated that I find insufficient grounds to logically accept a god... so the 'witness' thing is something of a strawman to my argument.... however, if you accept the REALITY of god, then witness testimony is one of the few comparable data you have.

I think you mean Pascal's Wager.... and it's fatally flawed.

And, I think you misunderstand the terms Atheism and Agnosticism.


Accepting the testimony of witnesses as logical proof is your bad idea - not mine.


Strawman. I said they were 'qualitative evidence'... not a 'logical proof'.


Anyway, as you have already admitted ( despite trying to wriggle ) - it is logically impossible to prove identity for the 3 ideals/visions/dream/phantasms/gods/ghosts/whatever-it-is'es.


I haven't tried to wriggle at all. My platform is unchanged. You are simply trying to knock down an allegorical wall with hedgetrimmers... your 'tools' do not suit the 'job'.


As I've maintained since post 8.

You're just trying to string the case along - long after the basic question of wether identity is provable at all was settled.

The matter was 'settled', in that it is a red herring. The tools you employ can never make an honest value judgement of the material we are discussing.

In an attempt to try and end the repeating of our positions ad-nauseum, between me D and M., I will try presenting the position against the modern popular myth (my posit) that Islam and Christianity worship the same God from a different vantage point.
Thank you. This is very well presented and extremely helpful. However, as I read this, it brings me back GnI's earlier comment that you are conflating the idea of "religion" with the idea of "god." What you describe in your overview is essentially a rundown of the doctrinal views of each religion and their opinions about each other's doctrines. None of this speaks directly to either religion's own conceptions of who or what it is that they are worshipping. Each religion says the other is wrong, but from what you present, it seems to me that their real message is that the other religion is worshipping god in the wrong way -- i.e. following the wrong prophets, interpreting prophecies/scripture incorrectly, expecting the wrong outcome at the end of time, etc. They are not saying that the other religion is worshipping the wrong god. It's a significant difference.

Overall, your descriptions seem accurate. I'm not going to challenge your collected data, but I do still challenge the conclusions you draw from it because I still see a conceptual leap from data to conclusion. In other words, I'm still seeing that you are working from an unsupported, pre-existing assumption.

For instance, in your rundown of the views of Islam, you first list the objections of Islam against the doctrinal principles of Christianity:
Islam says: Jews and Christians are respected as "People of the Book," but they have wrong beliefs due to corrupted scripture (meaning that Islam does NOT claim to revere the Bible and Torah that we have today, Instead claiming that nobody alive today could have read the ‘real’ books written by Moses and Jesus). Islam teaches that, at best, Christianity is a partial revelation corrupted beyond repair and incapable of leading one to Allah. They believe that the Christians have taught the message of men, not Allah, to teach what they do and that Christ himself (whom they witness to be a Muslim prophet) will himself denounce everyone that ever prayed in his name and will deny he ever told anyone to be a Christian or taught anything other than what Mohammed taught about Allah … Additionally, Islam like Christianity, teaches that Christ will return to earth in the end times, but Islam differentiates from Christianity and testifies that Christ will lose the battle and his life at that time.

To understand how Islam and Christianity can utilize the same names and NOT worship the same God we can look at how they view the divinity of Holy scripture itself. Islam holds that the Prophet Muhammad's own words, sayings and utterances are distinct from God's Words (the Qur'an), but they have a testimony of his personal interactions separately preserved. This is known as Hadith, Traditions, or Sunnah. Muslim scholars maintain that The New Testament, which contains the writings of the disciples of Jesus are really more like the Hadith than like the Qur’an. Whereas the injil (a book the Qur’an says that Jesus wrote himself) has been lost forever, which would have been like the Qur'an if it hadn’t been lost. Accordingly, since the Qur'an has remained unaltered to the present day, (compared to the Bible) Muslims assert that only the Qur'an contains the Words of God -- the truth in total (i.e., the whole truth and nothing but the truth).

Everything you list here is no doubt accurate, but all I see is talk about texts and prophecies. I see nothing that references god. The Islamic authorities are criticizing the Christian and Jewish authorities, human vs. human, as it were. Yet from this strictly doctrinal critique, you conclude:
Whereas the earlier Scriptures/Books such as The New Testament, The Old Testament, etc., contain only partial truths, if any, and thus, Islam does NOT claim to worship the same God witnessed to in the Torah and Bible of today

(emphasis added)

I'm sorry, but I do not see how it necessarily follows that if Islam says the books of another religion are only partially true, or that another religion's prophets are wrong, that equates to the worship of an entirely different god. Such a conclusion would seem to be dependent on a pre-existing assumption that the BOOKS themselves, or their contents, ARE GOD, and therefore, existence of a different book is proof of the existence of a different god, or that rejection of a book is rejection of a god. In other words, you seem to be saying that, if Islam rejects certain texts or doctrine, it meand they are rejecting this particular god because the text and doctrine are the god. But (A) nothing in your rundown on Islamic views suggests that Islam holds any such belief, and (B) it's just plain not what I see in your data. I see humans criticizing other humans, nothing more. I do not see them talking about god at all, either as a being or as a concept.

