Different Faith (Islam~ Christianity) Different God [Archive] - Page 2

Tropical Sands

31-03-2006, 01:25

First of all, your history is not exactly accurate. From the beginning of written documents by the church, some church leaders ascribed divinity to Christ. Others did not. Jesus was said to be an aspect of God, in some form, long before Nicea. Nicea was just the point at which the doctrine was declared standard and all other views declared heretical.

There are no first century accounts of Jesus being viewed as divine. The "some" church leaders were minority leaders who arose in the late second century, and like I said, they began to ascribe what is referred to as minor divinity. They compared him to pagan deities, like Justin Martyr did.

But neither Jesus, nor the Holy Spirit were ever said to be dieties in and of themselves. They are aspects of a larger whole - the God of Abraham. Thus, what was done was to attribute traits to the God of Abraham, not to take something else and say, "This is the God of Abraham." Your analogy would only work if Christians took Christ and said, "This is the God of Abraham."

Thats exactly what the Nicene Creed did. They took Jesus and said "This is the God of Abraham." They said he is "God of God, light of light, true God of true God." The term "aspect of God" occurs nowhere in the Nicene Creed.

Meanwhile, not all Christians even believe that Christ was/is God. Are those Christians magically worshipping the God of Abraham while the others are not?

If one Christian is worshipping Jesus while the other is not, then yes, they are obviously not worshipping the same God. One is either worshipping the true God, while the other worships nothing, or an idol, or they are both worshipping nothing.

They believe that Jesus is the Son of God, an aspect of God. No Christian denomination that I am aware of teaches that Christ is God to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Like I said, this is not what the Nicene Creed states. It never says anything about an aspect of God, it states that Jesus IS God. So does the later Athanasian Creed, which states, "the Son is God." However, the Trinity doctrine teaches that they are three distinct persons in one God. That they are "aspects of God" is not something that is a part of the major Trinity doctrines in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which make up the majority of the world Christian population.

When you threw in "to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit" you committed the fallacy of the red herring. No one said anything about that. It doesn't change the fact that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all teach that Jesus is the God of Abraham.
.
Once again, you mistate things. Christ was not called the God of Abraham. Christ was said to be an aspect of the God of Abraham - the Son.

Not according to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. There are no "aspects" of God. There is only one God, three distinct Persons, who are all God.

Dempublicents1

31-03-2006, 01:47

There are no first century accounts of Jesus being viewed as divine.

Some of the Gospels were written and in use by that time.

The "some" church leaders were minority leaders who arose in the late second century, and like I said, they began to ascribe what is referred to as minor divinity. They compared him to pagan deities, like Justin Martyr did.

Sorry, I have studied quite a bit of theological history, and I have yet to see a single writing in which a Christian theologian ascribed pagan-like divinity to Christ.

Thats exactly what the Nicene Creed did. They took Jesus and said "This is the God of Abraham." They said he is "God of God, light of light, true God of true God." The term "aspect of God" occurs nowhere in the Nicene Creed.

You don't have to use the exact words for that to be what you are talking about. By placing the Son as God, the Father as God, and the Spirit as God, the three were necessarily declared as aspects of that God.

Like I said, this is not what the Nicene Creed states. It never says anything about an aspect of God, it states that Jesus IS God. So does the later Athanasian Creed, which states, "the Son is God." However, the Trinity doctrine teaches that they are three distinct persons in one God. That they are "aspects of God" is not something that is a part of the major Trinity doctrines in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which make up the majority of the world Christian population.

"Three distinct persons in one God" and "aspects of God" are logically equivalent.

When you threw in "to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit" you committed the fallacy of the red herring. No one said anything about that. It doesn't change the fact that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all teach that Jesus is the God of Abraham.

But Jesus is not the God of Abraham without the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, it becomes clear that Jesus was declared as an aspect of God - as a part of God, and thus as God. I know that the Trinity theology is confusing, but that doesn't mean you need to misrepresent it as something it is not. Jesus is the God of Abraham by being a part of the God of Abraham, an aspect of the God of Abraham, as are the Father and the Holy Spirit.
.
Not according to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. There are no "aspects" of God. There is only one God, three distinct Persons, who are all God.

Hate to break it to you, but those "three distinct Persons" are aspects of God. One doesn't have to use those exact words to see that the idea is inherent in the entire idea of the Trinity.

Tropical Sands

31-03-2006, 01:59

Some of the Gospels were written and in use by that time.

The gospels weren't interpreted in the first century as having a divine Jesus. Just like many Christians today don't interpret them as having a divine Jesus, no 1st century Christians did. I challenge you to find a single first century source where a gospel is interpreted as having a divine Jesus.

Sorry, I have studied quite a bit of theological history, and I have yet to see a single writing in which a Christian theologian ascribed pagan-like divinity to Christ.

You havn't studied very hard then. Justin Martyr's first apology is full of it. He compares Jesus to Perseus as being born of a virgin, Mercury as the Word of God, etc. He went on and on for about 20 chapters ascribing pagan divinity to Jesus. Iraneaus' Against Heresy ascribes to Jesus the powers of the stars in the sky, which were worshipped. All throughout the second century, the Church Fathers were slowly building up a divine Jesus based on pre-existing pagan gods.

"Three distinct persons in one God" and "aspects of God" are logically equivalent.

They aren't synonyms, so they aren't logically equivalent.

Hate to break it to you, but those "three distinct Persons" are aspects of God. One doesn't have to use those exact words to see that the idea is inherent in the entire idea of the Trinity.

The words were chosen very carefully when making those creeds. There was a reason the word "aspects" of God wasn't used. Because the idea of a Trinity with "aspects of God was found in a number of Christian heresies that were ultimately rejected by Orthodoxy. The heresy where the father, son, and holy spirit are aspects of one Godhead is called Modalism.

It isn't found in either of the creeds adhered to by the Orthodox today.

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 03:17

IF Allah is real, then Allah shapes Islam and Islam is God's chosen definition of self.

Why on earth would you say something like that? I mean - sure, 'god' is an influence on religion... but who can know the heart of God?

Maybe NONE of our religions can EVER be "God's chosen definition of self"... through a simple inability to comprehend. Instead, we can have a world full of approximations and best guesses.... but none 'quite right'.

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.

Or, they are talking about the same book, but different variants thereof... different perspectives, again.

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 03:25

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.

You seem incapable of separating your own prejudices from the subject matter.

Personally: I believe that ALL THREE 'Abrahamic' religions stem from the Sumerian 'An' religion, reinforced over the years with other Mesopotamian and near-Mesoptomian theological advances... the theft of a Creation myth, the wholesale (almost verbatim) appropriation of a Flood Story, the borrowing of Egypt's "Seth" for a dichotomy, influences from Hammurabi's Code of Laws, thefts from nascent Buddhism, from Mithraism... from Hellenistic mythologies.

The fact remains, however, that - 'An', or 'Aton", 'Yahweh' or 'Allah'... ALL of these COULD be references to 'one, true god' - and, if they ARE, that 'god' is unaffected by how people perceive it... they are just stories trying to approximate.

And, if there is NO 'one, true god', then ALL of these are evolutions of the same theological element... the same symbol of a 'sky father' or whatever... and thus, are STILL the same 'god', just written differently.

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 03:28

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.

Actually - they said that Jesus was an ASPECT of the God of Abraham. They redefine the God of Abraham to be a triune entity.

They still 'worship' the same 'god'... just differently.

And it is that difference which is the fatal 'bridge too far' for it to remain true to the Abrahamic 'god' that other Abrahamic religions accept.

Undelia

31-03-2006, 03:30

Who the fuck cares? All religions are equally reprehensible, especially Abrahamic ones. Secular human beings should be condemning these faiths, not supporting one against the other in whatever fashion, nor making it appear as if you do.

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 03:39

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!"

No - it really isn't.

For, while you are almost right, you are missing elements.

Even to those who believed Jesus was just man, the 'god' of the faith was the god of Torah.

And, if you read the Gospel of John, you already see a 'spiritual version' of Jesus, still within the first century literature.

However, the whole idea of 'trinity' makes the thought and the word one... different aspects of the same thing. Like the connection between intent and realisation.

The Christians aren't actually arguing that Jesus replaces any element of the Abrahamic God... just that the 'old' image of that 'god' was deficient in it's view as to the nature of that 'god'.

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 03:48

There are no first century accounts of Jesus being viewed as divine. The "some" church leaders were minority leaders who arose in the late second century, and like I said, they began to ascribe what is referred to as minor divinity. They compared him to pagan deities, like Justin Martyr did.

John's Gospel is an example of a first century text that approaches a 'spiritual' version of Christ.

Thats exactly what the Nicene Creed did. They took Jesus and said "This is the God of Abraham." They said he is "God of God, light of light, true God of true God." The term "aspect of God" occurs nowhere in the Nicene Creed.

Whether or not the text says 'aspect', an aspect is what it describes. I'm not sure the Egyptians ever used the phrase 'aspect' either, but one has only to look at elements like 'Amon Re', or any of the various incarnations of 'Horus', to see that the aspect CONCEPT is not peculiar to Christianity, or new when it occured.

If one Christian is worshipping Jesus while the other is not, then yes, they are obviously not worshipping the same God. One is either worshipping the true God, while the other worships nothing, or an idol, or they are both worshipping nothing.

They are worshipping the same 'god'... one just worships a different vision of that 'god' to the other.

Like I said, this is not what the Nicene Creed states. It never says anything about an aspect of God, it states that Jesus IS God. So does the later Athanasian Creed, which states, "the Son is God." However, the Trinity doctrine teaches that they are three distinct persons in one God. That they are "aspects of God" is not something that is a part of the major Trinity doctrines in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which make up the majority of the world Christian population.

When you threw in "to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit" you committed the fallacy of the red herring. No one said anything about that. It doesn't change the fact that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all teach that Jesus is the God of Abraham.
.

Aspects stated or otherwise, the Trinity formula states that God is God, that Jesus is God and that the Spirit is God.... that all three are part of the same, and that all three are also separate. My example of the Egyptian conflated Gods, shows that this is NOT an unheard of concept.

And, the Christians believe that has always been 'true'... that the name 'elohim' in Torah (being plural) refers to the triune God, even in the creation.

Not according to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. There are no "aspects" of God. There is only one God, three distinct Persons, who are all God.

Exactly. A triune. Three-into-one. Aspects of the same 'god'.

DubyaGoat

31-03-2006, 06:33

...
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*.
...

You see, that's just it. I don't disagree that differing details of worship can exist between people and groups that worship the same God. However, the aspect of "identity" IS confirmed by the Jesus or non-Jesus definition. It is as powerful, and more so, as a differentiating detail than even calling oneself a worshiper of the God of Abraham (which you yourself called an *identity* and not a detail). The Jesus/Trinity concept IS an identity, not detail, not a technicality. There is no other way to interpret it. One faith says that you MUST believe in it and be cleansed of your sins through it, while the other says that you CAN NOT even believe that the prophet was crucified at all nor worship God as Jesus, at the threat of eternal damnation (via it being called a unpardonable sin).

