FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-27-2001, 02:36 PM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Are the Christian and the Islamic God the same?

Nomad has stated a few times here that the Christian and the Islamic God are the same.

This strikes me as a rather bizarre notion.

For is it not the case that:

- the Christian God has three personalities; whereas the Islamic God only has one?

- The Christian God has a divine Son; whereas the Islamc God has no such son?

- The Christian God saves the souls of those who believe in him, regardless of what they do otherwise; whereas the Islamic God insists that the believers stick to a number of clearly defined rules in addition to their belief (Ramada, Haj and such)?

I guess there are quite a few more of these points to be made, but I think the point is clear:

Sheesh!

fG
 
Old 04-27-2001, 02:47 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hey! Isn't Faded Glory a brand of shirt from Wal-Mart?

Anyway, what I imagine Nomad and others mean by the Christian God being "the same" as the Islamic God being "the same" as the Jewish God, is that they are all Abrahamic religions. Each of these three religions believes in the "God of Abraham".

Hope that helps.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 27, 2001).]
 
Old 04-27-2001, 02:53 PM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ish:
Hey! Isn't Faded Glory a brand of shirt from Wal-Mart?
</font>
Oi!... that was close!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Anyway, what I imagine Nomad and others mean by the Christian God being "the same" as the Islamic God being "the same" as the Jewish God, is that they are all Abrahamic religions. Each of these three religions believes in the "God of Abraham".

Hope that helps.

Ish
</font>
Well, from a historical-skeptic point of view I can accept that - this god-concept originated in that particular part of the world, and evolved along various lines as a consequence of certain events and cultural differences.

But I'm not so sure that Nomad didn't have a more theological point in mind...

Nomad?

fG



[This message has been edited by faded_Glory (edited April 27, 2001).]
 
Old 04-27-2001, 04:52 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Is the fat Elvis the same Elvis as the young-stud Elvis? Another question to ponder.

One might argue that the Christian/Jewish and Muslim God are the same God, but that interpretation and understanding of this God is different. Some people got it wrong, while we got it right. An argument for this might have resonance with Jesus' words to the Samariatan in John 4:22: "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship, for salvation is from the Jews." Jesus showed the Samaritan's God(the God of Abraham)and the Jewish God(The God of Abraham) to be the same God(The God of Abraham) even though they had different theological ideas(like where the one place to worship God was). Differing theological ideas does not mean neccesarily that it is a different god, although we can see how subjectively there is a different 'God'.

Many do argue that the Muslim God is a different one than the Christian God- understandably. People also argue that the JW's God is a different God, their Christ is a different Christ, etc. Any theological difference brings a different 'God' in one sense. If you think salvation is from God's choice of the elect before the existence of time, your 'God' is different than those who believe that God doesn't know the saved until they 'chose' Him. Kent Hovind said that he would not want to worship a 'God' who took billions of years to create the universe, such a 'God' would be 'retarded.' Is his Christian 'God' the same as Hugh Ross' Christian 'God'? One might argue no.

Of course this comes down to subjective views. Two people may be acquaintences with the same individual, yet will interpret the person in different ways and have a different view on the person. Does their differing subjective views on the same person divide the objective and actual person into two? No. So the two 'Jerry Springer's' thus interpretted become one.

Is the Christian God the same as the Islamic one? Theologically, yes on some points, a definite no on others. But this God that both claim to worship is the God of Abraham, one and the same God, with the same name and much of the same history. This God is much more arguably the same one than it would be to say that the Christian God and the Hindu "God"(sometimes called so-Brahma) are the same- their attributes are far more different and they do not share the same history as the Muslim and Christian "God" does.


 
Old 04-28-2001, 01:10 PM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by a_theistnotatheist:
Of course this comes down to subjective views. Two people may be acquaintences with the same individual, yet will interpret the person in different ways and have a different view on the person. Does their differing subjective views on the same person divide the objective and actual person into two? No. So the two 'Jerry Springer's' thus interpretted become one.
</font>
Ummm... I thought that God had revealed himself? That would seem something very different from people having different opinions of other people. Why would God reveal himself as having one set of characteristics to some people, and as having other characteristics to other people? Why would he demand a certain behaviour from some, and a totally different behaviour from others? If Jerry Springer would do this, we would call him inconsistent, wouldn't we?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Is the Christian God the same as the Islamic one? Theologically, yes on some points, a definite no on others. But this God that both claim to worship is the God of Abraham, one and the same God, with the same name and much of the same history. This God is much more arguably the same one than it would be to say that the Christian God and the Hindu "God"(sometimes called so-Brahma) are the same- their attributes are far more different and they do not share the same history as the Muslim and Christian "God" does.
</font>
You are not making sense. He either is the same, or not. If he is, all we can say is that man's understanding of him is insufficient to even know for sure whether he consists of three beings or of one, insufficient to know if he has a divine son or not, insufficient to know if he likes us to eat pork or not.