Your rundown of Christian doctrinal views viz Islam, while no doubt accurate, is still about religious doctrine, not about the identity of god:

Christianity says: Islam is a false religion. Christianity says that Mohammed was not a prophet of God at all by the testimony of the Qur’an’s own teaching, none of the proofs and signs of prophetic Christian teaching, required proof of divine inspiration before accepting the teachings of a witness, is found in it, such as, out-right denying, not just not recognizing, the remission of sin via the blood of Christ on the cross. (Matthew 7:15-23; 15:14; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Acts 20:28-30; 1 John 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; Titus 1:9-14; 2 John 9-11; Romans 16:17,18; Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Peter chap. 2).

Islam is set up to specifically oppose Christianity on every important doctrine. For example, Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity— one God revealed in three persons (or manifestations). Islam, however, vehemently denies the Trinity as blasphemy (Suras 4:171, 5:17, 5:72-75). Accepting the Christian view of God is the only unpardonable sin in Islam, and condemns one to hell. While Islam has a high view of Jesus, it denies his divinity or that Jesus was the Son of God (Suras 9:30, 10:68, 19:35, 43:81-83).

This is shows nothing more than a difference of opinion about how god's message is delivered to human beings. It says nothing at all about the nature or identity of god, per se. As to Islam's "vehement" rejections of Christian doctrines -- well, so what? They think they're right. Don't we all? In addition, as an evangelical religion, they have an interest in maintaining a separate identity from their competitors. That tends to ratchet up the rhetoric. It still is only a rejection of doctrine, not of god.

As the people in this thread like to point out, Allah is the Arabic word for God. Linguistically this is true but it is not itself a definition of Allah nor the end of the story. Muslims do recognize that Allah is not the God of the Bible, in Malaysia for example, Christians may not use "Allah" in their Bible translations, books, or hymns.

See my remarks above about the evangelical interests of Islam, which are shared by Christianity, btw. To my mind, this appears to be a "branding" issue, to use a very profane analogy. "Allah" and "God the Father" become the equivalent of "Coca-Cola" and "Pepsi." Both beverages are cola drinks. Both terms denote "god." The religions are just being strict about the use of the terms to keep their identities separate because they are competing with each other for converts -- just like you'll be in for an argument if you put Coke cans in a Pepsi vending machine.

The position that says Christians and Muslims worship the same God are incorrect, in as much as Christianity and Islam do not agree with that statement. In the two religions, God is defined differently and has different and contradictory attributes. The views of God between the two religions are incompatible. The only arguments I’ve seen so are in this thread that say that they worship the same God are a third scenario, that God is different than either Islam or Christianity says God is (in which case, that’s an altogether different question).
All you have proven here is that the monotheist religions differ on doctrine, not on their conception of god. You have cited critiques of each other's texts and each other's prophets/prophecies and differing opinions about how people interact with god. You have not cited a single instance in which one religion actually defines GOD and rejects the GOD of the other religions. You have not cited anything from either Christian or Islamic doctrine that uses the content of the texts to define the nature/identity of god. Therefore, you have not disproved my assertion that your entire argument is based on your own pre-existing assumption that different relgions cannot worship the same god. It has been shown over and over again how and why this is an illogical assumption to make, yet you insist upon it. Leaving aside the question of why you would do that, we are left with only your failure to draw an actual connection between the doctrine and the god that would demonstrate for us why you think your argument makes sense.

In the end, even if all of their irreconcilable differences are ignored, does that mean that every religion that calls itself one thing can in fact force a link to exist that did not exist before? For example, can the Mormon religion (already used in a different example of a different post) claim to be a Native American religion as well as a Church of Latter day Saints? They claim to have acknowledge the foundation of Native American tribes and to follow the same God, does that mean that Native American religious leaders and Mormons follow the same God simply because the Mormons say so, hundreds of years after the fact. No, of course not. Native Americans are do not have to recognize the Mormon religion as an evolution of their religion just because the Book of Latter Day Saints says that Native Americans came from Israel and Abraham.
Well, first of all, I do not agree that the link did not exist before.

As for your Mormon-Native American analogy: There are indeed schools of thought that do say that all gods and god-concepts are just limited manifestations of a universal whole, and according to that, the Mormons could claim to be worshipping the same god as Native Americans by some super-attenuated 7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon game by which they would link monotheist concepts to non-monotheist concepts. But I think I've been clear that I think religion and god are not the same thing. You are a Mormon only if you worship in the Mormon manner. So religion is not just defined by what it worships but also by how it worships. In fact, I say that the how is a more important distinction than the what. Even if both parties agreed they were worshipping the same god, that would not automatically make them the same religion.

I have already stated that I find insufficient grounds to logically accept a god... so the 'witness' thing is something of a strawman to my argument.... however, if you accept the REALITY of god, then witness testimony is one of the few comparable data you have.

I think you mean Pascal's Wager.... and it's fatally flawed.

And, I think you misunderstand the terms Atheism and Agnosticism.



Strawman. I said they were 'qualitative evidence'... not a 'logical proof'.



I haven't tried to wriggle at all. My platform is unchanged. You are simply trying to knock down an allegorical wall with hedgetrimmers... your 'tools' do not suit the 'job'.



The matter was 'settled', in that it is a red herring. The tools you employ can never make an honest value judgement of the material we are discussing.


Again: en bref.

No person who insists that X or Y has to stand for a numerical value can be taken seriously. Your obsession - not mine.

Strawman or a scarecrow. Something put in a field to scare away the birds. Seems to fit. I'm gettting bored with the ifs, maybe's and buts. PROVE identity or shaddap.

