Ship of Fools: Do Christians all worship the same God?

Thread: Do Christians all worship the same God? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025460

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Do Christians all worship the same God?

The question above came to me when asking myself what people mean when they say “We worship the same God”? Sometimes the assertion is made with respect to Christians, Jews and Muslims, and at other times includes all religions that worship “God”. My provisional conclusion was that while I welcomed religious tolerance and recognised that enlightenment can be found through inter-faith dialogue, at the back of my mind was a suspicion that “we worship the same God” is a somewhat lazy and vacuous statement because its imprecision can be misleading. I can, for example, see the historical link between Judaism and Christianity, but there is a question for me, at least, as to whether the tribal God of the Hebrews is the same as the universal God of Love revealed in Jesus. Similarly, there are radical differences between the God of Islam and the father revealed in Christ.

It seemed to be that the question ought to have been “Do we worship the same concept of God?” To do so, however, raises not only issues between religions but within them: “Do all Christians worship the same God” or “ concept of God”? It seems to me, for example, that the heavily charged debates on this thread over theories of the atonement derive from fundamentally different concepts of the Christian God, his nature, human nature, and the relationship between humanity and the deity. If we Christians have such divergent understandings of God, can we be said to worship the same God?

I’m also led to consider whether I have more in common with aspects of other religions than some fellow Christians. From my perspective, for example, I find the universality of Jonah more attractive than predestination.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I've wondered the same thing. There are views which seem to require a vastly different interpretation of the same source material. As an outsider looking in, some variations hardly seem related.

Side note: Amusing post count for the OP: 666.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

Did you realise that this was your 666th post?
[Devil]

I think you are right to raise this issue. Worshiping the correct God is a continuous theme in the OT. It is so easy for God's people to get distracted by idols, false gods and false teaching. Therefore there is a tremendous emphasis on right praxis. The same is true today- though the focus is on doctrine.

The Church universal is broad and we come to and experience God is so many different ways and cultures. Our viewpoint of God may be unique or provide contrasting perspectives depending on where we are. But it is the same God that we see.

I suppose I now find tuning in to God the most important part or even the purpose of prayer. Reading scripture is discovering more about God rather than a how to manual. Engaging in fellowship is about testing my view and filling in blind spots by comparing experience and sharing stories.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The short answer is that we don't know, and cannot know. We can compare different concepts of God, but we don't know if those correspond to the reality of God. Well, at least, if you think that your concept of God corresponds to the reality, please demonstrate that, without circular definitions.

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

Taking up quetzalcoatl's point, not only can we not know if our concepts of God correspond to reality, we can't begin to comprehend God's reality with our finite minds. All we can do is catch glimpses, like trying to illuminate some vast object with tiny pencil torches. So all our concepts can be right and wrong at the same time. Right in that we might correctly identify an aspect of God (justice, mercy, compassion ....) but wrong in that none of these, not even the sum total of these, can come near to encompassing the Reality of God.

Dryden got it right:

How can the less the greater comprehend?
Or finite reason reach infinity?
For what could fathom God were more than he.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Do Christians all worship the same God?

Go Kwesi. What a great question. [Overused]

The short answer is no, we don't.

The long answer is that we like to think we do.

The alternate answer is that if you really believe there is only one God (as the Abrahamic religions do and Christians do) then of course we all worship the same God.

Because there is only one God.

So we worship it imperfectly, but we worship it all the same.

As for atonement theories (perfect example btw) I came across a lovely quote today from an awesome badass pastor called Kim Fabricius that speaks to this point:

quote:
The doctrine of penal substitution is a theory – or, better, a model – of the atonement, an extended metaphor that narrates how God reconciled the world to himself in Christ. It is one model, but it is not the only model. Indeed, without radical recalibration, it is a theologically repugnant model with potentially vicious and disastrous social and political implications. For now, however, the point is this: while the church dogmatically defined its Christology at the Council of Chalcedon (451), it left its soteriology underdetermined. Therefore penal substitution – or any other doctrine of the atonement – should not be deployed as a litmus test of faith. Stanley Hauerwas says, “If you need a theory to worship Christ, worship your f---ing theory!”

Source.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

We all worship OUR unique projection of God. So no. NONE of us, Christian or no, can possibly worship the same God. Each of us can't day by day, moment by moment.

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

I think is this is a very perceptive question.

Some Christians make assertions about God that make me wonder.

But fundamentally I believe that there is only one God and that He has chosen to reveal himself to us by appearing on Earth as a human being . Therefore the best way to answer the question is to think, how much does the God we worship look and sound like Jesus Christ.

If there is a discrepancy: what does that say to us?:
Is it our own misunderstanding?
Have we been deceived by someone?
Is our human pride preventing us from seeing what God has revealed to us by Grace?