DubyaGoat

31-03-2006, 06:48

Why on earth would you say something like that? I mean - sure, 'god' is an influence on religion... but who can know the heart of God?

You forgot what the premise was. First, if God is not real, then they can define anything they want, we both agree. But if Allah is real, but you only went part way, then the Qur'an is real and the Allah in the Qur'an is described with the ability to define himself, as he was said to send personal messages via the angel speaking to Mohammed in the cave. Thus, divine interaction with the real world and inspiration gives Allah the power to have error free definitions of himself in the Qur’an. (if the Christian God is real, then likewise for the Christian Bible).

But we can't, when using only the Christian definition of self and the Islam definition of self, describe them as being only 'partially' right, because they don't give themselves that ability.

Maybe NONE of our religions can EVER be "God's chosen definition of self"... through a simple inability to comprehend. Instead, we can have a world full of approximations and best guesses.... but none 'quite right'.

Perhaps this is true, but if so, then neither the Qur'an nor the Christian Bible are right, because they say “we do know,” they don't say, “maybe we know, compare notes for yourself and other religions.”

Or, they are talking about the same book, but different variants thereof... different perspectives, again.

Perhaps, but it's not a given. What they do say, is that you can't bother with the other, it is full of intentional lies, meant to deceive and mislead. Islam says the writing of Jesus were lost, and the Christians say the Qur'an was/is a pure deception.

DubyaGoat

31-03-2006, 06:56

John's Gospel is an example of a first century text that approaches a 'spiritual' version of Christ.
...

I'm trying to stay out of that debate overall, like I said in the OP, I don't feel qualified to argue the ins and outs of the Judaism (especially modern day Judaism) compare to Islam and Christianity compare (but it is certainly welcome here, I asked for it even) but this one note about when divinity is written about, I think perhaps the Epistles, the letters of Paul are better confirmation of that. There are certainly letters that are attributed to the first century and they witness to Jesus as divine without hesitation nor any real chance of misunderstanding. The gospels are good too, but the minimalists want to date them into the late second century and others want to credit them to pre-epistles lost books, so they are essentially more controversial in nature I suppose. But the epistles, unless someone were to try and argue Paul never really existed, they would have to recognize that Jesus was called divine almost from the time of the resurrection itself.

Willamena

31-03-2006, 14:55

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.
Well done, explaining the image of God.

Muravyets

31-03-2006, 16:45

I say a religion is allowed to define the God they worship.
So do I, in a way, but I'm a polytheist. How do *you* get away with this, being a monotheist and all?

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.

Again, you are describing a difference over doctrine, not over god. The trinity is doctrine; so is the question of the divinity of Christ. The Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, but their doctrine rejects the idea that a human being can be divine, so, since they believe that Jesus was a real human being, they cannot also believe that he was a divine entity. Considering that many Christians agree with Muslims on this (I can think of the Congregationalists, for one, just off the top of my head; and even among Catholics, one of the more "magical" denominations, there is debate on this very topic and thus on the meaning of the trinity), I don't think the Muslims are being very unreasonable. I also don't believe this proves they are rejecting the god that Christians worship, since not all Christians *worship* Jesus as god. Clearly, the Christian concept of god is not defined by the divinity of Jesus, so a difference over Jesus is not a difference over god.

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 did not see that anywhere in the data you posted. All I saw were doctrinal disputes.

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.

They are disputing the book, not the god the book claims to be about.

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).

But are you saying that the content of the books -- the words, the ink on the paper -- *are* the god? No, of course not. A book is a book is a book, and regardless of what inspiration its authors claim, it is still written by humans who are fallible and incapable of comprehending the whole being of the divine. Therefore, there can be no unassailable proof that any book contains a whole and correct description of god. Therefore, a rejection of any book is nothing more than that -- rejection of a book. It in no way implies rejection of the god the book describes.

Also, since we cannot prove that any book describes god correctly and completely, we also cannot prove that any book is not describing god correctly but incompletely. Why? Because we are human and fallible and incapable of comprehending the whole being of the divine. We are not able to say definitively "this is true about god, but this other thing is not." Therefore, you cannot prove that two differing books that claim to describe the same god are not in fact doing just that.

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.

All of the bolded phrases are criticisms of the worshippers, not the thing they are worshipping. To say "you are wrong about your understanding of god" or "you are not worshipping god correctly" or even "you are not worshipping god at all" is not the same as saying "you worship a different god."

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.

Well, as Dem pointed out, that's not entirely correct, just as a point of information. But the soda-pop industry aside, the point I was making was that the strictness over jargon has much more to do with the politics of religion than with the actual practice of it.

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.

The bolded phrase is another case of how to worship, not what to worship, i.e. doctrine, not god-concept.

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.
You are the only one saying that Islam and Christianity have irreconcilably different definitions of god. All you show me as proof are differences in doctrine and practice, with no direct references to god or any reference to each other as having different gods. Meanwhile, the two religions, through their texts, leaders and scholars, say the opposite. Who should I believe, them or you?

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 16:53

You forgot what the premise was. First, if God is not real, then they can define anything they want, we both agree. But if Allah is real, but you only went part way, then the Qur'an is real and the Allah in the Qur'an is described with the ability to define himself, as he was said to send personal messages via the angel speaking to Mohammed in the cave. Thus, divine interaction with the real world and inspiration gives Allah the power to have error free definitions of himself in the Qur’an. (if the Christian God is real, then likewise for the Christian Bible).

But we can't, when using only the Christian definition of self and the Islam definition of self, describe them as being only 'partially' right, because they don't give themselves that ability.

You've fallen into a logical tigertrap... If Allah is real, then the Koran is about a real entity... but that DOESN'T automatically equate to the Koran being inerrant, no matter what it claims for itself.

You have to remember that religions are human... and their books are NOT equal to their gods.

Perhaps this is true, but if so, then neither the Qur'an nor the Christian Bible are right, because they say “we do know,” they don't say, “maybe we know, compare notes for yourself and other religions.”

I'm inclined to agree. No matter how 'inspired' a text is, the pen is weilded by mere mortals.

Perhaps, but it's not a given. What they do say, is that you can't bother with the other, it is full of intentional lies, meant to deceive and mislead. Islam says the writing of Jesus were lost, and the Christians say the Qur'an was/is a pure deception.

No one likes to have their sovereignty questioned... even if it means 'talking smack' about your peers.

Muravyets

31-03-2006, 17:13

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)
I completely agree with everything you're saying here, but I just want to use the bolded sentence to clarify one term that's getting bandied about.

"Idol" denotes a physical object which is granted divine status and offered worship directly. Any physical object or creature can be an idol -- a rock, a cross, a grail, a book, an animal, even a person -- hence the debate over the divinity of Christ. Is it idol worship or not? Monotheists of the Abrahamic tradition are forbidden to worship idols because they are supposed to try to commune directly with god, who is ineffable, undefinable and indescribable.

However, historically, the prohibition against idol worship was also a rule against participating in polytheistic religions. Polytheism often uses idols, i.e. physical objects, as a point of manifestation for their gods. The statue of Isis, for instance, is not Isis herself, but an object into which the spirit of the goddess may enter from time to time in order to interact (passively) with her worshippers. For those polytheists who believe that all gods are momentary manifestations of a universal divine spirit, then the idol serves merely to identify which aspect of the divine spirit is being worshipped at the time.

The reason monotheists had to be warned against participating in such things is because most polytheist religions permit multiple faith. By their rules, you can practice as many religions as you like. You can even worship an ineffable god AND worship a manifest god at the same time without any conflict or hypocrisy. In the ancient world, this was the norm, since membership in the cults of various gods brought social benefits as well. It paid to burn incense at the same temple as the richest merchants and most well connected politicians in your town. But if you were trying to create a persona for your community as "the chosen people of god," well, syncretism could be a problem. So, no idols for you!

In the context of this debate, I think Dubyagoat is teetering dangerously close to granting an idol-like status to not just the Bible, but Jesus as well by insisting that the content of the texts and the divine status of Jesus are the deciding factors in the definition of god. DG, I don't know if you realize you are doing this, but your argument is trying to define GOD by the parameters of physical objects/beings and trying to make the use of and belief in those objects/beings necessary to a relationship with GOD. This makes idols of the objects/beings you are talking about.

The Magyar Peoples

31-03-2006, 17:24

Time for ultimate pedantry:

If you believe in a monotheistic religion then technically you can't say that someone worships "another God" or words to that effect. This is because you believe in God being God, he doesn't have rivals. Therefore for you to say for example "Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc. worship a different God" isn't right as there is no other God according to your religion. Therefore the only technically correct terminology are words to the effect of "Jews/Muslims etc. follow a different religion".

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 17:34

Muravyets

31-03-2006, 17:45

I look to the Devils Dictionary for the answer to questions like these:
<snip>
Oh, btw -- cookie for you.

We should never let Ambrose Bierce pass un-noticed. :)

Muravyets

31-03-2006, 18:03

Originally Posted by The Magyar Peoples
Time for ultimate pedantry:

If you believe in a monotheistic religion then technically you can't say that someone worships "another God" or words to that effect. This is because you believe in God being God, he doesn't have rivals. Therefore for you to say for example "Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc. worship a different God" isn't right as there is no other God according to your religion. Therefore the only technically correct terminology are words to the effect of "Jews/Muslims etc. follow a different religion".
Possibly... but then, if it's good enough for the scripture, it's good enough for me:

Exodus 20:3 "20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me"...
I think The Magyar Peoples may be right about this (they're right about goulash, too :) ).

One could easily read "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" as a prohibition against believing in the existence of other gods, i.e. against believing that more than one god can exist. The way you're suggesting, it would be admitting that other gods do exist but telling us not to worship them over the Abrahamic god. That may well have been the message in ancient times, but these ain't ancient times.

I guess it depends on your definition of "monotheist." If "monotheist" means you believe that god is a single, definitive, divine entity, then you cannot say other religions worship a different god, because there is only one. If "monotheist" means that you simply choose to worship only one god, then you could say that other religions worship other gods, but wouldn't that make you just a highly selective polytheist?

I think TMP is right about monotheism as it exists today.

The Magyar Peoples

31-03-2006, 18:04

Muravyets

31-03-2006, 18:08

Thank you good sir.
Any time.

PS: "good lady" -- see earlier posts in which I curtsied to GnI until he got embarrassed and told me to stop. (He's no fun.) ;)

The Magyar Peoples

31-03-2006, 18:08

Any time.

PS: "good lady" -- see earlier posts in which I curtsied to GnI until he got embarrassed and told me to stop. (He's no fun.) ;)
My apologies.