You're still trying to wiggle out - as you have been doing since you tried to change tacks from logical to 'perhaps relevant'.

No one can prove identity for objects that lack sensedata. Go on - and try.

No one can prove identity for objects that lack sensedata. Go on - and try.
But to say that God lacks sense data is a half-truth. Yes, nobody can actively see or hear or whatever is normally considered sense God as we commonly believe it to be, but the vast majority of believers have nonetheless had what they claim to be experience of God. Whatever it is, this is the perceived thing we call God. And whether it's some otherworldly person, some simple psychological phenomenon or something else we've not thought of, it is an identifiable thing.

But to say that God lacks sense data is a half-truth. Yes, nobody can actively see or hear or whatever is normally considered sense God as we commonly believe it to be, but the vast majority of believers have nonetheless had what they claim to be experience of God. Whatever it is, this is the perceived thing we call God. And whether it's some otherworldly person, some simple psychological phenomenon or something else we've not thought of, it is an identifiable thing.


Suppose it were TRUE, and you have sense data for God, proceed, and produce the proof.

Suppose it were TRUE, and you have sense data for God, proceed, and produce the proof.
*Points at previous post*

What do you mean by True? They experience something. That something is all that I'm saying definitely exists. Whatever else people say about God is designed as a conceptual and probably flawed explanation for that thing, but the experience itself is there. It's not about whether God is a physical entity as the omnipotent creator of the world; it's about the original conception of the idea by the individual.

When you get down to the bottom of it all, it is that experience that really drives a person's belief. "God" is paradoxically both cause and effect; they worship their experience and attribute their experience to their worship. The person's "God" is a personal thing, but it occurs in response to a mental phenomenon that is an objective reality.

If you really want me to, I could hook some kids up to a brain scan, follow their lives through until one of them has a "revelatory" experience and print out the resulting charts, but is that really necessary? Regardless of whether or not we trust the explanation they put on it, I think it's reasonable to assume that there is some sort of origin for their sudden change, be it entirely personal or the result of some outside pressure. And this source cannot be merely conceptual; it has already had some impact on them.

And I still say that the God witnessed to by a particular religion IS the God definition they worship.

Ok, so according to this, however they define it is what God is. Thus, if they say, "We worship the same God that the Jews do," then they do worship the same God that the Jews do, because it is defined that way.

You try to apply it in a way that any group can determine the God defined by another group simply by claiming alliance with it, despite the fact that the other side objects.

That is the logical conclusion of you trying to define an entity by what people place on it, rather than by its own existence. By your logic, the Christians could worship the same God as the Jews, because they define it as such, but the Jews could worship a different God than the Christians, because they define it as such, all at the same time.

Edit: Of course, as I showed earlier, a large number of Jews would not suggest such a thing, and in fact, agree with the Christians. Which, by your logic, means that those Jews worship a different God than all the other Jews.

But you know as well as I do that I can't tell you how you define God.

You keep trying. You keep saying I can't possibly define my God as the same God worshipped by Jews and Muslims.

If the definitions of God between two different faiths are not reconcilable as a singular object, then the definitions are of different things.

Once again, you fall into the trap of making God defined by human perception, rather than by God's own existence.

Thank you. This is very well presented and extremely helpful. However, as I read this, it brings me back GnI's earlier comment that you are conflating the idea of "religion" with the idea of "god."

I say a religion is allowed to define the God they worship.

What you describe in your overview is essentially a rundown of the doctrinal views of each religion and their opinions about each other's doctrines. None of this speaks directly to either religion's own conceptions of who or what it is that they are worshipping.

Actually I did try to address that, when I addressed the worship of Jesus as God via the Trinity being out right banned by Islam, a carnal and unforgivable sin to say that God is Jesus. Thus, God as Jesus concept for Christianity is defined and outlined, and God as NOT Jesus as defined and outlined in Islam. They distinctly disagree with each other about the ‘identity’ of which God they are worshiping.

Each religion says the other is wrong, but from what you present, it seems to me that their real message is that the other religion is worshipping god in the wrong way -- i.e. following the wrong prophets, interpreting prophecies/scripture incorrectly, expecting the wrong outcome at the end of time, etc. They are not saying that the other religion is worshipping the wrong god. It's a significant difference.

There is a significant difference, I agree. But unlike the Methodist and the Lutheran, representing the differences you describe, Islam and Christianity go much further and vehemently deny the possibility that the other’s God is the real God.

I'm sorry, but I do not see how it necessarily follows that if Islam says the books of another religion are only partially true, or that another religion's prophets are wrong, that equates to the worship of an entirely different god.

What they are saying is that the other religions book is a fake, a replacement, a counterfeit. They claim to have knowledge that the other book is not inspired by God and is meant to deceive because it is from man, not God. In that manner, they do not recognize the authority of the Bible, for example, but instead, claim that nobody actually has a real Bible. Thus, anyone that reads the bible is not actually getting the witness of any God at all.

Such a conclusion would seem to be dependent on a pre-existing assumption that the BOOKS themselves, or their contents, ARE GOD, and therefore, existence of a different book is proof of the existence of a different god, or that rejection of a book is rejection of a god. In other words, you seem to be saying that, if Islam rejects certain texts or doctrine, it meand they are rejecting this particular god because the text and doctrine are the god.