Realizing that what we though God was like was in fact wrong and was always has been wrong is one of the effects, I find, of fully appreciating the reality of the Resurrection.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We all worship OUR unique projection of God. So no. NONE of us, Christian or no, can possibly worship the same God. Each of us can't day by day, moment by moment.

Maybe I'm getting universalist in my old age, but I don't think that God is going to put our bulb out if our perception is wrong.

TM

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Do Christians all worship the same God?

Go Kwesi. What a great question.

The short answer is no, we don't.

The long answer is that we like to think we do.

The alternate answer is that if you really believe there is only one God (as the Abrahamic religions do and Christians do) then of course we all worship the same God.

Because there is only one God.

So we worship it imperfectly, but we worship it all the same.

As for atonement theories (perfect example btw) I came across a lovely quote today from an awesome badass pastor called Kim Fabricius that speaks to this point:

quote:
The doctrine of penal substitution is a theory – or, better, a model – of the atonement, an extended metaphor that narrates how God reconciled the world to himself in Christ. It is one model, but it is not the only model. Indeed, without radical recalibration, it is a theologically repugnant model with potentially vicious and disastrous social and political implications. For now, however, the point is this: while the church dogmatically defined its Christology at the Council of Chalcedon (451), it left its soteriology underdetermined. Therefore penal substitution – or any other doctrine of the atonement – should not be deployed as a litmus test of faith. Stanley Hauerwas says, “If you need a theory to worship Christ, worship your f---ing theory!”
Source.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Yes. There aren't any other options.

Some of us may be extremely wrong about God, but those Christians who are wrong are wrong about the right God, rather than right about the wrong God.

It depends upon how you decide what has gone wrong with a false statement. There are a number of ways in which you can get things wrong. If somebody talks about Plato, and says that he wrote the Nicomachean Ethics and taught Alexander the Great, how do you decide whether he's talking about Plato and got his facts wrong, or talking about Aristotle and got the name wrong?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some of us may be extremely wrong about God, but those Christians who are wrong are wrong about the right God, rather than right about the wrong God.

Heartily agree, though I'd extend that consideration at least to Jews and Muslims, and possibly even to followers of all religions.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some of us may be extremely wrong about God, but those Christians who are wrong are wrong about the right God, rather than right about the wrong God.
Heartily agree, though I'd extend that consideration at least to Jews and Muslims, and possibly even to followers of all religions.

The cynic in me would say that this depends on whom the Christian is arguing with. If they are arguing with an atheist they will say that anyone worshipping any god is somehow, even if indirectly, worshipping the Christian god, the line of thinking being: almost everyone worships a god, therefore worshipping a god is an inbuilt human urge, therefore God exists. However, if they are arguing with a Muslim, or a Hindu, or an Anglo-Saxon pagan, they will say that their interlocutor is worshipping a false god or a false interpretation of god, depending on how far along the scale towards being a foul heathen they are judged to be.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If somebody talks about Plato, and says that he wrote the Nicomachean Ethics and taught Alexander the Great, how do you decide whether he's talking about Plato and got his facts wrong, or talking about Aristotle and got the name wrong?

Isn't it both?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Can I say that I think we're trying to? I think it is the attempt that is key, not the success.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If somebody talks about Plato, and says that he wrote the Nicomachean Ethics and taught Alexander the Great, how do you decide whether he's talking about Plato and got his facts wrong, or talking about Aristotle and got the name wrong?
Isn't it both?

I think there's a case for that and more finely depending if it's 'top down or bottom up'.

The sound syllable/concept 'god' covers an incredibly wide range of concepts which to the user are inseparable, but almost certainly won't match all, but will almost match some uniquely identifying concepts of another user.

For example Muslims believe in "God who is maker of heaven and earth and who has Mohammed as his prophet"* and Christians in "God who is maker of heaven and earth and who raised Jesus from the dead"*. To make things more confusing if we translated it into Arabic we'd have a different first word.

If we tried to cut it universally to only to refer primary to one of the characteristics it would lose so much (and there's a perfectly good word for Prime Mover) and so many variants. In any case at the minute we've not come to an agreement anyway, so we almost have to fight over the word (which is silly), or treat the word rather flexibly and accept contradictions. Almost "god is what he treats in the same way as I ought to treat god(who...)" (except that doesn't quite work with atheists, but does work with 'their god is their stomach' and similar bible verses)

So it strikes me that in practice we almost have to take one of the clauses in the context (e.g. the first clause) as a defining one**.

So going back to the previous example, if you take the first clause the two parties are in disagreement about the same God, if you reversed the order, the two parties are talking about different Gods but claiming the same unique role. (so to some extent in practice in either case the effect is the same, there's clearly a significant disagreement). Of course that doesn't help in single clause sentences.

And I don't think the problem goes away entirely when we're talking in a intra-christian context. Some statements more or less translate to "God who..." and it depends if they are the key features or not, and of course that's probably in disagreement. But whichever way you chose, you still have the same issue.