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 18:10

Any time.

PS: "good lady" -- see earlier posts in which I curtsied to GnI until he got embarrassed and told me to stop. (He's no fun.) ;)

I wasn't embarrassed... I merely pointed out that my ego needs no more massage, if I'm ever to be allowed in polite company... ;)

Muravyets

31-03-2006, 18:11

I wasn't embarrassed... I merely pointed out that my ego needs no more massage, if I'm ever to be allowed in polite company... ;)
Oh, sweetie, there's nothing polite about the company around here. :D

The Magyar Peoples

31-03-2006, 18:16

Oh, sweetie, there's nothing polite about the company around here. :D

I polite. Here! Come sample my goulash!

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 18:16

I think The Magyar Peoples may be right about this (they're right about goulash, too :) ).

One could easily read "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" as a prohibition against believing in the existence of other gods, i.e. against believing that more than one god can exist. The way you're suggesting, it would be admitting that other gods do exist but telling us not to worship them over the Abrahamic god. That may well have been the message in ancient times, but these ain't ancient times.

I guess it depends on your definition of "monotheist." If "monotheist" means you believe that god is a single, definitive, divine entity, then you cannot say other religions worship a different god, because there is only one. If "monotheist" means that you simply choose to worship only one god, then you could say that other religions worship other gods, but wouldn't that make you just a highly selective polytheist?

I think TMP is right about monotheism as it exists today.

I wasn't really arguing... but the Old Testament seems fairly 'open' to the idea of other gods, if you know where to look...

Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods..."

Joshua 22:22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD..."

Psalms 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

Psalms 86:8 "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works."

Psalms 93:5 ""For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods."

Psalms 135:5 "For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods."

Daniel 11:36 "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall
exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god..."

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 18:17

Oh, sweetie, there's nothing polite about the company around here. :D

I used to be.... :D

Muravyets

31-03-2006, 18:38

I polite. Here! Come sample my goulash!
"Sample my goulash"!? How rude! ;)

The Magyar Peoples

31-03-2006, 18:38

"Sample my goulash"!? How rude! ;)
;)

Muravyets

31-03-2006, 18:50

I wasn't really arguing... but the Old Testament seems fairly 'open' to the idea of other gods, if you know where to look...

Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods..."

Joshua 22:22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD..."

Psalms 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

Psalms 86:8 "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works."

Psalms 93:5 ""For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods."

Psalms 135:5 "For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods."

Daniel 11:36 "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall
exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god..."
Oh, well, to be completely honest, up to 80% of these so-called "monotheists" are just closet voodooists, as far as I'm concerned.

Christians with their resurrection, and sacraments, and saints. Saints -- I mean, I ask you. Can you say "ancestor worship," kids?

Muslims with their martyrolatry and all that sacred calligraphy and pelting things with rocks to drive the devil out. Uh-huh, right, no idols in that religion.

And don't get me started on Jews with their mezzuzahs, and dinner chairs for dead prophets.

"The devil is in the details," indeed. Look at all this conflict over such superficial nonsense as these so-called differences, which are nothing but style and have nothing to do with "god." Some people really need to get over themselves.

Grave_n_idle

31-03-2006, 19:00

Oh, well, to be completely honest, up to 80% of these so-called "monotheists" are just closet voodooists, as far as I'm concerned.

Christians with their resurrection, and sacraments, and saints. Saints -- I mean, I ask you. Can you say "ancestor worship," kids?

Muslims with their martyrolatry and all that sacred calligraphy and pelting things with rocks to drive the devil out. Uh-huh, right, no idols in that religion.

And don't get me started on Jews with their mezzuzahs, and dinner chairs for dead prophets.

"The devil is in the details," indeed. Look at all this conflict over such superficial nonsense as these so-called differences, which are nothing but style and have nothing to do with "god." Some people really need to get over themselves.

Agreed.

With a big "A".

Tropical Sands

31-03-2006, 19:04

I wasn't really arguing... but the Old Testament seems fairly 'open' to the idea of other gods, if you know where to look...

Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods..."

Joshua 22:22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD..."

Psalms 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

Psalms 86:8 "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works."

Psalms 93:5 ""For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods."

Psalms 135:5 "For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods."

Daniel 11:36 "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall
exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god..."

Thats one way of looking at it. I would keep in mind however, that the terms el and elohim in Hebrew are very ambiguous. They don't always refer to gods as we use the term in English. They can refer to hosts (angels) or earthly rulers, among other things.

In the Torah it also states not to make gods for yourselves, and the word for idol, eilyel, is actually derived from the word for god, el. I don't think it is implying that you are bringing another god into objective existence when it says "don't make gods for yourselves."

Dempublicents1

31-03-2006, 19:13

I wasn't really arguing... but the Old Testament seems fairly 'open' to the idea of other gods, if you know where to look...

Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods..."

Joshua 22:22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD..."

Psalms 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

Psalms 86:8 "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works."

Psalms 93:5 ""For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods."

Psalms 135:5 "For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods."

Daniel 11:36 "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall
exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god..."

Maybe that's because the ancient Hebrews did believe in the existence of other gods, and thus interpreted what divine revelation they did get in this way? =)

It is clear, for instance, in the story of the Exodus that the ancient Hebrews believed that the gods of Egypt existed. They just thought that God was more powerful and important than those other gods.

DubyaGoat

31-03-2006, 23:47

I wasn't really arguing... but the Old Testament seems fairly 'open' to the idea of other gods, if you know where to look...

Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods..."

Joshua 22:22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD..."

Psalms 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

Psalms 86:8 "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works."

Psalms 93:5 ""For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods."

Psalms 135:5 "For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods."

Daniel 11:36 "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall
exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god..."

Maybe that's because the ancient Hebrews did believe in the existence of other gods, and thus interpreted what divine revelation they did get in this way? =)

It is clear, for instance, in the story of the Exodus that the ancient Hebrews believed that the gods of Egypt existed. They just thought that God was more powerful and important than those other gods.

Between these two posts, I think my work here is done ;)

The Qur'an/Islam and Bible/Christianity relationship with each other is perfectly described there in those two viewpoints. Not permissible by either of them for the other.

The Magyar Peoples

01-04-2006, 00:09

So, I have successfully raised the issue of whether Christianity is a monotheistic religion? Wahoo!!

Dempublicents1

01-04-2006, 00:13

Between these two posts, I think my work here is done ;)

The Qur'an/Islam and Bible/Christianity relationship with each other is perfectly described there in those two viewpoints. Not permissible by either of them for the other.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, considering that what you quoted had little, if anything to do with the main topic of this discussion.

Most modern Jews do *not* believe in the existence of any other gods - they are true monotheists (as are most Christians and Muslims).

Rift Alpha

01-04-2006, 00:33

Too right Islam and Chrisianity don't share the same God.
I'm a Christian, so I'll argue this with ideas I learned from my upbringing.
Okay, first, we have the Holy Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Same God in three Persons. Not three Gods: just one. They don't. They have their one god, but with only one person.
Second, we (most of us anyway) believe that the Bible as it is right now is God's Word. It's not merely an author's description of some events, it's God, using the Holy Spirit to inspire the words. They have their Koran. It's not in the Bible, therefore its not Christian.
Third, I'm pretty sure they think that Jesus was just a prophet. We don't. We believe that he was a prophet, a priest, a king, a servant, and also True God and True Man.
And, finally,

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Dempublicents1

01-04-2006, 00:48

Too right Islam and Chrisianity don't share the same God.

Do Christians and Jews worship the same God? Or are we going to throw out the entire Old Testament?

JoyLovesPeace

01-04-2006, 01:00

Different religions evolve in different lands just as different languages do.

Stories over time become twisted to represent the objective of control.

Religions were used against people by governments. That is a possible reason

the struggle exists over whose religion is the right one.

I believe that we didn't just arrive into this life by something uplanned or

coincidental. Organized religion has aided to death and destruction for centuries now.

While the people argue over whose God is the right God. The Beast is consuming us.

The word..just hearing the word GOD use to repell me.

It isn't cool.

The people I saw who are religious were always freaks. Proclaiming that everything I did was punishable. It created segragation, isloation, desperation, oppression and a host of many other not so nice things.

Religion is personal. What you believe inside of yourself is personal.

A major problem with the organized religions of this world is that they have failed to bring comfort and unite people.

If you read the basis of most religions codes of right and wrong... They all have the same principle and were left up to each indivdual to decide

DubyaGoat

01-04-2006, 01:43

The citation of 'most' Christian or Muslims, or *most* anything else is not a evidence in the debate. We can all cite other sources, such as this one... re-assembled and shortened, but linked to below:

1. Allah is the creator of the universe and of each single individual, but he is transcendental, i.e., he is seperated from creation. There is no connection between creator and creature (sura 55,1-78; 6,100-101).

1. God created man in His image and made him His counterpart. He revealed his character in His creation. Jesus is the the bridge between God and man (John 1:14-15).

2. Allah has no children. Jesus may not be worshipped as God. To believe in the trinity is polytheism. To worship more than one God is the most evil sin in Islam which can't be forgiven, since there is only one God (Allah means 'the God' or 'the goddess') (5,72- 3+75; 4,171-172).

2. God's only Son is Jesus Christ. Jesus came to earth as a human being and is himself God. Father, Sohn and Holy Spirit are a single, triune God (John 1:1-2).

3. Allah is not the father of Jesus Christ. He is the omnipotent and merciful God. The Qur'ân accuses the Christians to worship three gods: God, Jesus and Mary. This was probably Muhammad's perception of the trinity as it was described to him by the Christians of his lifetime (9,30-31).

3. God is the father of Jesus Christ and the father of His children (Romans 8,15-17). The trinity consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary was a mere human being and does not belong to the trinity (Matthew 28:19).

4. Jesus was one of the most outstanding prophets of history, but Muhammad is the last prophet, the “'seal of the prophets”' (33,40; 61,6). Muhammad's coming is already anounced in the Old Testament by Moses and Isaia. In the New Testament Jesus himself anounces Muhammad (2,67 ff; 7,157).

4. Jesus entered the world as the Saviour and Redeemer who was foretold in the Old Testament. As the Son of God, he is the highest prophet, who anounced the coming of the Holy Spirit as counselor (John 14:16). Muhammad is not anounced in the Bible and does not fulfill the biblical requirements for a prophet of God (Acts 10:43).

5. Jesus has not been crucified and is not resurrected. The crucifixion would have been a humiliating defeat for Jesus. Even if he would have died on the cross, he could not have brought redemption to mankind. The Qur'ân does not state clearly what has happened at the end of Jesus' life. Probably, Allah carried him away to heaven in the face of his enimies. After that, another one was crucified in Jesus' place (4,157-158).