No, I’m saying that the the books are the witness of the God they worship, they contain the descriptive criteria of what they worship. They have different Gods because the descriptive criteria is not reconcilable one to the other (Islam and Christianity).

This is shows nothing more than a difference of opinion about how god's message is delivered to human beings. It says nothing at all about the nature or identity of god, per se. As to Islam's "vehement" rejections of Christian doctrines -- well, so what? They think they're right. Don't we all? In addition, as an evangelical religion, they have an interest in maintaining a separate identity from their competitors. That tends to ratchet up the rhetoric. It still is only a rejection of doctrine, not of god.

Not doctrine. God. They vehemently deny (both Christian and Islam) that the other option is in fact a way of viewing God, nor is the other way God inspired. They do NOT agree to disagree, they both insist that the other’s route is damnation because it does not recognize 'God,' not just misguided.


To my mind, this appears to be a "branding" issue, to use a very profane analogy. "Allah" and "God the Father" become the equivalent of "Coca-Cola" and "Pepsi." Both beverages are cola drinks. Both terms denote "god." The religions are just being strict about the use of the terms to keep their identities separate because they are competing with each other for converts -- just like you'll be in for an argument if you put Coke cans in a Pepsi vending machine.

Close enough start, wrong conclusion. Different “branding” issues means different ownership. Different brand ~ different cattle baron, different cola brand label ~ different company gets your money, different faith ~ different God. There is no collective bargaining agreement that says all cattle-barons sharing profits regardless of brands being sold, nor do all cola companies share profits of all cola sales, and similarly, all worship does not necessitate it going to the same God.

… You have not cited a single instance in which one religion actually defines GOD and rejects the GOD of the other religions. You have not cited anything from either Christian or Islamic doctrine that uses the content of the texts to define the nature/identity of god.

Yes I have, I again refer you to required worship in Jesus name vs. the carnal sin of worshiping in Jesus name of the opposing religion.


Well, first of all, I do not agree that the link did not exist before.

As for your Mormon-Native American analogy: There are indeed schools of thought that do say that all gods and god-concepts are just limited manifestations of a universal whole, and according to that, the Mormons could claim to be worshipping the same god as Native Americans by some super-attenuated 7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon game by which they would link monotheist concepts to non-monotheist concepts. But I think I've been clear that I think religion and god are not the same thing. You are a Mormon only if you worship in the Mormon manner. So religion is not just defined by what it worships but also by how it worships. In fact, I say that the how is a more important distinction than the what. Even if both parties agreed they were worshipping the same god, that would not automatically make them the same religion.

Agree that they might worship the same God if the definition of the God they worship is reconcilable with each other. But with Islam and Christianity it is not.

Again: en bref.

No person who insists that X or Y has to stand for a numerical value can be taken seriously. Your obsession - not mine.

Strawman or a scarecrow. Something put in a field to scare away the birds. Seems to fit. I'm gettting bored with the ifs, maybe's and buts. PROVE identity or shaddap.

You're still trying to wiggle out - as you have been doing since you tried to change tacks from logical to 'perhaps relevant'.

No one can prove identity for objects that lack sensedata. Go on - and try.

I'm not impressed.

As I've stated several times, you cannot prove 'identity', because identity is not a relevent concept... it implies a quantitative/qualitative measurement which is irrelevent.

Again - I suggest you are using the wrong tools for the job.

The distressing thing is - you appear unaware of the fact that you are using the wrong tools... or, of course, you KNOW that you are using the wrong tools, and your whole stance is disingenuous.

You yourelf admit that identity cannot be proved, empirically... however, you constantly avoid the issue that that doesn't MATTER, because of the nature of the 'values' being evaluated.

If god is real - then he is real, no matter WHAT the tools of logic tell us. If the three Abrahamic religions actually worship one god, then that is also 'true', no matter what the tools of logic tell us.

We cannot prove the literal existence of god. We cannot prove the literal NON-existence of god. And, since we cannot prove literal 'truth' either way, our tools of logic cannot possibly serve the purspose to which you seem to wish to put them.

...
Once again, you fall into the trap of making God defined by human perception, rather than by God's own existence.


Once again you keep taking the discussion to a third scenario; the God you define is neither the Christian God as defined by the Bible nor Allah as defined by the Qur'an. Thus, neither Christianity nor Islam can define itself, because you submit that the unifying "one" God is represented when every monotheist of any ilk worship. Again, that is a different discussion. It's a fine belief, I don't have anything per-se against it, but it is not then, Christianity nor Islam and not something either of them agree with, it is something different.

I say a religion is allowed to define the God they worship.

(a) This can only be true if the God does not actually exist.
(b) This means that, if the religion defines a God as being "the same God those other guys worship," then it is the same God, by definition. You run into logical paradoxes where Religion A says, "Our God is the same as religion B," and religion B says, "No way. You can't have our God," leading to the conclusion that Religion A worships the same God as religion B but religion B doesn't worship the same God as religion A.

Actually I did try to address that, when I addressed the worship of Jesus as God via the Trinity being out right banned by Islam, a carnal and unforgivable sin to say that God is Jesus. Thus, God as Jesus concept for Christianity is defined and outlined, and God as NOT Jesus as defined and outlined in Islam. They distinctly disagree with each other about the ‘identity’ of which God they are worshiping.