[ugh that was long for something so speculative, that Dafyd and Croeseus put it so succinctly]

*apologies if that is the wrong terms (and I've deliberately cut it down to 2 terms, and later on I've ignored any synchronistic possibilities).
**there may be a better linguistic term.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some of us may be extremely wrong about God, but those Christians who are wrong are wrong about the right God, rather than right about the wrong God.
Heartily agree, though I'd extend that consideration at least to Jews and Muslims, and possibly even to followers of all religions.

I'd certainly extend it to Jews and Muslims. I'd want to extend it to other religions, e.g Hindus although it gets complicated. You can't prejudge the outcome of dialogue, but at the same time you have to make assumptions to get dialogue started. The Church Fathers thought that Plato and Aristotle were talking about the same God as they were, and I can't see that Hindus and Daoists are more of a stretch.

Mormons are more difficult in theory. And it becomes difficult to see what can be meant by saying that polytheists are worshipping the same god.

I think it's important to talk to people about what they're doing before deciding yes, they're doing the same thing as us or no they're not. Determining for certain that they are worshipping the same god in advance of talking to them is patronising. Deciding that someone's doing the same thing that you're doing without consulting them is almost as bad as deciding that they're not. (If you've ever argued religion with a Baha'i you'll see what I mean.)

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
For example Muslims believe in "God who is maker of heaven and earth and who has Mohammed as his prophet"* and Christians in "God who is maker of heaven and earth and who raised Jesus from the dead"*. To make things more confusing if we translated it into Arabic we'd have a different first word.

My understanding is that the long-standing Arabic speaking churches in the Middle East all use 'Allah' for God. It's only recent non-liberal Protestant English-speaking missionaries who've decided that their converts ought to use some other word in Arabic.

[ 06. June 2013, 18:39: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If somebody talks about Plato, and says that he wrote the Nicomachean Ethics and taught Alexander the Great, how do you decide whether he's talking about Plato and got his facts wrong, or talking about Aristotle and got the name wrong?
Isn't it both?

It may be one of those things that's undecided until somebody does something about it.

I think the way to decide whether two speakers are talking about the same subject is to work out what the easiest alterations would be that would lead to agreement. And in the example I gave it's probably easier to say, 'you're talking about Aristotle; Plato is somebody else', than to say, 'no, it wasn't Plato who did any of those things, he did x, y, and z.'

So it may well depend on who the other speaker is.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Where there is only one supernatural creator God who lives in relationship with people, but a lot of gods created out of the human imagination, those who worship the former are worshipping the same God whether they are doing so through Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other route, while those worshipping the latter are not. That's easy to say, but at times it's difficult to differentiate between the two. Our perceptions are coloured by what others have told us, whether verbally or in writing.

I know my next door neighbour, I can vouch for certain good character traits and would know it to be the same person others describe from those traits alone. If they were to tell me the circumstances of their encounters, how they came to know each other, where they meet now, what they think about my neighbour's opinions, and what the word is on the street, it may affect my perceptions of my neighbour if I don't try to ascertain the truth.

The One God has given us himself in the form of Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit so that we may be guided into the truth.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
My understanding is that the long-standing Arabic speaking churches in the Middle East all use 'Allah' for God. It's only recent non-liberal Protestant English-speaking missionaries who've decided that their converts ought to use some other word in Arabic.

Arabic Orthodox Christians call God, "Allah." That's the Arabic word for God; it has the same proto-semitic root as the Hebrew "El." Muhammad didn't invent that word; it long predates him.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
For example Muslims believe in "God who is maker of heaven and earth and who has Mohammed as his prophet"* and Christians in "God who is maker of heaven and earth and who raised Jesus from the dead"*. To make things more confusing if we translated it into Arabic we'd have a different first word.
My understanding is that the long-standing Arabic speaking churches in the Middle East all use 'Allah' for God. It's only recent non-liberal Protestant English-speaking missionaries who've decided that their converts ought to use some other word in Arabic.

That's my understanding too. (I just was having too much trouble deciding how to capitalise/etc.. the english word and phrase, to try with a foreign one as well).

The point of mentioning it is that although my example was english(plus baggage)-english(same baggage), there's a fair possibility that it wouldn't be.
So we might have Cat Stevens using 'God' in a Islamic creed. While Mohammed Hegazy* using 'Allah' in a Christian creed (in coptic).
Or they might realistically use any other permutation (which is one reason I picked the counterstereotype). And however strong our claim is to knowing what a word means in our native tongue (or not), it gets harder when we tell a foreigner what he means by a word in his language (another reason, as your example shows it happening with this combo and it's the most borderline case)

* (both converts in opposite directions, I don't know how they actually declare their beliefs, as will be clear)

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If somebody talks about Plato, and says that he wrote the Nicomachean Ethics and taught Alexander the Great, how do you decide whether he's talking about Plato and got his facts wrong, or talking about Aristotle and got the name wrong?
Isn't it both?
It may be one of those things that's undecided until somebody does something about it.