5. Jesus died on the cross as it was His Father's will. He was put into His grave and arose from the death on the third day. By this, he gained victory over sin and death, and he, the epresentative of mankind, brought about redemption (1 Peter 1:18-19).

6. Adam sinned in paradise by eating the forbidden fruit, but man was not cut off from communion with Allah through this transgression: There is no fall and no original sin in Islam (2,35-39).

6. Adam transgressed God's commandment in paradise by eating the forbidden fruit. With this, he brought sin, death and separation from God for all human beings into the world. Reconciliation with God is only possible through Jesus' death (2 Corinthians 5:18- 9; Romans 3:20).

7. The Qur'ân is the pure unaltered Word of Allah and a genuine copy of the original heavenly revelation. In contrast to the Qur'ân, the Old and New Testament have been corrupted in time. The Qur'ân corrects the Old and New Testament in all places where they differ from the Qur'ân (2,2; 2,97-98; 43,2-4; 2,83).

7. The Bible is God's reliable word. The Holy Spirit supervised its recording. The Bible can be corrected by nothing and remains God's valid word in eternity (Revelation 22:18).

8. The Qur'ân was directly revealed to Muhammad through mediation of the angel Gabriel. Muhammad's own personality played no role in this, and therefore the Qur'âns
genuinenss is garantied (26,192-194).

8. Various personalities have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that the Bible is a mirror of their characters. The personality of the biblical authors becomes visible in the single biblical books (2. Timothy 3:16).

… Whereas to the biblical testimony only those will inherit eternal life who believe in Jesus Christ being the Son of God and who accept his representative offering at the cross, the Qur'ân clearly states that it is only those who believe Muhammad to have been the last prophet of God and the Qur'ân to be the very truth. For Muslims, Christians with their belief in the holy trinity (which includes Father, Son and Mary, as the Qur'ân believes) commit the most evil sin, the sin of polytheism. Because of these essential theological differences between Qur'ân and Bible, it becomes clearly visible that the one omnipotent creator of the Qur'ân can not be the triune God of the Bible, the father of Jesus Christ.

By: Christine Schirrmacher director of the Islam Institute of the
German Evangelical Alliance, visiting professor of Islamic studies at 'Whitefield Theological Seminary'
(USA), and author of a two-volume standard introduction to Islam.
(WARNING 5 page .pdf file)
link (http://www.contra-mundum.org/schirrmacher/compared.pdf#search='Qur%27an%20old%20testament')
http://www.contra-mundum.org/

At no point anywhere in the Qur’an does a single verse of any previously existing book get cited. The Qur’an does NOT claim to be derived from previously existing book, old or new Testaments included In fact, Islam claims that Mohammed was illiterate and thus could NOT have been influenced by previously existing books and they consider this to be an ayat a proof, of divine inspiration.

On the other hand, It is not at all uncommon for books of the New Testament to either cite older scriptures or to quote other new Testament books, as a testimony of what they are witnessing.

Edit: secondary note, a BTW, if you will: Consider, there are two teams with two different coaches at the same sporting event, there will be a reciting of the plays after they occurred from both view points and they will use the same names and be about the same events. But these similarities will not mean that the teams were playing for the same owner.

Muravyets

01-04-2006, 02:18

Dubyagoat:

I have time and again shown you the difference between talking about books and talking about god. I have time and again pointed out the difference between talking about how people worship and talking about what they worship. Yet you persist is showing us only textual and doctrinal differences as "proof" that Christians and Muslims worship different gods -- not that they worship god differently, but that they worship entirely different gods.

Somewhere in all these religious texts, each religion must describe what they consider god to be. You must have seen these descriptions of god if you are so certain they are different among the 3 monotheisms. Show them to us. At least direct us to the appropriate texts -- the ones that describe god, not the ones that talk about rituals or prophets or prophecies. Show us the descriptions of god and let us decide for ourselves if we think you are right or not.

Otherwise, your entire argument is meaningless because the data you claim as proof does not actually talk about the nature of god at all.

EDIT: I'd like to point out, btw, that of all the non-atheist skeptics in this thread, I may be the only one that might ever possibly agree with you because I'm a polytheist, and I am perfectly happy to accept the existence of multiple gods, one for each monotheistic religion. My problem is that you have shown me no evidence that would lead me to think you are right. The texts and leaders of the religions in question say they worship the same god. If you want to persuade me otherwise, you must show me evidence.

Sheni

01-04-2006, 02:31

Too right Islam and Chrisianity don't share the same God.
I'm a Christian, so I'll argue this with ideas I learned from my upbringing.
Okay, first, we have the Holy Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Same God in three Persons. Not three Gods: just one. They don't. They have their one god, but with only one person.
Second, we (most of us anyway) believe that the Bible as it is right now is God's Word. It's not merely an author's description of some events, it's God, using the Holy Spirit to inspire the words. They have their Koran. It's not in the Bible, therefore its not Christian.
Third, I'm pretty sure they think that Jesus was just a prophet. We don't. We believe that he was a prophet, a priest, a king, a servant, and also True God and True Man.
*snip*
Oh, I just HAVE to argue with this.
I'll argue that if you're right, then Christianity contradicts itself.
On point 1:That also applys to Judaism, yet Christianity says it worships the God of Abraham(among others). If you're right then Christianity would be wrong.
On point 2:First of all, how does that make Allah=/=God of Abraham?(I'm not even going to touch Jesus now)Secondly, I can't think of a second argument without commiting Ad Hominem.
On point 3:Again, how does this make Allah=/=God of Abraham? Also, Jews say he wasn't even a prophet so therefore we would not worship your god(Again, not talking about Jesus). But you say we do, and I would argue most Jews would say we do too.

DubyaGoat

01-04-2006, 02:32

Dubyagoat:
I have time and again shown you the difference between talking about books and talking about god. I have time and again pointed out the difference between talking about how people worship and talking about what they worship. Yet you persist is showing us only textual and doctrinal differences as "proof" that Christians and Muslims worship different gods -- not that they worship god differently, but that they worship entirely different gods.
...

You see, that's just it. You call the 'person and name' of Jesus as nothing but a 'detail of worship,' but it IS the only aspect of the identity of God that anyone could begin to suggest is in fact an Identity that we could use on an ID or as a suspect. Put a picture out there, and a question, is this Jesus, God or not? Christianity says yes, Islam says no. THAT is identity verification, not detail of worship, person to person testimony. Put Jesus in a line up with other suspects and then let the witnesses identify him as the culprit or not. The Christians will say, "yes, that's him," and the Muslims will say, "NO, that is NOT him, and anyone that says that is him is going to be damned to hell by our God."

That is identity proven in any court of law...

Muravyets

01-04-2006, 04:50

You see, that's just it. You call the 'person and name' of Jesus as nothing but a 'detail of worship,' but it IS the only aspect of the identity of God that anyone could begin to suggest is in fact an Identity that we could use on an ID or as a suspect. Put a picture out there, and a question, is this Jesus, God or not? Christianity says yes, Islam says no. THAT is identity verification, not detail of worship, person to person testimony. Put Jesus in a line up with other suspects and then let the witnesses identify him as the culprit or not. The Christians will say, "yes, that's him," and the Muslims will say, "NO, that is NOT him, and anyone that says that is him is going to be damned to hell by our God."

That is identity proven in any court of law...
Then why do Christians disagree with each other about whether Jesus was the literal son of god or only a divinely inspired prophet? Why do Christians disagree with each other over whether, if Jesus was the son of god, he was a human being or not? Why do Christians disagree with each other over whether Jesus was resurrected as a vision, as spirit, as human flesh, or as divinely transformed mystical flesh?

It is because Christians disagree with each other over whether Jesus is or is not part of the identity of god. You may not like to admit that this disagreement exists, but it is the reason we have Protestant denominations such as the Congregationalists and other puritan sects, and it is a regular topic of study among Catholic Jesuits. In fact, I believe I can say with confidence that there are millions of Christians of many denominations around the world who actually question, if not outright reject, the literal divinity of Jesus. Just like Muslims, millions of Christians do not accept that Jesus was a supernatural being, and they do not accept that at any point he became supernatural. Therefore, to millions of Christians, Christ is a divinely inspired human, but he is not god or any part of god's identity. He is their prophet, their savior, their teacher, and their exemplar -- but he is not their god.

EDIT: In fact, many of these Christians might go so far as to denounce your version of what Jesus is as idolatry and heresy because it is making an object of worship out of Jesus, when you should be worshipping only God the Father, according to their view.

By claiming that all Christians believe Jesus is the identity of god, you are claiming a uniformity of belief that simply does not exist. Christians have disagreed with each other on this very point for the entire history of Christianity. You can ignore this fact, but you can't negate it.

DubyaGoat

01-04-2006, 05:29

...snip...

Nothing in your latest post here negates the premise. Jesus as God or Jesus as not God, as an identifying indicator of two different Gods, identity of the God is the question, not whether ‘all’ Christians or ‘all’ of Islam are uniform. The position exists and therefore the worship the same named-object, God identity, is different with the answer to that question. If the answer is positive or negative, then they do or do not worship the same God as each other.

As to Jesus being divine or not, that's a different question. As to 'most' Christians claiming to worship Jesus or not, we (you and I) would first have to determine by definition what is and what is not a Christian, and neither you nor I have made that distinction in this thread yet (that I recall), but I will make the posit here that the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, for examples off the top of my head, that require the divinity of Jesus be acknowledge for a person to be a Christian.

I’ll quote this, not in an attempt to prove that Jesus IS God, but to show that Christianity itself does historically necessitate it and the NT teaches it…

In summing up what has been said, we must remember that be-lief in the divinity of Christ cannot be planted in men's hearts simply by scriptural citations or philosophical reasoning. What is needed is a willful acceptance of this God-revealed truth. It pleased God to uncover the hidden inclination of each person's heart by their attitude toward Christ; "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matt. 11:25). So in this regard, till the end of the world, things will be the same as they were two thousand years ago: for many people Christ will remain "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense … that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" (1 Peter 2:8; Luke 2:35).

There are many, even among the Jews and Moslems, who would recognize Jesus Christ as a great person and even a prophet, but could never accept Him as true God. Precisely because of the personal effort required to accept the divinity of Jesus, faith in Him is rewarded with eternal life: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned " (Mark 16:16).

This article does not attempt to "prove" that Christ is God because this truth requires faith. The purpose here is to help the Christian clarify his belief in our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ; namely, that He is the Creator, and we are His creatures.

~Abbot Alexander Mileant
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/rock_e.htm

Again, I say this is proof that the identity of the God being worshiped can be indicated by the use or not use of the name Jesus.

If we want to start defining which denominations do and do not worship the same God, we should first define what “Christian” means and then go from there.

Muravyets

01-04-2006, 05:52

Nothing in your latest post here negates the premise. Jesus as God or Jesus as not God, as an identifying indicator of two different Gods, identity of the God is the question, not whether ‘all’ Christians or ‘all’ of Islam are uniform. The position exists and therefore the worship the same named-object, God identity, is different with the answer to that question. If the answer is position or negative, then they do or do not worship the same God as each other.

