|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why Aren't You A Muslim?
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jazzuk777:
Assuming Jesus said the words He is claimed to have said (and if I didn't then I agree my argument would fall down, but then the question would actually first be "...so why are you a a Christian?") then my point is that Jesus precluded Islam's description of Him.
The point is, it's all about belief. The whole premise of this thread is flawed, because that premise is that one can choose what to believe...
Not according to my explanation. I'd say that there is a point in the 'order of salvation' where one doesn't not in fact have the freedom to choose what one believes.
For example, I think that atheists do not believe in God because they have not been granted to freedom to do so. A genuine atheist does not think about - and has never even subconsiously considered - the existence of God. Thus, a true atheist has never exercised even considerd the possibility of choice concerning God. As you can see, I think atheists (reprobates or the unelect) are very few and far between.
However, a person who has considered the existence of God and has rejected him, is an unbeliever. This person (the unbeliever) has in fact chosen to exercise a negative form of faith. They have intentionally chosen unbelief. This type of unbelief requires a constant, settled decision to not believe in God. This is not atheism; it is infidelity.
Of the two 'categories' that I've mentioned, only one has exercised 'choice': the unbeliever. The reprobate (or unelect), on the other hand, has never, and will never, even consider the possibilty that God might exist. They will live out their entire lives withot ever having exercised any form of choice regarding God.
[ 16. October 2005, 21:46: Message edited by: m.t_tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Sorry: ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
That should read:
'Not according to my explanation. I'd say that there is a point in the 'order of salvation' where one does not in fact have the freedom to choose what one believes.
Careless of me.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
However, a person who has considered the existence of God and has rejected him, is an unbeliever. This person (the unbeliever) has in fact chosen to exercise a negative form of faith. They have intentionally chosen unbelief. This type of unbelief requires a constant, settled decision to not believe in God. This is not atheism; it is infidelity.
Eh? I can 'consider' the existence of little green men on the moon, but if I don't believe they exist then I'm not going to start believing in them just because I thought about them.
I haven't 'chosen' to disbelieve in them - I just don't.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
However, a person who has considered the existence of God and has rejected him, is an unbeliever. This person (the unbeliever) has in fact chosen to exercise a negative form of faith. They have intentionally chosen unbelief. This type of unbelief requires a constant, settled decision to not believe in God. This is not atheism; it is infidelity.
Eh? I can 'consider' the existence of little green men on the moon, but if I don't believe they exist then I'm not going to start believing in them just because I thought about them.
I haven't 'chosen' to disbelieve in them - I just don't.
I use the word consider in the following way: "to look at attentively; to think or deliberate on; to take into account; to attend to" (Chambers).
So, if a person has genuinely considered God - according to the definition I've provided - and has rejected him; they are an infidel, not an atheist. I say this because there simpy isn't enough evidence that God does not exist for there not be be an element of faith in the position of the atheist.
This is why i maintain that atheism requires choice whereas reprobation precludes it.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Can I make one or two comments, which may or may not be connected?
1. Streetwise's comment that Christians worship the 'God of the Bible' is, to say the least, problematic because the bible presents us with conflicting and irreconcilable images of God. At times, especially in Judges, Nehemiah and Ezra, he appears unashamedly tribalistic and through Ayatollah's like Samuel commands genocide. Elswhere, we find the suffering servant of Isaiah and the cosmopolitan God of Jonah.
Christians do not worship the God of the Bible, but God as revealed in Jesus Christ, who they see as the measure of all things- including biblical writing. It is the incarnation, not the bible, that is central: as John witnessed: 'We beheld his glory..full of grace and truth.' Christians try to figure out the substance and meaning of that revelation through the New Testament and the continuing witness of the Holy Spirit.
2. Ruth's assertion that monotheistic religions worship the same God is not an obvious truth. Monotheistic religions worth their salt, it could be equally argued, are either all wrong except one or all wrong.