I think the way to decide whether two speakers are talking about the same subject is to work out what the easiest alterations would be that would lead to agreement. And in the example I gave it's probably easier to say, 'you're talking about Aristotle; Plato is somebody else', than to say, 'no, it wasn't Plato who did any of those things, he did x, y, and z.'

I think the test is whether your unorthodox Platonist means to disagree with everyone else. If you present him with a stack of scholarly works in which those facts are ascribed to Aristotle and he says “Doh! I meant Aristotle” then it was the name that was wrong. If he insists that the books are mistaken, then he really did mean Plato.

In religious terms, most of us are in the class of saying that the other person's books are wrong. Show a Muslim who denies that Jesus is the Son of God a stack of books that ascribe exactly that status to Jesus, and he is much more likely to deny that the books are authoritative that say “Doh! Of course I meant to say Allah”. That's because he really is talking about the same God and making a contradictory claim about him to most Christians.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If somebody talks about Plato, and says that he wrote the Nicomachean Ethics and taught Alexander the Great, how do you decide whether he's talking about Plato and got his facts wrong, or talking about Aristotle and got the name wrong?
Isn't it both?
It may be one of those things that's undecided until somebody does something about it.

I think the way to decide whether two speakers are talking about the same subject is to work out what the easiest alterations would be that would lead to agreement. And in the example I gave it's probably easier to say, 'you're talking about Aristotle; Plato is somebody else', than to say, 'no, it wasn't Plato who did any of those things, he did x, y, and z.'
I think the test is whether your unorthodox Platonist means to disagree with everyone else. If you present him with a stack of scholarly works in which those facts are ascribed to Aristotle and he says “Doh! I meant Aristotle” then it was the name that was wrong. If he insists that the books are mistaken, then he really did mean Plato.

In religious terms, most of us are in the class of saying that the other person's books are wrong. Show a Muslim who denies that Jesus is the Son of God a stack of books that ascribe exactly that status to Jesus, and he is much more likely to deny that the books are authoritative that say “Doh! Of course I meant to say Allah”. That's because he really is talking about the same God and making a contradictory claim about him to most Christians.

That is very nicely reasoned.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I can be fairly sure that Jews, Christians and Muslims are not unintentionally worshipping Thor or the Sun. In role playing terms - they are just not part of the same mythos. Or if you prefer, they don't share the same narrative.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:

Some Christians make assertions about God that make me wonder.

Understatement or the year.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
My understanding is that the long-standing Arabic speaking churches in the Middle East all use 'Allah' for God. It's only recent non-liberal Protestant English-speaking missionaries who've decided that their converts ought to use some other word in Arabic.

If, as I assume, "non-liberal Protestant English-speaking" means evangelical, I can assure you that the issue of whether or not to use Allah is a very live issue amongst evangelical missionaries and Bible translators, with (as far as I can discern)a current move toward a consensus that Allah is indeed appropriate.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

God hates fags.... Is the slogan of an often quoted here church.

I don't think I worship that God!

But then, some saints of centuries ago would have held that view.

Oh dear! A difficult one...

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

My relationship with God [Yahweh] is totally intimate, within me in the internal dialogue I have inside my mind.

He is more intimate in my life than ANY MAN I ever loved, more intimate than anyone in my family.

And if you were to ask me to characterize Him, I would be hard-pressed to know what to say.

He and I share opinions about Scripture, about news, about science, about conspiracies, about child-rearing and health and nutrition and hygiene and law and history ... and neighbors.

Can I PROVE to you, this is the RIGHT GOD that everybody says, inspired THE BIBLE?

Of course not. But, you ask, does This God in your Head know things you don't know?

I can't tell. He doesn't volunteer anything unless I ask FIRST.

It's an interesting dialogue going on, believe me, and I've learned a lot. But I can't swear to anything ... if you can understand.

When I go to Church, He melds right in [if you play Pinnocle]. :shrugs:

I don't think a lot of people interact with "God" in exactly this way, although maybe some Charismatics do. I like this very stimulating "format".

Emily

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

Hi Em,

That tradition is shared with Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, and Julian of Norwich and Brother Lawrence among others. Other recent examples might include Thomas Merton, Henri Nouwen and Bernard Manning. It is a theme being picked up by the New Monastic Movement and goes back to the Desert Fathers.

I think they all have some common claims or themes; even they have a mystical streak and some of their visions and teaching is very allogorical it seems that they are seaching for a deeper knowledge of God but are not introducing something alien for God. I think they would be alarmed There writings are also tested by the wider Christian community and acknowledged by a shared expereince even if most of us expereince it to a much lesser degree!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

When a question is so difficult to resolve clearly, it is usually because the question can be asked with rather different intentions, trying to find answers for distinct problems. The sophisticated linguistic and philosophical issues one can have with this question are not usually why this question gets asked. So let's refresh our memory as far as scripture is concerned.