<snip>

Again, I say this is proof that the identity of the God being worshiped can be indicated by the use or not use of the name Jesus.

If we want to start defining which denominations do and do not worship the same God, we should first define what “Christian” means and then go from there.
Nothing in any of your posts supports your own premise. According to the first paragraph of the post above, you seem to be saying that the mere fact that some people say that Jesus/no-Jesus is what decides which god you're worshipping, that itself proves that there are two different gods. Nonsense. Lots of people say they've been abducted by aliens, but I don't believe this to be true just because they say so, especially when there are so many credible authorities who say they're wrong and can show evidence to back that up. If you want me to accept your premise, you're going to have to show me the god descriptions. There are many, very precise descriptions of the different gods worshipped by polytheists. Where are the god descriptions of the monotheists? I maintain that if you put the god-concepts side by side, you will see they are the same, not different. You have given nothing to indicate otherwise, except your own religious belief in a divine Christ, which is not shared by all Christians.

The link you provided is just the text of a missionary pamphlet giving no information about its author(s) other than that it was published by the Holy Protection Russian Orthodox Church of Los Angeles, California (Editor: Fr. Alexander (Mileant)). A missionary pamphlet is just a tool of indoctrination -- it is meant to instruct, not inform -- hardly the kind of academically or intellectually critical source that would tend to persuade a skeptic.

As for your closing paragraphs, once again you are claiming your belief as proof of a fact. It is not. And if you want to spend pages and pages arguing over whether "Christian" means what you want it to mean or not, I'll let you do that with other Christians. For myself, I consider a Christian to be any monotheist who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. My definition neither requires Jesus to be part of god nor does it require that he cannot be part of god. If you want to narrow my definition, you're going to have to come up with the evidence I have been asking for.

DubyaGoat

01-04-2006, 06:31

... -- it is meant to instruct, not inform -- hardly the kind of academically or intellectually critical source that would tend to persuade a skeptic.

I wasn't trying to convert you, I was trying to show what they believe, which that link does provide some evidence of.

As for your closing paragraphs, once again you are claiming your belief as proof of a fact. It is not. And if you want to spend pages and pages arguing over whether "Christian" means what you want it to mean or not, I'll let you do that with other Christians. For myself, I consider a Christian to be any monotheist who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. My definition neither requires Jesus to be part of god nor does it require that he cannot be part of god. If you want to narrow my definition, you're going to have to come up with the evidence I have been asking for.

You see here, it is really your preconcieved notion that is hindering you from seeing the issue with clarity. My view was established over and over again with quotes from the Qur'an and quotes from the Bible. But if you want a God identity description:

The vast majority of Christians hold, and the Christian Bible states, Jesus to be divine, he claimed divinity, and claimed equality with God the Father.

Jesus assumed the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12). He didn’t just forgive those who sinned against him personally. Rather, he forgave sins in a way reserved for God alone. And he did so independently of the Temple and its sacrifices. Jesus’s opponents saw clearly the implications of Jesus’s forgiving people: “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7). Ultimately this is one of the main reasons why Jesus was killed. By forgiving sins he implicitly denigrated the temple and put himself in the place of God.

I’ve given you over and over a simpler and simpler example of exactly what you have asked for, a characteristic description of God, from both Qur’an and the Bible that do not match each other. Here is it again, Jesus is God, Bible. Jesus is NOT God, Qur’an. Different Faith, Different God.

The Bruce

01-04-2006, 06:48

For starts Moses, Jesus, and Mohamed are all prophets in the Quran. They even have an entire book in the Quran dedicated to Mary (mother of Jesus). The biggest difference is that only the Bible acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God, where in the tradition of Moses they’re still waiting and in the Quran they say that Jesus may have been a prophet but he was still just a man.

The God mentioned in each of their testaments is the same God; they just differ on their cultural views of that God. Differ in the sense of refering to each other in public as heretics and blasphemers who are going to Hell for their beliefs.

The Bruce

01-04-2006, 06:53

And don’t even get me started about the Bai’hai. What kind of a prophet feels the need to write 24 books! It’s like getting the Time-Life series on your religion. Get with the program and keep it down to a single volume. I blame it on the people who supplied him with all that ink and paper when they imprisoned the prophet of the Bai’hai.

Yes the Bai'hai I've met were among the nicest people who ever tried to convert me (I partly believe that not being a miltary backed state religion helps make them nicer), but 24 books! The Persian food they serve at their gatherings is pretty fine though.

The Bruce

Muravyets

01-04-2006, 07:42

I wasn't trying to convert you, I was trying to show what they believe, which that link does provide some evidence of.
I didn't think you were trying to convert me, but a missionary pamphlet is designed to give the missionary's (slanted) message to the targeted converts. Therefore, it is a biased source that does not give objective, factual information about the religion such as would be appropriate for this kind of conversation. As for showing me what "they believe," such a biased and purpose-driven source only shows me what these particular Russian Orthodox missionaries believe, not what Christianity believes in general.

You see here, it is really your preconcieved notion that is hindering you from seeing the issue with clarity. My view was established over and over again with quotes from the Qur'an and quotes from the Bible.

Which preconceived notion -- the one that tells me that the official leaders of a religion are a more reliable source for information about its beliefs than some random follower from off the street?

As I pointed out over and over again, your quotes from the Qur'an and the Bible referenced nothing but doctrinal differences and did not describe god himself at all.

But if you want a God identity description:

The vast majority of Christians hold, and the Christian Bible states, Jesus to be divine, he claimed divinity, and claimed equality with God the Father.

Jesus assumed the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12). He didn’t just forgive those who sinned against him personally. Rather, he forgave sins in a way reserved for God alone. And he did so independently of the Temple and its sacrifices. Jesus’s opponents saw clearly the implications of Jesus’s forgiving people: “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7). Ultimately this is one of the main reasons why Jesus was killed. By forgiving sins he implicitly denigrated the temple and put himself in the place of God.

I’ve given you over and over a simpler and simpler example of exactly what you have asked for, a characteristic description of God, from both Qur’an and the Bible that do not match each other. Here is it again, Jesus is God, Bible. Jesus is NOT God, Qur’an. Different Faith, Different God.
I would indeed like a god description. What you are giving me here is a Jesus description. Absent the a priori assumption that Jesus is god, this tells me nothing about god.

Remember, I'm a non-Christian -- I may be willing to believe that a human can be a god but I don't start with the assumption that Jesus was god, and I further do not start with the assumption that the taboos and signs listed in the Bible for any given thing are necessarily definitive or true. First let me lay out my objections to the description you gave, and then I will explain what kind of evidence I would accept.

Re your description: All of the actions of Jesus that you describe could also have been done by an ordinary person. He assumed the authority to forgive sins. He denigrated the temple and put himself in the place of god. Tell me how it would be impossible for an ordinary person to do those things without the approval of god, let alone his inspiring power? This is why it is so difficult to tell a false prophet from a true one. Anyone can do these things. They are proof of nothing.

As for the "proof" of forgiving sins -- forgiveness is a highly subjective thing. What proof does the sinner have that he has been forgiven by god, other than his own emotional response? Frankly, any old preacher could have gone about forgiving sins and, if he was charismatic and a good performer, he might have left people feeling much better. It is not proof that he is god. As I understand it, the reward for virtue and the punishment for sin really come into play in the afterlife, so the sinner will not know if his sins have actually been forgiven until he is dead and standing before god. Therefore, the fact that some nice young man has just said to him, "Your sins are forgiven," really doesn't mean all that much.

So all you have described to me are the actions of a man, not the nature of god.

Now, as to proof, here is what I mean when I say "god description":

FIRST: It must be a description of the qualities that constitute the divine essence and nature of god. The description must start and end with god and no other being. It must talk about god, not about prophets or saviors or worshippers or rituals or predictions of what will happen to people who assume the wrong posture while praying. It must address matters such as: What is god? Where is god? What are the dimensions and/or substance of god's body, if any? What are god's primary functions in the universe, including past accomplishments (such as creation)? It may also include information about what is the connection between god and humans -- that's between GOD and humans, not between Jesus and Christians.

SECOND: I will not accept any description that is made up or compiled by you. I want authoritative sources. Some popes, some rabbis, some imams. Big names please, recognized and generally accepted by the mainstream of their respective religions. Published. Provide links to their writings. If you can find this in original source holy texts, all the better -- but do not edit them or add your own commentary. I know what you think. I want to see what the authorities think.

THIRD: I want to see THREE such descriptions -- one Christian, one Muslim, and one Jewish. Considering the topic, you will probably have to provide more than one source from each religion. Judaism in particular spent quite a lot of ink and paper on this. Give me god descriptions from all three religions and let me see for myself if they are different or the same.

This is the kind of effort I would go to if I wanted to make and support a statement such as the one you've been pushing here. If you do not already have this information amassed for your own reference, then you may be in danger of being dismissed as someone who really does not know what he is talking about.

(EDIT: PS: Yes, I know it's a lot. Welcome to the wonderful world of comparative religion studies. :) )

Muravyets

01-04-2006, 07:51

DubyaGoat

01-04-2006, 08:16

... It may also include information about what is the connection between god and humans -- that's between GOD and humans, not between Jesus and Christians.
...

Nope. you simply don't get it. The Christians say Jesus IS God. I can't define God 'outside' of Jesus from their point of view. Your request is an illogical fallacy, it's like asking me to describe fire but saying you don't want me to talk about flames and combustion. The two are one and the same. There is not God without Jesus in Christianity.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

They cannot describe God without talking about Jesus, see the link. The Qur’an quotes you already have in this thread.

*toasting myself in victory celebration*

Copenhaghenkoffenlaugh

01-04-2006, 08:17

As far as I'm concerned, I've lost all respect for the majority of the people who worship Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and any off-shoots thereof). Each religion talks about how you should, "Love thy enemy as much as thine own mother," (not a direct quote) yet we constantly see people warring against each other in the name of their god. Bush has used 'God' too many times in his speechs that I've about had it, as well as with Osama Bin Laden about 'driving out the infidels.' Seriously, enough is enough, people. What are we really fighting? A modern-day Crusade?

Leave the damned Muslims in the Middle East and Africa alone. They'll kill each other off soon enough.

Same with the Jews and Palestinians in Israel.

As soon as they're dead, you can have your bloody oil.

Muravyets

01-04-2006, 09:01

Nope. you simply don't get it. The Christians say Jesus IS God. I can't define God 'outside' of Jesus from their point of view. Your request is an illogical fallacy, it's like asking me to describe fire but saying you don't want me to talk about flames and combustion. The two are one and the same. There is not God without Jesus in Christianity.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

They cannot describe God without talking about Jesus, see the link. The Qur’an quotes you already have in this thread.