3. A line of argument connecting differing religious experiences might be to suggest that more than one religion has an Old Testament that seeks fulfilment. There is no reason to believe that understandings of God were peculiar to the Jews, and that he didn't speak to the ancestors of other nations (After Hebrews 1:1). As Christ told the woman the well: 'The time will come when God will be worshipped neither in this mountain (Gezirim) nor in Jerusalem,' identifying himself as transcending both the religion of the Jews and Samaritans (Hebrews 1: 2-3).
Quite what that tells us of the relationship between Christianity and Islam I'm not sure, given that Islam is historically post-Christian- though, inronically, more recognisable as having its roots in the books of Moses. What one can say is that for Christians Christ is the measure against which both are judged.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
<snip>
2. Ruth's assertion that monotheistic religions worship the same God is not an obvious truth. Monotheistic religions worth their salt, it could be equally argued, are either all wrong except one or all wrong.
<snip>
I beg to differ. Given that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three monotheistic religions, and theoretically worship the same God, the onus falls on Christianity alone to be "worth it's salt", since it is the only one of the three which makes no allowance for the possible legitimacy of the other two.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Given that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three monotheistic religions, and theoretically worship the same God, the onus falls on Christianity alone to be "worth it's salt", since it is the only one of the three which makes no allowance for the possible legitimacy of the other two.
Sorry, but - what? First, who says that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three monotheistic religions? Historically, there's for example Atenism, and several versions (some say all!) of Hinduism are actually monotheistic (with "lesser gods" having roughly the place of angels and demons in Christianity). One could also consider Daoism as a monotheistic religion. I'm sure there are more, both in history and today. Second, the three Abrahamic religions can be said to worship "the same God" without qualifications only as far as they appreciate their common root. One can of course assert that since there's only one God, all monotheists by default believe in the same God. But that's a theoretical point, it has little to do with the situation on the ground. In fact the doctrines about God differ significantly and even the common history gets re-interpreted in terms of these differences. Muslims do not worship the Trinity and Jews do not buy at all the "types of Christ" ideas Christians read into the OT.
Third, what the heck are you saying about "making no allowances"? As it happens, Christianity makes plenty of allowances for the legitimacy of Muslim, and even more so, of Jewish belief. Certainly it does so today (I'm ignoring numerically irrelevant sects like some hardcore American "Evangelicals", of course. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ). And yeah, there was a lot of religious intolerance and murder going on earlier, but let's not pretend that this was unilateral. Who was surpressing or murdering whom was largely a question of who had the power to do so at that historical moment. Certainly most Muslims and Jews will tell you that Christianity is right insofar as it agrees with their religions, and wrong otherwise. Indeed, most Muslims will consider the idea of the incarnation pure shirk, idolatry, and most Jews will consider the identification of Jesus with the Messiah as plain loopy, e.g.,
quote:
Rabbi Maimonides (via Wikki):
"As for Yeshua of Nazareth, who claimed to be the anointed one and was killed by the court, Daniel had already prophecied about him, thus: "And the children of your people's rebels shall raise themselves to set up prophecy and will stumble" (Ibid. 14). Can there be a bigger stumbling block than this? All the Prophets said that the Anointed One saves Israel and rescues them, gathers their strayed ones and strengthens their mitzvot whereas this one caused the loss of Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant and humiliate them, and to change the Torah and to cause most of the world to erroneously worship a god besides the Lord. But the human mind has no power to reach the thoughts of the Creator, for His thoughts and ways are unlike ours. All these matters of Jeshua of Nazareth and of the Ishmaelite who stood up after him (Muhammad) are only intended to pave the way for the Anointed King, and to mend the entire world to worship God together, thus: "For then I shall turn a clear tongue to the nations to call all in the Name of the Lord and to worship him with one shoulder."
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jaeger
Shipmate
# 10355
|
Posted
I come from a Muslim country and there are a lot of things I like about Islam. Such as the commitment required of its followers. There is something to be said about the discipline of praying 5 times a day. I always found it uplifting to hear the muezzin's call to prayer reverberating across the country at sunset and thinking of the thousands of people that at that point were ceasing work to give God praise.