Is it possible to worship false gods / idols? Yes, says scripture.

Is it possible to worship the right God wrongly? Yes, says scripture.

Is either of these acceptable to God? No, says scripture.

Assuming that scripture speaks for God, the straight of worship is hence indeed rather narrow. Whether that means a Hindu or a Jew is doomed to hell for their worship of false gods and false worship of God, respectively, is a different question. One that has been mulled over for millennia. Historically speaking, the pendulum has swung there from extreme pessimism to extreme optimism.

But irrespective of that we can conclude that not all people worship the same God in an operationally relevant (namely God-pleasing) manner. Furthermore, there is at least some evidence from the NT, and of course ample evidence from Church history (if you allow that as evidence), that the problem of worshiping the right God wrongly extends from the Jews to some among the Christians. It is hence fairly safe to conclude that not all Christians worship the same God in an operationally relevant (namely God-pleasing) manner.

So, the answer to the question is "likely no", as long as it is asked with operationally relevant (namely God-pleasing) intent.

Please note that none of the sophistry of Martin is at play in this. As far as operationally relevant (namely God-pleasing) intent is concerned, some Christians definitely do worship the same God. Again this is clear from scripture.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Church Fathers thought that Plato and Aristotle were talking about the same God as they were, and I can't see that Hindus and Daoists are more of a stretch.

The Church Fathers did? Any primary source quotes? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Perhaps this is plunging too far into doctrinal abstractions, but suppose that Christian worship is made right because it is animated by the Holy Spirit. It is God in us that praises God the Father through his Son.

Jewish and Muslim worship is much nearer the mark than Hindu or Wiccan worship, but it still lacks the righteousness that comes by faith in Jesus.

In this view, all Christians, at least, worship the same God, at least insofar as they invoke the Scriptures to do so. Even heretics, however wrong they might be, are still worshiping the true God by merit of their baptisms.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Zach82

OK, but that is perfectly circular reasoning. If it pleases you, then fine, but any religious view can do the same. Our views are right because we have special information which tells us that we are.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

First, if my reasoning is faulty it's not "perfectly fine" for me or anyone else to be pleased by it.

Second, I don't see what's circular about it. It's a system in which God takes the initiative. Christian worship is animated by grace- it's only circular insofar as God gives himself to us in Jesus, and as a human Jesus gives himself to God. By the Holy Spirit we enter this dynamic.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Moi, sophostique?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
God hates fags.... Is the slogan of an often quoted here church.

I don't think I worship that God!

Nor I - 'my' God is described in the Prayer Book Ash Wednesday as one 'who hatest nothing that thou hast made.'

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Je suis sophiste, tendence Gorgias.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The problem with this is in the question.

There is only one God - if the belief systems of the Abrahamic religions are correct, and that has to be a primary assumption here.

The problem is about who we as Christians "worship". The reality is that we all worship an image of God that we make ourselves. Everyone worships a different God because the God we worship is the God we imagine. That does not mean that He is not real, it means that our worship is focused towards a God who is not the real God. Through that image, the worship will often reach to the real God.

That is why there is such difference in valid worship across Christianity. Of course, this could mean that any worship is valid, but that is not the case. The problems - and the problems with Westboro - are that their interpretation of the biblical texts, their interpretation of the God is not a valid way of reading the texts as a whole.

So no, we all worship a different God. but the real God listens. Sometimes he smiles, sometimes he cries.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It depends on the meaning of same.
Consider the saying "No man bathes in the same river twice."

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It depends on the meaning of same.
Consider the saying "No man bathes in the same river twice."

Cratylus: "No-one can step into the same river once".

[ 07. June 2013, 21:19: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Church Fathers thought that Plato and Aristotle were talking about the same God as they were, and I can't see that Hindus and Daoists are more of a stretch.
The Church Fathers did? Any primary source quotes?

The most obvious place is Augustine, Confessions Book VII, ix. e.g. 'In the Platonic books, I found expressed in different words, and in a variety of ways, that the Son, 'being in the form of the Father did not think it theft to be equal with God,' because by nature he is that very thing.' (But nothing about the incarnation.) Or City of God, VIII, 8-11. In CoG VIII, 11, Augustine discusses the possibility that Plato got his ideas from Judaism. He leaves the question open as he thinks it's equally possible that Plato is an example of the natural knowledge of God cited in Romans 1. The notes in my copy of CoG cite Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.22, quoting another author, 'What after all is Plato but Moses in Attic Greek?' (Clement is arguing that the Greek philosophers did get all their wisdom from the Jews.)

My direct knowledge of the Church Fathers is limited to the above I'm afraid.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's only recent non-liberal Protestant English-speaking missionaries who've decided that their converts ought to use some other word in Arabic.
If, as I assume, "non-liberal Protestant English-speaking" means evangelical, I can assure you that the issue of whether or not to use Allah is a very live issue amongst evangelical missionaries and Bible translators, with (as far as I can discern)a current move toward a consensus that Allah is indeed appropriate.