No, they disagree on the details. Islam would hardly say that they are not worshipping the God of Abraham. Christianity also worships the God of Abraham (as does Judaism). They differe on the *details*, not the *identity*.

There is a significant difference, I agree. But unlike the Methodist and the Lutheran, representing the differences you describe, Islam and Christianity go much further and vehemently deny the possibility that the other’s God is the real God.

No, you deny it. The majority of Christians and the majority of Muslims do not.

What they are saying is that the other religions book is a fake, a replacement, a counterfeit.

Book != God.

They claim to have knowledge that the other book is not inspired by God and is meant to deceive because it is from man, not God.

Do make up your mind. Before, you said that Islam states that the Bible is a *corrupted* version of a revelation from God. In other words, it is inspired, it just got messed up.

No, I’m saying that the the books are the witness of the God they worship, they contain the descriptive criteria of what they worship. They have different Gods because the descriptive criteria is not reconcilable one to the other (Islam and Christianity).

The descriptive criteria both say, "God of Abraham." Thus, they must be the same God, even by description. "God of Abraham" is the identity of the deity. Things like the Trinity, etc. are details about that deity, not the deity's identity.

Not doctrine. God. The vehemently deny (both Christian and Islam) that the other option is in fact God, or God inspired. They do NOT agree to disagree, the both insist, that the other’s route is damnation, not just misguided.

You seem to think that "misguided" and "damnation" are mutually exclusive. And yet, in no religion is this the case....

Close enough start, wrong conclusion. Different “branding” issues means different ownership. Different brand ~ different cattle baron, different cola brand label ~ different company gets your money, different faith ~ different God. There is no collective bargaining agreement that says all cattle-barons sharing profits regardless of brands being sold, nor do all cola companies share profits of all cola sales, and similarly, all worship does not necessitate it going to the same God.

Actually, all companies do share the profits of all cola sales. They all have significant shares of stock in each other. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion, but I figured I'd share.

Agree that they might worship the same God if the definition of the God they worship is reconcilable with each other. But with Islam and Christianity it is not.

Even though they both claim worship to the deities with the exact same identity - "God of Abraham."

Once again you keep taking the discussion to a third scenario; the God you define is neither the Christian God as defined by the Bible nor Allah as defined by the Qur'an.

If God exists, God is not defined by the Bible nor the Qur'an. God is defined by God's own existence.

If God does not exist, then neither the Bible nor the Qur'an define anything more than a concept.

Thus, neither Christianity nor Islam can define itself, because you submit that the unifying "one" God is represented when every monotheist of any ilk worship.

If they all claim worship to the same God, yes. And Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all claim to worship the God of Abraham. This is the only actual identity given to the deity they all worship. The rest is details, not identity.

If you refer to Dempublicents1 as being a man, and Grave correctly refers to Dempublicents1 as being a woman, you have still both claimed to be describing the identity "Dempublicents1". The two are mutually exclusive, but you were both referring to me - the same person. You got a detail wrong that Grave got right. But I am not defined by what you think I am - I am defined by who and what I actually am.

Again, that is a different discussion. It's a fine belief, I don't have anything per-se against it, but it is not then, Christianity nor Islam and not something either of them agree with, it is something different.

It isn't a belief. It is a logical fact. They all claim to worship the God of Abraham, thus they all do. They disgree on the details.

If God exists, God is not defined by what human beings put in a book, but by God's own existence.

I say a religion is allowed to define the God they worship.


A totally logical approach... which is, of course, ONLY valid if the 'gods' in question are nothing more than fictions.

If the 'god' of Islam IS real, then Islam doesn't 'shape' Allah... Allah already IS what he IS, and the religion can only describe that. Possibly, incorrectly.


So - if 'gods' are real - we are forced to assume that, since Torah precedes the New Testament or the Koran, and since Christianity and Islam BOTH claim Torah as part of their 'scripture', and, indeed, the FOUNDATION of their scripture... we have to assume that all three are describing the same 'god'.

You cited one source from an academic institution, which was okay. I didn't reject it, but I did use a syllogism to demonstrate how it didn't support your point. Then I pointed out you were using it in the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.

And like I said, ignorance is not an excuse. I realize you don't have my book, but with what I posted, you don't need it. I gave you the sources, the context, examples, and virtually everything in the material that relates to it. The "I don't have your book" thing doesn't fly in the academic world, internet or not. Not having the resources or knowhow to check a source does not make it an "invalid source" as you would claim.

An open-source internet encyclopedia, however, is at the very least a questionable if not invalid source.

Like I said take this to your professor who I'd imagine has actually read more than part of one book and understand the material just a bit better than your hack job. However, bring a paper towel because when he sees what you've declared here and how you bastardized that book I imagine he's going to laugh at you so hard that he'll have to wipe his chin.

We're not in academic circle or you wouldn't be allowed through the door, first year. I wouldn't even bother entertaining your thoughts on the matter until you were educated enough to understand the most basic comments. However, if you wrote a paper for me with cited sources, you most certainly would have to SUPPLY those sources to me in order to get credit for them as sources. You chose a source that you can't supply to me and it's because it's the only one you've EVER read on the subject, and let's be frank, you haven't even finished it. Your argument is less than compelling.

Come back next year when you've at least finished the course and understand the basic concepts of philosophy (yes, those terms are philosophical jargon).