*toasting myself in victory celebration*
You mean the Qur'an quotes that talk about ritual and doctrine and not about god?

Since you're too lazy to do your own work (or thinking), I'll get you started. Fifteen minutes on google came up with the following references for god descriptions:

Jewish: http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/nutshell/part2.html

Muslim: http://sultan.org/articles/god.html

Christian: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/god.htm

I haven't even read these yet because it's not my point to prove. I just skimmed them to make sure they describe god, and they are meant to inform, not convert, and were written by accredited authors. They may prove you right or they may prove you wrong, but at least they prove that I am right and that it is possible to describe god. At any rate, if these don't do the trick for you, google did come up with millions more sites to choose from.

Let's talk about fallacies, shall we?

You say you are comparing Christianity to Islam, yet you refuse to provide any Islamic description of god. You only discuss the degree to which Islam disagrees with Christianity. You tell us what Islam isn't. You never tell us what it is. Since you never bothered to actually look for what Islamic authorities say about their own beliefs (focusing instead on what they say about yours), you are clearly not qualified to compare Islam to anything because you know nothing about it.

As for your assertion that it is impossible to describe the Christian god without Jesus -- what about this Islamic god and Jewish god you claim also exist? Why can't they be described without talking about Jesus? All you have been doing here is pointing at yourself and claiming this is proof of what others think and do.

The fallacy here is that you have or ever had any basis on which to claim that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same god. You never tested your own statement for truth. You never even bothered to look it up. You are just spouting unproven assumptions.

By the way, I followed your link to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is a link to the specific page that describes god without referencing Jesus. He has his own set of articles.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

Yeah, you go and party the night away, like the smug slacker you obviously are. Or else, do some freakin' work.

DubyaGoat

01-04-2006, 15:25

You mean the Qur'an quotes that talk about ritual and doctrine and not about god?

Since you're too lazy to do your own work (or thinking), I'll get you started. Fifteen minutes on google came up with the following references for god descriptions:

Jewish: http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/nutshell/part2.html

Muslim: http://sultan.org/articles/god.html

Christian: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/god.htm

I haven't even read these yet because it's not my point to prove. I just skimmed them to make sure they describe god, and they are meant to inform, not convert, and were written by accredited authors. They may prove you right or they may prove you wrong, but at least they prove that I am right and that it is possible to describe god. At any rate, if these don't do the trick for you, google did come up with millions more sites to choose from.

You see, you've dismissed my evidences too soon, I’ve linked to and quoted verses from both the Qur’an and the Bible, several dozen or more passages from each as a matter of fact (without actually counting) since this thread began. I’ve linked to outside sources for verification of what Islam and Christianity teach. NOW, to top it all off, you link to more evidences that say what I’ve been saying all along. Especially that last link there, the Christian one. It starts with a disclaimer, it says this is what we share in common, then the very next article goes into detail to explain what they do NOT share with Islam. (Side note: I have bowed out of the Judaism compare parts of this thread, even from the OP, as I am not qualified to dissect that, but there are other people in this thread that have addressed that, Tropical Sands comes to mind).

But the article from that Christian site you found here does say what I have been saying: They quote and I then quote: About a century later, in 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius' teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father."
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm

Again, it has verified everything I’ve been saying and again, my point is made for me by outside sources.

Let's talk about fallacies, shall we?

You say you are comparing Christianity to Islam, yet you refuse to provide any Islamic description of god. You only discuss the degree to which Islam disagrees with Christianity. You tell us what Islam isn't. You never tell us what it is. Since you never bothered to actually look for what Islamic authorities say about their own beliefs (focusing instead on what they say about yours), you are clearly not qualified to compare Islam to anything because you know nothing about it.

You clearly are mistaken as the dozens of verses I have cited and I’ve given chapter and verse numbers to look them up for yourself in the Qur’an. From the very OP I’ve quoted the Qur’an, even from more than one English translation of it to show proof beyond doubt that the Qur’an says exactly what I’ve been saying it says, that Jesus is NOT Allah.

Again, my point is made for me by your link above, to the Muslim site says what I said it would say:

The unique usage of Allah as a personal name of God is a reflection of Islam'semphasis on the purity of the belief in God that is the essence of the messageof all God's messengers. Because of this, Islam considers associating any deityor personality with God as a deadly sin that God will never forgive, despite thefact that He may forgive all other sins. and, The Qur'an summarizes this argument in the following verses:“ God hasnot taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him: for then each godwould have taken of that which he created and some of them would have risen upover others”(23:91).

Again, proving my point with your research.

As for your assertion that it is impossible to describe the Christian god without Jesus -- what about this Islamic god and Jewish god you claim also exist? Why can't they be described without talking about Jesus? All you have been doing here is pointing at yourself and claiming this is proof of what others think and do.

Actually, I haven’t claimed ANY God exists, you haven’t been paying attention. I’ve shown proofs that they are simply not the same named-object, identity of God being worshiped. Throughout this thread I have debunked all claims to the contrary. The only people that can claim that both of the faiths (Islam and Christianity) worship the same God are the people that project their personal beliefs into the fray, that God is not described sufficiently in either the Bible nor the Qur’an, or they have an insufficient understanding of the Christian Bible and the Qur’an. My objective has been met though, that the God witnessed to in the Christian Bible and the Allah witnessed to in the Qur’an are not the same by their own definitions of self, including the links you provided above.

The fallacy here is that you have or ever had any basis on which to claim that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same god. You never tested your own statement for truth. You never even bothered to look it up. You are just spouting unproven assumptions.

No. The fallacy is that you can’t overcome your own preconceived notion that they do worship the same God. I will assume that this lack of familiarity of the subjects is because you have no interest in them since you have said that you aren’t an follower of either of them, but I’ve shown that your preconceived notion is from unreliable hearsay that you have heard others say over the years, but you don’t seem to be able to break the hold they have over your thinking in the matter

By the way, I followed your link to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is a link to the specific page that describes god without referencing Jesus. He has his own set of articles.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

Yeah, you go and party the night away, like the smug slacker you obviously are. Or else, do some freakin' work.

From the link you used here:
Regarding the mystery of the Trinity or three Divine Persons in God, which can be known only by revelation, it is enough to say here that properly understood the mystery contains no contradiction, but on the contrary adds much that is helpful to our inadequate knowledge of the infinite.
It is again shown here that the Christians require the God they witness to being Christ inclusive. The Qur’an, as cited numerous times, requires that Allah be worshiped as an identity excluding Christ from it’s definition.

My party continues because I have succeeded, I have victory. Individuals don’t have to believe it, my objective does not require me to convince everyone (that would be impossible, as there are still people in the world that think the earth is flat, it is not for me to convince the unconvincible), my object is achieved when I have debunked all other claims and have presented the evidences required to show that my posit is both right and proven, which it has been done in this thread. Overwhelming quotes from the Bible, the Qur’an and outside sources have done their work for my position. Different Faith, Different God.

Grave_n_idle

01-04-2006, 20:05

Thats one way of looking at it. I would keep in mind however, that the terms el and elohim in Hebrew are very ambiguous. They don't always refer to gods as we use the term in English. They can refer to hosts (angels) or earthly rulers, among other things.

In the Torah it also states not to make gods for yourselves, and the word for idol, eilyel, is actually derived from the word for god, el. I don't think it is implying that you are bringing another god into objective existence when it says "don't make gods for yourselves."

Oh, I know... I was just posting English translation material.

Personally, I think the evidence of original polytheism is actually MORE obvious in the Hebrew, with conflicts of plural nouns with singular verbs, the apparent clause-limits on events like creation or diluvium, and the references to different gendering of different 'god entities' (shekinah, perhaps?)

Muravyets

01-04-2006, 20:55

You see, you've dismissed my evidences too soon, I’ve linked to and quoted verses from both the Qur’an and the Bible, several dozen or more passages from each as a matter of fact (without actually counting) since this thread began. I’ve linked to outside sources for verification of what Islam and Christianity teach. NOW, to top it all off, you link to more evidences that say what I’ve been saying all along. Especially that last link there, the Christian one. It starts with a disclaimer, it says this is what we share in common, then the very next article goes into detail to explain what they do NOT share with Islam. (Side note: I have bowed out of the Judaism compare parts of this thread, even from the OP, as I am not qualified to dissect that, but there are other people in this thread that have addressed that, Tropical Sands comes to mind).

But the article from that Christian site you found here does say what I have been saying: They quote and I then quote: About a century later, in 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius' teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father."
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm

Again, it has verified everything I’ve been saying and again, my point is made for me by outside sources.
You are the one dismissing information.

You say that Christianity believes Jesus is God. You try to back this up by citing a historical DISAGREEMENT about that very fact. I have pointed out several times that this controversy continues to this day and that there are entire Christian denominations that hold that Jesus is NOT God. You simply ignore such facts except for suggesting in an earlier post that we need to "define" Christian -- implying that anyone who doesn't think Jesus is God is not a true Christian, perhaps?

In this very post, above, you are proving my point that controversy exists over the divinity of Christ because you are citing its. Now prove to me that it ever ended -- explain to me how Christians today who argue against the literal divinity of Christ aren't Christians.

As for all your accumulated quotes -- I'll say this again for the last time: You quoted remarks about doctrine and texts, NOT about GOD. Your insistence that doctrine and text = god is nothing more than your opinion. It is not belief shared by any of the three religions. It is also not true by either logic or empirical reasoning -- the path to a destination is not the destination. The way of communing with god is not god. The medium is not the message in a literal sense. The prophets and signs by which god communicates are not god himself. You claim that Muslims worship a different god, but all you have shown us is descriptions of how they worship -- nothing that describes what they worship. You can claim it's the same thing all you like, but that doesn't change anything. Your "proofs" have nothing to do with your argument.

You clearly are mistaken as the dozens of verses I have cited and I’ve given chapter and verse numbers to look them up for yourself in the Qur’an. From the very OP I’ve quoted the Qur’an, even from more than one English translation of it to show proof beyond doubt that the Qur’an says exactly what I’ve been saying it says, that Jesus is NOT Allah.

Again, my point is made for me by your link above, to the Muslim site says what I said it would say:

The unique usage of Allah as a personal name of God is a reflection of Islam'semphasis on the purity of the belief in God that is the essence of the messageof all God's messengers. Because of this, Islam considers associating any deityor personality with God as a deadly sin that God will never forgive, despite thefact that He may forgive all other sins. and, The Qur'an summarizes this argument in the following verses:“ God hasnot taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him: for then each godwould have taken of that which he created and some of them would have risen upover others”(23:91).

Again, proving my point with your research.
You have not proven that Jesus IS god, so you have not proven that by not worshipping JESUS, they are worshipping something other than what Christians worship.