I was avoiding the word evangelical, as I didn't want to generalise about all evangelicals. I should have said 'some' explicitly. The people I've seen expressing it are conservative evangelicals, but to the best of my knowledge the position itself is recent.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Fascinating thread. I want to return to something hanginginthere posted yesterday, which helps me set a personal, spiritual framework upon which I can think about the historical matters which the thread has moved to.

quote:
Originally posted by hanginginthere:
Taking up quetzalcoatl's point, not only can we not know if our concepts of God correspond to reality, we can't begin to comprehend God's reality with our finite minds. All we can do is catch glimpses, like trying to illuminate some vast object with tiny pencil torches. So all our concepts can be right and wrong at the same time. Right in that we might correctly identify an aspect of God (justice, mercy, compassion ....) but wrong in that none of these, not even the sum total of these, can come near to encompassing the Reality of God.

Dryden got it right:

How can the less the greater comprehend?
Or finite reason reach infinity?
For what could fathom God were more than he.

Thanks, hanginginthere.I haven't read "Religio Laici" since taking a course in 17th-18th century religion, many decades ago. It's long and somewhat tendentious, especially as regards to Dreyden's new, basically rational ways of looking at religion and the universe. (Dreyden's catchphrase for that is "Deism.") I looked it up again after reading your post. There are some lovely lines sprinkled throughout. I was surprized to find that they now have quite a different and more personal significance for me than they did when I was an undergraduate long ago.

For example, the opening:

quote:
:
Dim, as the borrow'd beams of moon and stars
To lonely, weary, wand'ring travelers,
Is reason to the soul: and as on high,
Those rolling fires discover but the sky
Not light us here; so reason's glimmering ray
Was lent not to assure our doubtful way,
But guide us upward to a better day.
And as those nightly tapers disappear
When day's bright lord ascends our hemisphere
So pale grows reason at religion's sight:
So dies, and so dissolves in supernatural light.

And this, from the conclusion of the first paragraph:

quote:

Thus anxious thoughts in endless circles roll,
Without a center where to fix the soul:
In this wild maze their vain endeavors end:
How can the less the greater comprehend?
Or finite reason reach infinity?
For what could fathom God were more than He.

[ 07. June 2013, 23:06: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Sorry for the typo above. I meant to type: "Dryden's CRITIQUE OF new, basically rational ways of looking at religion and the universe.". Which is the opposite of what I actually typed. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So no, we all worship a different God. but the real God listens. Sometimes he smiles, sometimes he cries.

This point is well illustrated in Isaiah chapter 58 and Matthew chapter 25.

Em

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Go on IngoB, meaninglessly tell Schroedinger's Cat that's sophistry.

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

@ roybart I had pretty well forgotten the contents of Religio Laici apart from the quote I used, and only remembered that because I wrote it into my commonplace book many years ago, so thank you for reminding me of the context.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Will we not know from the behaviour of those worshipping what they are on about? Rather clearly, incorporation of cultural elements has occurred into what is called mainstream Christianity, orthodox, catholic etc. It is instructive to remember that churches with some diversity of practice and language have entered into understandings, communion, and even swapped clergy.

So I say mostly fie upon the doctrinal differences, the opinions of long since death dead guys (few are female), and use our reason to understand the activities of others IRL to recognize their worship. It doesn't mean joining with them, it doesn't mean losing your identity, it means respectful recognition of both the similarities and the differences.

It is also worth remembering, that although Roman Catholicism has dominated and continues to do so in terms of numbers, it was a slowly formed entity and is as culturally bound as the rest. Its winning of a western European campaign for ascendency does not let it escape its origins, regardless of its assertions, and it is not, and nor are those it claims as its fathers (it lacks mothers moreso it seems than many others and has declared as heretics those who haven't supported it mission and vision of itself), the only arbiter of truth.

As for Martin, not sophistry. But at times attempting to put into words that which is very difficult to put into words. I perceive that your intent, heart and mind are aimed at the right target, at times hitting a mark I can see, and at other times, I am far too stupid and blind to looks rightly.

(edit: the devil is in punctuation, and we all worship the same periods, commas and question marks‽)

[ 08. June 2013, 18:20: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

ISTM that, for believers, this is essentially the same question as to whether 'reality' has objective existence, or is purely subjective.

An 'objective' reality which includes a single omni-everything supernatural entity necessarily means that individuals who worship that entity, however rightly, wrongly, or haphazardly, essentially worship the same entity.

A 'subjective' reality which includes a single omni-everything supernatural entity is an entirely different fettle of kish.