And if he is not the same, we are facing the thorny issue of deciding which of the two is the Real McCoy - because, unless I am mistaken, they are mutually exclusive.

fG



[This message has been edited by faded_Glory (edited April 28, 2001).]
 
Old 04-29-2001, 11:14 AM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Originally posted by a_theistnotatheist:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">One might argue that the Christian/Jewish and Muslim God are the same God, but that interpretation and understanding of this God is different.</font>
As far as I can tell, the Jewish God-concept has more in common with the Muslim God-concept than with the Christian God-concept. That's how Jews have traditionally seen it, anyway. Jews have traditionally considered Christianity -- but not Islam -- to be idolatrous. (See Genealogical Saga of Judaism by Shlomi Tal, who posts on infidels.org as devnet.) So the question is whether the Christian God is the same as the Jewish/Muslim one, not whether the Muslim God is the same as the Jewish/Christian one.
 
Old 04-30-2001, 01:32 AM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by faded_Glory:
You are not making sense. He either is the same, or not. If he is, all we can say is that man's understanding of him is insufficient to even know for sure whether he consists of three beings or of one, insufficient to know if he has a divine son or not, insufficient to know if he likes us to eat pork or not.

And if he is not the same, we are facing the thorny issue of deciding which of the two is the Real McCoy - because, unless I am mistaken, they are mutually exclusive.

fG

[This message has been edited by faded_Glory (edited April 28, 2001).]
</font>
The issue here is about perfect knowledge is neccesary to know one. Having a knowledge of God, that He is the judge of the world, is the only God, the creator of everything etc, revealed Himself to Abraham etc. shows some agreed knowledge on what has been revealed. The other issues is our own personal interpretations/views of God, and how these interpretations/views differ. Of course determing who is right is important, but it is not neccesary that people agree on every single possible issue/view of God. That never happens, just as two people get different impresssions from the same painting; in the two minds there are two distinct 'paintings' (that is the symbol, thought of the painting.) What differences are fundamental is questionable; the same follows from reading books. But unless one is a post-modernist, it is to be argued that some interpretaitons are wrong, or less correct than others. Animal farm was about animals; also about the Communist Revolution in Russia; but an argument that it was about the bond between two elderly women would be a incorrect interpretation. But what cleave is there in nature that clearly divides between the incorrect and correct interpretation of anything in all manners? How can one be positive of a distinction here?

Reminds me of a song by Philip Glass called "The War of Jehovah and Allah." Irony. Of course how often has the argument been against monotheism, citing cases where Christians/Muslims war(those who are said by critics to believe in the same "God".)

If these 'gods' do not exist, the argument is a meaningless one since the division is made that there is not one god, but as many gods(mental constructs) as there are believers. If there is a God of Abraham, then clearly there is the position of whether Trinitarians or Unitarians are correct about the God's state.

Obviously the issue about the Godhead is an important one. Interestingly, most Christian arguments I've seen against Islam and Christianity sharing a God is claims that "Allah" is nowhere called love("God is love") etc. and make claims about the charactor to distinguish them. This would be the argument from essence, rather than a state of tri-unity or "uni-unity".

The perspective of those who think Christianity(Trinitarian) to be blasphemy is that of another 'god'(Jesus) being worshipped along side the true God. Since the unitarians demand division of personhood must mean division of godhood(s) (since they refuse to accept the notion of One God in more than One Person- equating ultimate essence with uni-personhood) they think that Christians are 'polytheists'- in which case one of those Gods(the Father) would be found to be the same God as their own. Mohammed wrote "Will they look to gods of the earth to resurrect the dead?" Clearly there is a refusal to understand the covering of Deity between Father, Son and Holy Spirit(the Spirit sharing a similar role in all three monotheistic faiths, although not ascribed any personhood by Judao/Muslims).

I maintain Jesus' view on the matter, as He acted with the Samaritan woman; the God is one and the same, with the same history; but our God has revealed His triunity to us, and left the others out of this.