It isn't a belief. It is a logical fact. They all claim to worship the God of Abraham, thus they all do. They disgree on the details.

If God exists, God is not defined by what human beings put in a book, but by God's own existence.

There is no "logical fact" that states that a claim equals the truth. Hindus claim that all gods are a part of Brahman, so does that mean that Hindus worship the God of Abraham as well, or that Christians worship Brahman? By your criteria here, it does.

Furthermore, if God really exists, then all three religions don't worship God. Only the religion that has the correct perception of God and correct form of worship actually worships God - the others are worshipping a distorted concept of God. If God is not a Trinity, and the Jews are correct, then Christians do not worship God. It doesn't matter if their God concept was stolen from the Torah or not, because at some point they ceased the worship of the one true God when they paganized it.

A totally logical approach... which is, of course, ONLY valid if the 'gods' in question are nothing more than fictions.

If the 'god' of Islam IS real, then Islam doesn't 'shape' Allah... Allah already IS what he IS, and the religion can only describe that. Possibly, incorrectly.

IF Allah is real, then Allah shapes Islam and Islam is God's chosen definition of self.

So - if 'gods' are real - we are forced to assume that, since Torah precedes the New Testament or the Koran, and since Christianity and Islam BOTH claim Torah as part of their 'scripture', and, indeed, the FOUNDATION of their scripture... we have to assume that all three are describing the same 'god'.

Incorrect. Claiming heritage is not the same as having heritage. Since the Qur’an says that the Torah we have today is not the ‘real’ Torah, and Christianity says that it IS the real Torah/Old Testament, then they are not even talking about the same book when they say the word Torah.

There is no "logical fact" that states that a claim equals the truth. Hindus claim that all gods are a part of Brahman, so does that mean that Hindus worship the God of Abraham as well, or that Christians worship Brahman? By your criteria here, it does.


If there is ONE god - then they must all worship the same one, if they all worship 'real gods'.... whether they worship him (her/it?) as 'one' or as 'many'.


Furthermore, if God really exists, then all three religions don't worship God. Only the religion that has the correct perception of God and correct form of worship actually worships God - the others are worshipping a distorted concept of God. If God is not a Trinity, and the Jews are correct, then Christians do not worship God. It doesn't matter if their God concept was stolen from the Torah or not, because at some point they ceased the worship of the one true God when they paganized it.

The specifics of the individual religions matters not. The Christians might be right... the Jews might be wrong... but the 'god' would still be unaffected.

The way I describe something, has no effect on the empirical reality of that thing... whether that is an apple, the universe, or 'god'.

Incorrect. Claiming heritage is not the same as having heritage. Since the Qur’an says that the Torah we have today is not the ‘real’ Torah, and Christianity says that it IS the real Torah/Old Testament, then they are not even talking about the same book when they say the word Torah.

Thats a good point, and I think I've stated that before. In addition, because things share heritage or a root doesn't make them the same. Lots of gods have evolved out of older gods.

You're also absolutely right about Islam not talking about the same book when they say Torah. They don't believe that the Torah we have today was the same Torah given to Moses, whereas in Judaism we believe that the Torah today was the one given to Moses. Torah in Islam refers to a totally different book.

If there is ONE god - then they must all worship the same one, if they all worship 'real gods'.... whether they worship him (her/it?) as 'one' or as 'many'.

The specifics of the individual religions matters not. The Christians might be right... the Jews might be wrong... but the 'god' would still be unaffected.



Who said they all worship real gods? I don't think Christians worship a real God. I think they ripped off the name and concept from Judaism and turned it into a paganized idol.

Now, regardless of how many religions worship idols, you're right that if a real God exists then that God wouldn't be effected. However, this does not mean that all monotheistic religions worship this one true God. They could simply be monotheistic religions that worship a false god.

There is no "logical fact" that states that a claim equals the truth.

No, there isn't. But referring to a specific identity means that you are referring to that identity, whether you are correct about them or not. If you thought you were talking to me, but were actually talking to Grave, you would be speaking as if you were speaking to me. If I believe that I am worshipping the God of Abraham, then I *am* worshipping the God of Abraham, even if I am wrong about the details.

Hindus claim that all gods are a part of Brahman, so does that mean that Hindus worship the God of Abraham as well, or that Christians worship Brahman? By your criteria here, it does.

It means that Hindus worship the God of Abraham, as they claim to worship all deities. Christians do not claim to worship all deities, so they do not necessarily worship Brahman, unless, of course, the Hindus are correct.

Furthermore, if God really exists, then all three religions don't worship God. Only the religion that has the correct perception of God and correct form of worship actually worships God - the others are worshipping a distorted concept of God. If God is not a Trinity, and the Jews are correct, then Christians do not worship God. It doesn't matter if their God concept was stolen from the Torah or not, because at some point they ceased the worship of the one true God when they paganized it.

They still worship God, they are just wrong about God, if that is true. Meanwhile, what on Earth makes you think that fallible human beings could have a "correct perception of God"?

No, there isn't. But referring to a specific identity means that you are referring to that identity, whether you are correct about them or not. If you thought you were talking to me, but were actually talking to Grave, you would be speaking as if you were speaking to me. If I believe that I am worshipping the God of Abraham, then I *am* worshipping the God of Abraham, even if I am wrong about the details.