And since, as Martin PC points out, we're all both different and imperfect, even an objectively 'real' omni-entity (if extant) ends up getting worshipped in a wide variety of subjective ways.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Perhaps this is plunging too far into doctrinal abstractions, but suppose that Christian worship is made right because it is animated by the Holy Spirit. It is God in us that praises God the Father through his Son.

Jewish and Muslim worship is much nearer the mark than Hindu or Wiccan worship, but it still lacks the righteousness that comes by faith in Jesus.

In this view, all Christians, at least, worship the same God, at least insofar as they invoke the Scriptures to do so. Even heretics, however wrong they might be, are still worshiping the true God by merit of their baptisms.

If we are worshipping the same true God, we will surely all produce the good fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, self-control, faithfulness, gentleness, kindness and goodness (Gal. 5:22).

And if Jews, Muslims and Hindus are producing the good fruit of the spirit.........

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
ISTM that, for believers, this is essentially the same question as to whether 'reality' has objective existence, or is purely subjective.

It's not the same question, but it is related. And as reality is not objective, to actually have a concept of everyone worshiping the same God is meaningless. Even if there is a real, objective divine being.

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

The point Jesus made over and over and over and over in His Teachings was that behavior counted for more than doctrine, more than legalism, more than dogma, more than hierarchy.

How we treat each other is whether we love each other or not.

And so, I dismiss all disputes about doctrine, and I label them as "head-tripping," and I only "count" what people do, rather than what they say.

In this forum, I hear all sorts of ideological positions, but everybody here agrees to the Ten Commandments of Behavior.

That how I see a Church in action, making a positive difference in the world, wherein what you think is sacrosanct to you, but how you treat others is what you build a reputation upon.

Emily [Smile]

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

Ps 118:18-21

The Lord has chastened me severely,
But He has not given me over to death.

19 Open to me the gates of righteousness;
I will go through them,
And I will praise the Lord.
20 This is the gate of the Lord,
Through which the righteous shall enter.

21 I will praise You,
For You have answered me,
And have become my salvation.

And that's how I feel about my experiences with "God" YHVH.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Perhaps this is plunging too far into doctrinal abstractions, but suppose that Christian worship is made right because it is animated by the Holy Spirit. It is God in us that praises God the Father through his Son.

Jewish and Muslim worship is much nearer the mark than Hindu or Wiccan worship, but it still lacks the righteousness that comes by faith in Jesus.

In this view, all Christians, at least, worship the same God, at least insofar as they invoke the Scriptures to do so. Even heretics, however wrong they might be, are still worshiping the true God by merit of their baptisms.
If we are worshipping the same true God, we will surely all produce the good fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, self-control, faithfulness, gentleness, kindness and goodness (Gal. 5:22).

And if Jews, Muslims and Hindus are producing the good fruit of the spirit.........

A farkin men.

One would think Galatians would be an easy litmus test being scripture 'n all.

But no.

I just called a conservative evangelical to task for not displaying the fruits of the spirit when critiquing his more liberal brethren on biblical hermeneutics. Seemed to matter not a whit.

"Bible believers" conveniently ignore that bit of scripture ( and give us liberals a hard time for cherry picking. HA!).

/end rant

One is supposed to be able to tell a christian from their fruits.

Yet alot of us lack these fruits (myself included at times). I often wonder if that makes the reverse true. That those of us that do not display the fruits are not Christians at all.

And that the promise of our baptisms are null and void if we do not/cannot display these fruits.

Where is the Spirit?

Worries me no end.... [Frown]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I just called a conservative evangelical to task for not displaying the fruits of the spirit when critiquing his more liberal brethren on biblical hermeneutics. Seemed to matter not a whit.

And this post is displaying the fruit of the Spirit to the con evos in what way?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
balaam: And this post is displaying the fruit of the Spirit to the con evos in what way?

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit cannot call someone to task for something?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

There is no righteousness apart from faith. "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor 3:5-6

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

A farkin men.

One would think Galatians would be an easy litmus test being scripture 'n all.

But no.

I just called a conservative evangelical to task for not displaying the fruits of the spirit when critiquing his more liberal brethren on biblical hermeneutics. Seemed to matter not a whit.

"Bible believers" conveniently ignore that bit of scripture ( and give us liberals a hard time for cherry picking. HA!).

/end rant

One is supposed to be able to tell a christian from their fruits.

Yet alot of us lack these fruits (myself included at times). I often wonder if that makes the reverse true. That those of us that do not display the fruits are not Christians at all.

And that the promise of our baptisms are null and void if we do not/cannot display these fruits.

Where is the Spirit?

Worries me no end....

No need to worry, we're all works in progress. The question is, are we progressing? Fruit grows. The Spirit requires an open door and an open invitation.

It does no harm for us to challenge each other as well as ourselves: in a loving rant perhaps?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
There is no righteousness apart from faith. "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor 3:5-6

You're using Paul to quote against Paul?

[Killing me]

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No need to worry, we're all works in progress. The question is, are we progressing?