Actually, I haven’t claimed ANY God exists, you haven’t been paying attention. I’ve shown proofs that they are simply not the same named-object, identity of God being worshiped. Throughout this thread I have debunked all claims to the contrary. The only people that can claim that both of the faiths (Islam and Christianity) worship the same God are the people that project their personal beliefs into the fray, that God is not described sufficiently in either the Bible nor the Qur’an, or they have an insufficient understanding of the Christian Bible and the Qur’an. My objective has been met though, that the God witnessed to in the Christian Bible and the Allah witnessed to in the Qur’an are not the same by their own definitions of self, including the links you provided above.

You seem to be the expert on projecting personal beliefs into the fray. ALL of your "proofs" including the ones you quote here are about doctrine, texts, and religious practice, not the identity of god. You start out with the belief that Jesus is god and then you simply declare that if Islam doesn't worship Jesus, then they are not worshipping your god. The fallacy is your assumption that you are representing the agreed upon, definitive Christian view. I have pointed out that only some Christians believe that Jesus is god, that others reject the idea that he is god, and that for the vast majority the issue remains up in the air because the various churches are still arguing over it. You simply decide to ignore that and instead cherry-pick small bits of information from very large sources to support your claims. Well, as I showed by linking to the Catholic description of god, it is not only possible to describe god, it is possible for a Christian authority to describe god without equating him to Jesus.

Bottom line: Christians are NOT in agreement about the divinity of Christ. If they do not agree on it, then you cannot prove that they do. If you cannot prove that Christians agree on this, then you cannot use this as proof that Christians disagree with Muslims. THEREFORE, Jesus does not prove your argument about god.

No. The fallacy is that you can’t overcome your own preconceived notion that they do worship the same God. I will assume that this lack of familiarity of the subjects is because you have no interest in them since you have said that you aren’t an follower of either of them, but I’ve shown that your preconceived notion is from unreliable hearsay that you have heard others say over the years, but you don’t seem to be able to break the hold they have over your thinking in the matter

More praise from the master when it comes to working with assumptions. Not content with assuming what Christians believe and assuming that manner of worship = object of worship, you now cavalierly make assumptions about what I am interested in and what I have studied, why and to what degree. You also seem to be assuming that if I disagree with you, it's only because I'm ignorant about the subject. Actually, there's another possibility: you could be wrong.

You can dismiss the accumulated writings on the theology of these three religions, amassed over the last 1000 years at least, as just "unreliable hearsay" if you like, and you can insist that your Fresh New Idea is the only right one all you like, too. And if you want to restate your argument to say that, in your opinion, your Fresh New Idea of what Christians believe now makes it appear that Christians and Muslims don't worship the same god, I'll be happy to grant you that. I will say to you: "Dubyagoat, it appears that, by your criteria, there are two different god concepts in use here."

But that's not what you are saying. You are saying that Christians think Jesus is god. You have based your entire argument on this assertion. If you want to argue that this idea already exists in Christianity, then the amassed theological writings are NOT mere hearsay -- they are the only source of proof your assertion can hope for. And they do not prove it.

From the link you used here:
Regarding the mystery of the Trinity or three Divine Persons in God, which can be known only by revelation, it is enough to say here that properly understood the mystery contains no contradiction, but on the contrary adds much that is helpful to our inadequate knowledge of the infinite.
It is again shown here that the Christians require the God they witness to being Christ inclusive. The Qur’an, as cited numerous times, requires that Allah be worshiped as an identity excluding Christ from it’s definition.
Precisely where does your own quote say that Jesus is god? No, this says that the trinity, properly understood, is not contradictory. It does not explain in any way HOW to understand the meaning of the trinity or HOW to think about Jesus as part of it. Your "proof" once again falls far short of proving anything.

My party continues because I have succeeded, I have victory. Individuals don’t have to believe it, my objective does not require me to convince everyone (that would be impossible, as there are still people in the world that think the earth is flat, it is not for me to convince the unconvincible), my object is achieved when I have debunked all other claims and have presented the evidences required to show that my posit is both right and proven, which it has been done in this thread. Overwhelming quotes from the Bible, the Qur’an and outside sources have done their work for my position. Different Faith, Different God.
You have succeeded in nothing. You have debunked no one. You have provided evidence that is not related to your claims. You have shown us only god's accessories -- prophets, signs, texts -- and claimed they are the sum of god himself. Your posit may well be right, but it is far from proven.

Let me explain why I am arguing with you so much on this: The only thing I care about is that people be honest and straightforward about what it is they are arguing. I don't actually care one whit whether monotheists are worshipping different gods or the same god differently. Honestly, despite the effort I've put into it so far, I really think the distinction is trivial to the point of pointlessness. If you are not a Muslim, then what do you care what Muslims worship? What difference does it make to you if they are worshipping incorrectly or worshipping something else?

I made it clear (and you got all offended by it) that I think you have an agenda behind asserting this theological argument. You claim I'm being paranoid, but you have made statements in this thread implying that non-Jesus religions are worshipping false gods -- not "different" but "false" -- and on the basis of that I think it is reasonable to conclude that you are promoting a pro-Jesus-as-god agenda. I'm not going to try to attack you on that. I'm just going to say that this Jesus agenda weakened your argument from the beginning because it requires you to assert something about Christian theology that is not actually true. If you had claimed to be speaking only for your particular version of Christianity, then you might legitimately be able to say "Church X and Islam worship different gods." But you cannot point to all of Christianity and say anything other than "many Christians believe X, but there is widespread and long-running theological debate on the subject."

You cannot actually prove that Christians and Muslims worship different gods because you cannot prove what god Christians worship. You can only prove that Christians debate with each other about their own god-concept. If you want to prove what god Christians worship, you must go back to original sources -- to the god Jesus worshipped -- and this brings us away from Christ and back to the Old Testament and the God of Abraham (you know, the Jews), i.e. the basis of Jesus's ministry. The only way you can argue coherently that Christians and Muslims worship different gods is to first acknowledge that both Christianity and Islam adopted the God of Abraham, but then later the Christians abandoned that god and started worshipping a new god named Jesus. If you want to put it that way, then, yes, your argument makes sense.

But I don't think the majority of Christians would agree with you.

DubyaGoat

01-04-2006, 21:35

...
But I don't think the majority of Christians would agree with you.

Nontrinitarian denominations include; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Living Church of God, Christian Scientists, the Unification Church, the Christian Unitarians, Branhamists, Frankists, Oneness Pentecostals, Iglesia ni Cristo and the splinter groups of Armstrongism, among others. These groups differ from one another in their view of God, but all alike reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

And in their total, they represent less than 2% of all Christians, and most Christian denominations believe the trinity doctrine to be so central to Christian theology that to deny it is to deny oneself as a “Christian” at all.

Size of Christian Denominations:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity

Christians believe in the Trinity (98% is a sufficient number to make the blanket statement). Thus, Christianity believes in Jesus as Divine, Islam (and perhaps 2% of others) believe in a different named-object God identity.

Different Faith = Different God.

*continues victory celebration*

Grave_n_idle

01-04-2006, 23:46

Nontrinitarian denominations include; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Living Church of God, Christian Scientists, the Unification Church, the Christian Unitarians, Branhamists, Frankists, Oneness Pentecostals, Iglesia ni Cristo and the splinter groups of Armstrongism, among others. These groups differ from one another in their view of God, but all alike reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

And in their total, they represent less than 2% of all Christians, and most Christian denominations believe the trinity doctrine to be so central to Christian theology that to deny it is to deny oneself as a “Christian” at all.

Size of Christian Denominations:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity

Christians believe in the Trinity (98% is a sufficient number to make the blanket statement). Thus, Christianity believes in Jesus as Divine, Islam (and perhaps 2% of others) believe in a different named-object God identity.

Different Faith = Different God.

*continues victory celebration*

Your figures are always going to be speculataion, you do know that?

Those statistics are estimates... they have not literally ASKED everyone which curch they attend... and they CERTAINLY have not inquired whether or not EVERY parishioner is both observant AND a believer in ALL the doctrine of their church.

Most people have at least SOME issues with their faith.

I'm willing to bet most of the people described as belonging to denominations even in THIS thread... have SOME different views to those theoretically held by their denomination.

As for the assertion that different faith = different god, you know that's rubbish.

If you and I worship the same god, and you think he's one colour, and I think he's another colour... he's still the same god, no matter WHAT colours we thnk he is.

You really can't get passed this whole "religions are not equal to gods" thing, can you?

Dempublicents1

02-04-2006, 00:25

Nope. you simply don't get it. The Christians say Jesus IS God. I can't define God 'outside' of Jesus from their point of view.

Sure you can. You can say, "God of Abraham." You don't have to go into the Trinity to identify the God of Christianity, as there are other identifiers. Now, if you wanted to get into the Trinity, you would have to include Christ, as well as the Father and the Holy Spirit, each of which is God, and is a part of God. Jesus is God, and is also part of God, but no matter how you break it down, the God being described is the God of Abraham.

DubyaGoat

02-04-2006, 00:38

Your figures are always going to be speculataion, you do know that?
...
You really can't get passed this whole "religions are not equal to gods" thing, can you?

Your entire post was speculation, at least in mine I used an outside source for reference and didn’t just ‘imagine’ the results I should get.

You have failed to show how either Islam or Christianity agrees with your definition that they don’t have a source of witness to define the God they worship. You know why?

Because that’s not what they say, they say they do have God’s witness of himself, both Islam and Christianity say so, but you are dismissing ‘their’ testimony and you are judging from your vantage point, not what they say about themselves. Thus, your point is not Islam nor Christianity. The premise is what they worship, I haven’t addressed anything about 'personal' beliefs outside of these twp faiths, outside of pointing out that such speculation is not the issue, and I do recall agreeing with D once that her views were not objectionable to me, but that they 'weren't' the same views as the views of Islam nor Christianity, but her own, thus they were invalid for disproving the premise of the posit. The same is true with yours. You say they both worship the same God because you choose to believe it, not because 'they' say that about themselves.

I have shown the point repeatedly and shown that it is correct to the respective religions God view: Islam says a person can NOT be forgiven by Allah for being or choosing Christianity over Islam (believing in the trinity and the divinity of Christ) and the Christians say that a person can't be forgiven by their God if a person does not accept the God/Christ trinity and repent. Different faiths, different Gods. Religions DO determine whom they worship, they don't need our individual approval to say that they do have a definition/identity picture of God, we as individuals can choose our religion though.

DubyaGoat

02-04-2006, 00:47

Sure you can. You can say, "God of Abraham." You don't have to go into the Trinity to identify the God of Christianity, as there are other identifiers. Now, if you wanted to get into the Trinity, you would have to include Christ, as well as the Father and the Holy Spirit, each of which is God, and is a part of God. Jesus is God, and is also part of God, but no matter how you break it down, the God being described is the God of Abraham.