The same God, but we're right and they're wrong. Yep. This issue is again no different than is the 'young-earth' Creator God different than the old-earth- Creator God etc. It is not about different Gods, but about which interpretation/view of God is correct/ in each instance of contemplation.


[This message has been edited by a_theistnotatheist (edited April 30, 2001).]
 
Old 04-30-2001, 04:41 AM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by a_theistnotatheist:
Of course determing who is right is important, but it is not neccesary that people agree on every single possible issue/view of God. That never happens, just as two people get different impresssions from the same painting; in the two minds there are two distinct 'paintings' (that is the symbol, thought of the painting.) What differences are fundamental is questionable; the same follows from reading books. But unless one is a post-modernist, it is to be argued that some interpretaitons are wrong, or less correct than others.
</font>
I think you are still confusing opinions, which are manifold by definition, with facts, which are either true or false. There is no single, correct answer to what impression people should get from a painting. But there is a single, correct answer to the question 'is the Christian God the same as the Islamic God'.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
But what cleave is there in nature that clearly divides between the incorrect and correct interpretation of anything in all manners? How can one be positive of a distinction here?
</font>
This is an excellent question. I would submit that the answer is: we cannot know for sure. But, what we can do, is formulate hypotheses which lead to testable predictions, then investigate reality to find out which hypothesis leads to better predictions, and eliminate those ones that are contradicted by the evidence. If the subject at hand doesn't lend itself to this procedure, we should honestly conclude that we cannot know anything for certain about it – and to maintain that one knows the ‘truth’ under those conditions then becomes an intellectually dishonest position.

&lt;snip&gt;
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
If these 'gods' do not exist, the argument is a meaningless one since the division is made that there is not one god, but as many gods(mental constructs) as there are believers.
</font>
Umm... not quite. I would put it like this:
If these 'gods' do not exist, yet many people believe that one of them does exist, the argument is still interesting because it leads to insights in the nature and underpinnings of such a belief.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Interestingly, most Christian arguments I've seen against Islam and Christianity sharing a God is claims that "Allah" is nowhere called love("God is love") etc. and make claims about the charactor to distinguish them. This would be the argument from essence, rather than a state of tri-unity or "uni-unity".
</font>
And how can such character claims be verified?
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Clearly there is a refusal to understand the covering of Deity between Father, Son and Holy Spirit
</font>
'Refusal to understand' is the understatement of the year
Forgive me, but please point me to anyone who 'understands' the Trinity! I always thought that the fact that it cannot be understood is regarded as one of the true mysteries of the Christian god??
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I maintain Jesus' view on the matter, as He acted with the Samaritan woman; the God is one and the same, with the same history; but our God has revealed His triunity to us, and left the others out of this.
</font>
This is your interpretation. Why do you prefer it over any other one? Why did he leave others out of this? Is this compatible with an all-loving character?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The same God, but we're right and they're wrong. Yep
</font>
But here you admit that interpretations can be wrong….so yours could be wrong, too. And if the interpretations are so poorly constrained, what basis is there to say that they are the same god?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
This issue is again no different than is the 'young-earth' Creator God different than the old-earth- Creator God etc.
</font>
Sorry, but that us a totally different matter. Old earth vs. young earth are statements about the physical world, and as such can be subjected to the process of ‘elimination of falsehood’ I described above.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
It is not about different Gods, but about which interpretation/view of God is correct/ in each instance of contemplation.
</font>
You are jumping the gun. The fact that there are differences in interpretation of those God(s) causes a fundamental difficulty in answering the question ‘are they different gods’. Do people claiming that it is the same God realise that making such a claim leads logically to the conclusion that one’s knowledge of god is a wholly subjective interpretation rather than an established ‘truth’?

Since both God(s) claim, according to all interpretations, to be the only one existing, the option of having them both exist and being different would appear to be false – so they must be the same...unless one or both of the interpretations are wrong in this respect. But if they are the same, then why are the interpretations so different? Because the human knowledge of them is subjective. But, if this is the case, how can we differentiate truth from fiction about god? Since there exists no information independent from the interpretation, we cannot. And if we cannot, what basis do we have to claim that our interpretation is correct?

You know, at the end of the day the best way to solve the whole frigging problem would be to recognise that both gods are just constructs of the human mind, with no underlying basis in reality.

Presto… problem solved (and this takes care of the trinity as well )

fG
 
Old 04-30-2001, 10:22 AM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

http://muslim-canada.org/islam_chris...ferences_basic

Nuff said.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:33 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.