Same question, just a bit further down the line.

Are we progressing?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
There is no righteousness apart from faith. "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor 3:5-6
You're using Paul to quote against Paul?

I'm citing Paul against your reading of him.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Can we put money on which Paul will win?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
There is no righteousness apart from faith. "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor 3:5-6
You're using Paul to quote against Paul?

I'm citing Paul against your reading of him.

So what is your reading of the connection between the two?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
"Bible believers" conveniently ignore that bit of scripture ( and give us liberals a hard time for cherry picking. HA!).

Seems to me all denominations/Christians ignore selected parts of the Bible. Different selected parts, for different groups, are explained away.

As to the OP question, I know people who attend groups listed in the phone book as "Christian churches" who worship a God whose personality and value system I don't recognize as having anything to do with the God I enjoy. Do we really worship the same God?

I have decided to be agnostic on the question. Good thing for my peace of mind God (as I understand the person) doesn't limit acceptance to only those who get it all right. Their concept of God is quite different on this point, I suspect some would be upset if they found out the population of heaven greatly exceeds the number who would be willing to sign their statement of faith.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
There is no righteousness apart from faith. "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor 3:5-6
You're using Paul to quote against Paul?

I'm citing Paul against your reading of him.
So what is your reading of the connection between the two?

I don't really see much of one. Paul never thought of righteousness in isolation from faith.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't really see much of one. Paul never thought of righteousness in isolation from faith.

Romans 2:14-5 would certainly suggest that he did think of righteousness in isolation from faith.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't really see much of one. Paul never thought of righteousness in isolation from faith.

No connection between the two?

Don't think Paul would think much of that reading.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I think if you follow this course of logic you can reasonably start to wonder if any of us worship the same God, because no matter what our professed creed our personal ideas about God are so different and subjective...I mean, I grew up in a denomination which made a very big deal out of avoiding contact with other Christians (let alone representatives other belief systems) for fear of corrupting our "pure" doctrine, and one of their arguments against things like ecumenical worship or community prayer services was that it's wrong/inauthentic to have group worship when not everyone present agrees on who God is and how God works. But even people within this denomination (and I know this from living among them and hearing them in unstructured contexts) you will get ideas about God and theology that veer way off the denonminational party line.

So what do you do about that?

You can insist that, no, there is a correct way of thinking about God that one can know ("God is not the author of confusion" and all that) must adhere to and defend to the rest of the world or else. Or you can say that we fallible and non-omniscient humans of faith all see through a glass darkly, we all have tendencies toward creating idols including a subjective/self-serving notion of God, and yet at the same time we all want (at least I think) to think and say the least wrong things about God; that God somehow works through this messiness to make God's self known at least in part and work God's will in the world; that it's possible to be earnest about our own beliefs while being humble about them and charitable about others'.

[ 10. June 2013, 17:29: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Thanks, Shipmates, for your numerous considered responses. I have found them helpful and thought-provoking.

It seems to me the replies swing between the highly subjective: Martin PC’s contention that because each individual has his/her own conception of God that in consequence each must worship a different God, and the mystics, similarly, have intensely subjective and peculiar experiences of God, to the philosophical argument that to believe in one God implies that all monotheists worship the same God by definition. I’m not sure how Dryden’s contention that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite fits in, although it does help to explain why concepts of the God who is worshipped might differ.

Against radical subjectivity and an unknowable God, however, as Bax points out, Christians believe in a God who has made himself known within the confines of finity. To my mind, therefore, Christians cannot accept propositions about the nature of God that are incompatible with his revelation in Jesus.

The problem for me, at least, is whether or not Christologies are so divergent that they lead to incompatible conclusions about the nature of the Christian God; and whether the conclusions a particular Christology might come to leaves it more compatible with strands on the nature of God in other religions than in some other Christologies.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Posted by Kwesi:

quote:
... Christians believe in a God who has made himself known within the confines of finity.

quote:
The problem for me, at least, is whether or not Christologies are so divergent that they lead to incompatible conclusions about the nature of the Christian God; and whether the conclusions a particular Christology might come to leaves it more compatible with strands on the nature of God in other religions than in some other Christologies.

I like this refocusing of the topic. There seems to be a vast difference between making "Jesus is God" the heart of your religious message, and speaking of Jesus as, essentially, someone who, to a unique degree, "had God in him" or the like.

Ditto: Between those who believe completely in Incarnation/Crucifixion/Resurrection and those who focus on Incarnation/Crucifixion as events while being moved by Resurrection as a mystery or unanswered question.

Ditto: Between those who characterize Jesus, essentially, as "God" and those who favor something like "Son of God" (with the implied understanding that all of us are, in some sense, sons and daughters of God.

All of these are "Christian" beliefs in some sense. At what point do we s-t-r-e-t-c-h the category "Christian God" so far that it becomes, in effect, two categories, or even more?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0