You've made a bit of a leap there. If I thought I was talking to you, but I was actually talking to Grave, in reality I would not be talking to you, I would still be talking to Grave. I would not be talking to you just because I believe I am. My belief doesn't change the fact that I am, in reality, talking to Grave.

In the same fashion, if I believe I am worshipping the God of Abraham, but there is no God, then I am not worshipping any God. Or if I believe I am worshipping the God of Abraham, but it turns out to be an idol, then I am worshipping an idol. I was simply mistaken in my perception. My perception doesn't change reality.

You've made a bit of a leap there. If I thought I was talking to you, but I was actually talking to Grave, in reality I would not be talking to you, I would still be talking to Grave. I would not be talking to you just because I believe I am. My belief doesn't change the fact that I am, in reality, talking to Grave.

In the same fashion, if I believe I am worshipping the God of Abraham, but there is no God, then I am not worshipping any God. Or if I believe I am worshipping the God of Abraham, but it turns out to be an idol, then I am worshipping an idol. I was simply mistaken in my perception. My perception doesn't change reality.

An idol is not an actual God, though, is it? In the case of myself or Grave, there are actually two separate persons (which is why the analogy falls apart, as they all do eventually). Yet, we believe (or at least I do) that there is only one God, identified by the title "God of Abraham." Thus, there is only one God to worship. I have created no idols, as I have chosen the God of Abraham to worship. When I do so, it matters not if I have described God wrong, the identity of the God I worship is the God of Abraham.

(unless, of course, you are positing multiple Gods in existence again)

And idol is not an actual God, though, is it? In the case of myself or Grave, there are actually two separate persons (which is why the analogy falls apart, as they all do eventually). Yet, we believe (or at least I do) that there is only one God, identified by the title "God of Abraham." Thus, there is only one God to worship. I have created no idols, as I have chosen the God of Abraham to worship. When I do so, it matters not if I have described God wrong, the identity of the God I worship is the God of Abraham.

(unless, of course, you are positing multiple Gods in existence again)

An idol doesn't have to be an actual God for someone to worship an idol as a God. People worship idols as gods all the time, they simply don't recognize them as such.

There is no reason why you can't give an idol the name of a God that actually exists, (in this example lets assume God exists) such as the God of Abraham, and still be worshipping an idol rather than God.

If I have a statue and I say "this is the God of Abraham" and I bow down and worship it, am I worshipping the statue or the God of Abraham that Jews worship? Or are there now two different gods, one a real one and one an idol, that both go by the same title?

You're mistaken when you think that the God of Abraham in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all share the same identity. They share the same name, and same historical origin. Identity is made up of every thing that defines that concept. The Christian version of the God of Abraham's identity includes a Trinity, the Muslim version does not. The identities are different, even if they go by the same name, share a common origin, and many common traits. For them to have the same identity, they must be IDENTIcal. They aren't.

An idol doesn't have to be an actual God for someone to worship an idol as a God. People worship idols as gods all the time, they simply don't recognize them as such.

The difference is that idols are constructed and then given an identity. If I were to say I was going to worship, for instance, Buddha, and then proceeded to construct a statue of Buddha that was different from all other such statues, the fact that I was worshipping Buddha would not be changed, my perception would simply be different.

The same is true of the God of Abraham. If I start out by saying, "I am worshipping the God of Abraham," I have created nothing new. Even if I attribute incorrect traits to said God, I am still talking about the God of Abraham, as the only identity I am praying to is "the God of Abraham."

There is no reason why you can't give an idol the name of a God that actually exists, (in this example lets assume God exists) such as the God of Abraham, and still be worshipping an idol rather than God.

That would be creating an idol and then giving it a name. We aren't talking about that. We are talking about starting with an identity, and then being wrong about some of the aspects of that identity. The God of Abraham existed before Christ's teachings. The followers of Christ followed the God of Abraham, and still do. Even if we are wrong about some of the traits, there was no new concept constructed and then given the name. The identity came first. We just think that we know more about the God of Abraham than those of other religions.

If I have a statue and I say "this is the God of Abraham" and I bow down and worship it, am I worshipping the statue or the God of Abraham that Jews worship? Or are there now two different gods, one a real one and one an idol, that both go by the same title?

Once again, you are doing things backwards. What would actually have to happen is you would say, "I am going to worship the God of Abraham," and then, over time, determine (whether correctly or incorrectly) things about said God that were not determined before you started. You seem to think that Christianity or Islam created a concept and then named it, but this is historically inaccurate. Christianity and Islam both began in worship of the God of Abraham, just as Judaism did. They believe that they have perceived different traits of said God, and that the perceptions of others are incorrect, but it does not change the identity of the God.

You're mistaken when you think that the God of Abraham in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all share the same identity. They share the same name, and same historical origin. Identity is made up of every thing that defines that concept.

Once again, you run into the problem of saying that there are infinte numbers of me. Every time someone describes me inaccurately, a new me is created. This, of course, is not true, as I am not defined by what people think of me. I am defined by my own existence. God is defined by God's own existence, not what people try to define God as.

The Christian version of the God of Abraham's identity includes a Trinity, the Muslim version does not. The identities are different, even if they go by the same name, share a common origin, and many common traits. For them to have the same identity, they must be IDENTIcal. They aren't.

So, when you called me a man, you were actually creating a whole new me? Where is this guy? I'd like to meet the male version of myself.