Christianity says that Jesus IS the God of Abraham, Islam says that he is not. This discussion is not about which one is right or wrong (or both wrong) that is irrelevant, they disagree about the identity of that title holder, thus, they worship a different God from each other and each bestows on their God all of the titles.

EDIT: Jesus had this problem himself...I'll quote a verse to show what I mean.

John 8 55-58 (NIV)
Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Islam would be incapable of accepting that verse and would stone the person who did say it, just like the crowd then tired to do:

John 8 59
At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Muravyets

02-04-2006, 01:01

Nontrinitarian denominations include; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Living Church of God, Christian Scientists, the Unification Church, the Christian Unitarians, Branhamists, Frankists, Oneness Pentecostals, Iglesia ni Cristo and the splinter groups of Armstrongism, among others. These groups differ from one another in their view of God, but all alike reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

And in their total, they represent less than 2% of all Christians, and most Christian denominations believe the trinity doctrine to be so central to Christian theology that to deny it is to deny oneself as a “Christian” at all.

Size of Christian Denominations:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity

Christians believe in the Trinity (98% is a sufficient number to make the blanket statement). Thus, Christianity believes in Jesus as Divine, Islam (and perhaps 2% of others) believe in a different named-object God identity.

Different Faith = Different God.

*continues victory celebration*
Good source link. Nice to see you making an effort now. I've been looking things up too. I'll post what I've found later in reference to another of your posts.

Unfortunately, reading your link, I didn't see any reference anywhere on that page that either (A) listed all the denominations that you list in your first paragraph, or (B) stated that antitrinitarians account for only 2% of Christians worldwide.

What other sources did you reference, and more important, where did you get that 2% number? Because it's not on the statistics page you linked.

DubyaGoat

02-04-2006, 01:05

Good source link. Nice to see you making an effort now. I've been looking things up too. I'll post what I've found later in reference to another of your posts.

Unfortunately, reading your link, I didn't see any reference anywhere on that page that either (A) listed all the denominations that you list in your first paragraph, or (B) stated that antitrinitarians account for only 2% of Christians worldwide.

What other sources did you reference, and more important, where did you get that 2% number? Because it's not on the statistics page you linked.

You've got to do the numbers yourself, I used a calculator. You can look up nontrinitarian denominations, that list can be found at Wiki, I wanted to make an effort to not forget any major groups. The JW and LDS are the only two big groups of them (off the top of my head) but I wanted to remind myself and did a search.

Dempublicents1

02-04-2006, 01:33

You have failed to show how either Islam or Christianity agrees with your definition that they don’t have a source of witness to define the God they worship. You know why?

Neither "Islam" nor "Christianity" (as if either are coherent structures that can be said to agree or disagree to anything) have to agree for it to be true.

Because that’s not what they say,

Actually, in most cases, that is *exactly* what they say. They simply say that the other religion is wrong in their description of God.

The premise is what they worship, I haven’t addressed anything about 'personal' beliefs outside of these twp faiths, outside of pointing out that such speculation is not the issue, and I do recall agreeing with D once that her views were not objectionable to me, but that they 'weren't' the same views as the views of Islam nor Christianity, but her own, thus they were invalid for disproving the premise of the posit.

I am a Christian. I practice Christianity. Thus, my views are the views of Christianity, or at least a part of it.

Of course, your "views of Islam and Christianity" issues are still irrelevant, as God is not defined by any religion, but by God's own existence.

I have shown the point repeatedly and shown that it is correct to the respective religions God view: Islam says a person can NOT be forgiven by Allah for being or choosing Christianity over Islam (believing in the trinity and the divinity of Christ) and the Christians say that a person can't be forgiven by their God if a person does not accept the God/Christ trinity and repent. Different faiths, different Gods. Religions DO determine whom they worship, they don't need our individual approval to say that they do have a definition/identity picture of God, we as individuals can choose our religion though.

Once again, you show that the religions disagree in their description of God, that they disagree as to aspects of God, but have shown nothing whatsoever to suggest that they actually worship different Gods.

Christianity says that Jesus IS the God of Abraham, Islam says that he is not. This discussion is not about which one is right or wrong (or both wrong) that is irrelevant, they disagree about the identity of that title holder, thus, they worship a different God from each other and each bestows on their God all of the titles.

You seem to forget that Christianity says that the God of Abraham is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. You conveniently leave out the other two aspects every time you bring this up. It is the triune God that Islam rejects - the description of God. They do not claim that Christianity does not worship the God of Abraham, they just say that Christ is not a manifestation or part of said God, so Christians are wrong in that respect.

Muravyets

02-04-2006, 01:41

Christianity says that Jesus IS the God of Abraham, Islam says that he is not. This discussion is not about which one is right or wrong (or both wrong) that is irrelevant, they disagree about the identity of that title holder, thus, they worship a different God from each other and each bestows on their God all of the titles.

EDIT: Jesus had this problem himself...I'll quote a verse to show what I mean.

John 8 55-58 (NIV)
Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Islam would be incapable of accepting that verse and would stone the person who did say it, just like the the crowd did then:

John 8 59
At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
1. Muslims were not doing the stoning in these verses.

2. I see nothing here that says people who don't accept the divinity of Christ are not worshipping the God of Abraham. I see only a set of complaints about them failing to realize or accept this supposed new information about the God of Abraham, i.e. that he is also Jesus.

3. Okay, let's say you're right (which I am not admitting), doesn't that bring us right back to a point Dem and others brought up pages ago -- that if you believe that other religions are worshipping other gods, that makes you a polytheist?

Remember, DG, it doesn't matter to me how many gods you think are running around the universe, each running his own private religion-club. I take exception to only two points in your argument: (1) that you are dismissing the sincere beliefs of many Christians in order to promulgate what I believe is a myth of a uniform and universally accepted Christian theology; and (2) that you are muddying the definition of "monotheist" by claiming to be one while at the same time saying that other religions are worshipping other gods.

I maintain that you cannot carry this argument unless you (A) assert that all other religions are false but yours (and, thus, that no other gods really exist -- but you got really mad when I earlier suggested this was the thinking behind your statements), or (B) if other religions worship a different god, answer the question of where their gods came from by declaring definitively that Christiantiy does NOT worship the God of Abraham, but rather worships Jesus-God, thus separating it from both Judaism and Islam, both of which do worship the God of Abraham. Option B would, of course, have to mean that Christianity is the one breaking with the mainstream god of the ages in order to worship a different god. I don't see why you should have a problem with that.

BTW, FYI, here is the reading I've been doing this afternoon:

I list these links to give information for comparison, because there's a good chance that many people are not aware of this difference among Christians. These links talk about the history of the dispute from the first century of the Christian church through to today and show that it is a continuing debate -- not something that has been settled as you claimed in your references to the Council of Nicea and other such meetings.

They also include source materials from classical Unitarian theologists, an interesting recent sermon on the nature of Christ by a Unitarian minister in Britain, and the home page of americanunitarian.org, which includes links to other Christians sites discussing the trinity for further comparison.

Finally, I include a link to a section on antitrinitarian groups from the Catholic Encyclopedia (your source). Naturally, the Catholic authorities consider antitrinitarianism to be a heresy, but this entry gives a fairly balanced overview of the main groups, their histories and beliefs and does not summarily condemn all of them -- it seems not all of them are considered heretics anymore.

http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/geness.html

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/unitaria.htm

http://www.cam.net.uk/home/unitarian/addresses/add20030511.htm

http://www.americanunitarian.org/priestleyunity.htm
Text of source document: A General View of the Arguments for the Unity of God and Against the Divinity and Pre-Existence of Christ -- from Reason, from the Scriptures, and from History, Joseph Priestley, LL.D. F.R.S., &c.

http://www.americanunitarian.org/classicwritings.htm (reading list)

http://www.americanunitarian.org/AUCChristian.htm (home page)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14113a.htm

I'll end with my favorite quote from the links above, from the sermon "A Deeper Spiritual Unity", by Rev’d Andrew Brown, Unitarian Church Cambridge:

"...one of our own ministers is said to have replied to an accusation that he had denied the Divinity of Christ by saying, 'Deny the Divinity of Christ? I have never denied the Divinity of any man!'"

Muravyets

02-04-2006, 01:47

You've got to do the numbers yourself, I used a calculator. You can look up nontrinitarian denominations, that list can be found at Wiki, I wanted to make an effort to not forget any major groups. The JW and LDS are the only two big groups of them (off the top of my head) but I wanted to remind myself and did a search.
I don't need to do anything. It's your point -- you prove it. It's your evidence, you show me where you got it from. Your statistics link does not list all the denominations you listed and, thus, does not give any numbers for them. How is anyone supposed to calculate a percentage if there are no numbers? Show me some numbers for all antitrinitarian denominations and a number for total Christians of all denominations, and then tell me antitrinitarians add up to 2% of all Christians.

Grave_n_idle

02-04-2006, 18:07

Your entire post was speculation, at least in mine I used an outside source for reference and didn’t just ‘imagine’ the results I should get.

You have failed to show how either Islam or Christianity agrees with your definition that they don’t have a source of witness to define the God they worship. You know why?

Because that’s not what they say, they say they do have God’s witness of himself, both Islam and Christianity say so, but you are dismissing ‘their’ testimony and you are judging from your vantage point, not what they say about themselves. Thus, your point is not Islam nor Christianity. The premise is what they worship, I haven’t addressed anything about 'personal' beliefs outside of these twp faiths, outside of pointing out that such speculation is not the issue, and I do recall agreeing with D once that her views were not objectionable to me, but that they 'weren't' the same views as the views of Islam nor Christianity, but her own, thus they were invalid for disproving the premise of the posit. The same is true with yours. You say they both worship the same God because you choose to believe it, not because 'they' say that about themselves.

I have shown the point repeatedly and shown that it is correct to the respective religions God view: Islam says a person can NOT be forgiven by Allah for being or choosing Christianity over Islam (believing in the trinity and the divinity of Christ) and the Christians say that a person can't be forgiven by their God if a person does not accept the God/Christ trinity and repent. Different faiths, different Gods. Religions DO determine whom they worship, they don't need our individual approval to say that they do have a definition/identity picture of God, we as individuals can choose our religion though.

Yes - the book about Allah says that Allah is the only God... and don't look at the little man behind the other curtain. And Christianity does the same.

We get it.

And, yes - each book says that any other approach to god MUST be fatally flawed.

Nobody is arguing against that.

However - that is STILL irrelevent... because they are books ABOUT gods... they are not the god itself, or (gods, themselves).

You seem to be approaching it from the vantage point that a 'god' is nothing more than a concept (and, as an Atheist, my PERSONAL belief is likely to agree)... but that is belief... not a valid assumption in this case - because one or more gods MAY be real.... and god (if real) would not be limited by our human capacity to describe him/her/it/them.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Different Faith (Islam~ Christianity) Different God - Page 2