I look to the Devils Dictionary for the answer to questions like these:

CHRISTIAN, n.
One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
I dreamed I stood upon a hill, and, lo!
The godly multitudes walked to and fro
Beneath, in Sabbath garments fitly clad,
With pious mien, appropriately sad,
While all the church bells made a solemn din --
A fire-alarm to those who lived in sin.
Then saw I gazing thoughtfully below,
With tranquil face, upon that holy show
A tall, spare figure in a robe of white,
Whose eyes diffused a melancholy light.
"God keep you, strange," I exclaimed. "You are
No doubt (your habit shows it) from afar;
And yet I entertain the hope that you,
Like these good people, are a Christian too."
He raised his eyes and with a look so stern
It made me with a thousand blushes burn
Replied -- his manner with disdain was spiced:
"What! I a Christian? No, indeed! I'm Christ."
G.J.

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures.

RELIGION, n.
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
"What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.

"Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."

"Then why do you not become an atheist?"

"Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism."

"In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."

I never got a straightforward answer to my question. I'll ask it again

If I have a statue and I say "this is the God of Abraham" and I bow down and worship it, am I worshipping the statue or the God of Abraham that Jews worship?

I never got a straightforward answer to my question. I'll ask it again

If I have a statue and I say "this is the God of Abraham" and I bow down and worship it, am I worshipping the statue or the God of Abraham that Jews worship?

Of course not, as the statue is defined by its own existence. I never said you could take an object, call it something other than what it is, and then make it so. But that has nothing to do with the discussion, as neither Christianity nor Islam constructed something and called it the God of Abraham or took a different object and called it the God of Abraham.

A more accurate analogy would be the following: If you took the statue of David, something that already exists, and said you were going to draw it, but you messed up on the hair, you would still have drawn the statue of David, would you not? You just weren't the best artist in the world.

However, that is not at all a metaphor for any other religion that worships the God of Abraham, for the exact reason I outlined.

Of course not, as the statue is defined by its own existence. I never said you could take an object, call it something other than what it is, and then make it so. But that has nothing to do with the discussion, as neither Christianity nor Islam constructed something and called it the God of Abraham or took a different object and called it the God of Abraham.

A more accurate analogy would be the following: If you took the statue of David, something that already exists, and said you were going to draw it, but you messed up on the hair, you would still have drawn the statue of David, would you not? You just weren't the best artist in the world.

However, that is not at all a metaphor for any other religion that worships the God of Abraham, for the exact reason I outlined.

Christians took Jesus, then said Jesus was the God of Abraham. That is an analogy that is qutie on par with taking a statue and saying that its the God of Abraham. This is why Christains don't worship the God of Abraham.

Romantic languages (French, Italian, Spanish, etc.) use words for God that come from the Greek god Zeus (Deus, Dios, Dieu, etc.). Finnish uses a word that comes from the Finnish equivalent to Zeus, Jumala. No one would argue that using the word Jumala or Deus would necessarily refer to thunder gods when they are used by a Christian or Muslim. They take on the meaning attributed by their users. The community and context define the meaning of such terms.

Secondly, Arabic Bibles use the word "Allah" where an English Bible would use the word God. If someone were to say, "Is Allah the same God as that in the Bible?" I would answer yes. But I would acknowledge that the descriptions and theology of Allah are different in the Koran and the Bible.

As a Christian, I can agree with the following statement: "Praise be to Allah, Who hath not taken unto Himself a Son" (Sura 17:111). The Bible does not teach that God "takes" sons. If Jesus were adopted by God, he would not be eternally pre-existent God. As a Christian, I believe Jesus is God equally with the Father and the Holy Spirit and God is one. I understand that not everyone agrees with me, but those who are in agreement with the Athanasian Creed will be, and I am attempting to explain what such a person would believe (see the creed: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html).

Christians took Jesus, then said Jesus was the God of Abraham. That is an analogy that is qutie on par with taking a statue and saying that its the God of Abraham. This is why Christains don't worship the God of Abraham.

Wrong. You didn't like me telling you what you believe, so don't pretend to know what Christians believe.

Christians follow the God of Abraham. They think that Jesus was the son of the God of Abraham - an aspect of the God of Abraham. We didn't take Jesus and say, "Here is the God of Abraham." We said, "The God of Abraham includes an aspect known as the Son, who is Christ."

Wrong. You didn't like me telling you what you believe, so don't pretend to know what Christians believe.

Christians follow the God of Abraham. They think that Jesus was the son of the God of Abraham - an aspect of the God of Abraham. We didn't take Jesus and say, "Here is the God of Abraham." We said, "The God of Abraham includes an aspect known as the Son, who is Christ."

Oh no, thats history. During the first century, Jesus was not worshipped as a deity. During the second century we start seeing what is referred to as "minor divinity" attributed to Jesus. Then in the fourth century, Jesus is canonized as God during the Council of Nicea to create the Bianity doctrine. 50 years later, during the Council of Constantinople, the Holy Spirit is added to create the Trinity doctrine we know today.

In any case, a majority of Christians believed and believe today that Jesus IS God. That is what the traditional Trinity doctrine states. The history of it is that you have a man who was viewed as a man, who was eventualy called the God of Abraham some 300 years down the line. That is exactly the same as me taking a plastic statue I enjoy, slowly starting to revere it, and then saying "Hey, this statue is the God of Abraham!"