That being said, I am not a Muslim because, as others have already pointed out, I dislike the "Men Are Superior" stance (also a reason why I have some bones to pick with Catholicism) and worse, the rigidity of the discipline such that it is not really a free choice but a mandatory practice.
In my country, to be born a Muslim - and then to convert as an apostate is punishable by imprisonment under the Syariah law.
Can you imagine Shipmates being Muslims in a country like that? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent Him." ~Voltaire
Posts: 66 | From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marquis
Apprentice
# 9750
|
Posted
I am not a Muslim because....er well because I looked at the religious possibilities and the thing that struck me most forcibly was the fact That Christianity is the only one I found where God suffers for you, instead of the other way around.
It was an Epiphany for me when I finally realised this. In every other faith, Islam included, there was such a sense of obligation to please God. To push yourself through hardship in order to appear good in his eyes. Yet in Christianity God debases himself, and suffers the trauma of mortality in order to breach the gap between you and Him.
Just seemed powerful and unique to me.
--------------------
"I believe that the words Favour", "Owe", and "Big" were used....."
Posts: 28 | From: NYC | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world" and preaches non-violence and a revolution of hearts and minds.
Muhammad fought 62 different battles, and Islam believes that all should be converted to Islam - by force if necessary (Read the Qur'an).
Dhimmitude
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
spook
Shipmate
# 8769
|
Posted
I am not a muslim because I believe that Christianity is TRUE!
I believe that Jesus Christ was actually the son of God, that he was crucified, died and did come back to life.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.A.M.
Shipmate
# 7390
|
Posted
Although its kind of a tangent I would like to take issue with the definition of atheists offered earlier. I understand a true Atheist as one who has a positive belief, belief in the absence of God. This is unlike someone who has never considered it (to many of those) or unlike those of us who has never seriously considered the existance of green men on Mars (were there any I am sure certain shipmates would have told us by now).
On the issue of Islam I really think the only reason people believe in something is because they do. BUT, they may well be culturally inclined to believe in certain things. I am suggesing that maybe faith resonates with other deeply held convictions that we may not even be aware of. These will be built into people culturally or even genetically; if they find out enough about the faith they will accept it. The best example is of Budhism(its hard to look at myself in this way) I know someoe who claimed to have an inclination to believe in cyclical patterns BEFORE he was Buddhist; Buddhism fitted in with this preexisting conviction and so it appealed to him more than other faiths.
--------------------
Formerly Real Ale Methodist
Back after prolonged absence...
Posts: 1584 | From: (Sunshine on) Leith | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
It strikes me that many of the descriptions of Islam on this thread are nearly identical to the way some non-Christians of my acquaintance describe Christianity (promoting the subjegation of women, historically violent, incredible beliefs, etc), and that a more thorough investigation of Islam might yield some very compelling attributes. Such as the obvious devotion of many adherents, as opposed to the "Sunday only" rule of many Christians. Or the resolution of the authority issue (relying on the Quran, in Arabic -- Christians can't even settle which version of the Bible is most authoritative, if any, or which books should be included). Islam isn't wishy-washy, either. Make no graven images isn't taken to have exceptions for Renaissance painters. And how about three cheers for monotheism? No confusing extra persons in Islam.
And I know Muslims who drink. Just like I know Christians who don't.
Me, I'm not Muslim because there's no Choral Evensong. But if they could set some of those prayers to Anglican Chant and translate the Koran into Cranmerian English, well then I might be tempted.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wombat
Shipmate
# 5180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
The question breaks down into two parts:
1. Eastern religions coexist with some degree of ease. It would not be strange for someone from Japan to be Buddhist AND Shinto while maybe even borrowing from Hinduism. Why are Western religions dependent on exclusive truth?
2. If you try to pin down religious preference to its single greatest causal factor, you would have to say it would be "place of birth." Does that limit the importance of "choosing the right religion," since you will most likely stick within the religious traditions of your culture and you cannot possibly help where you were born?
-Digory
1. Because Islam and Christianity both developed out of Jewish religious tradition, which came to see its God as the only god and all other religions as essentially false. Judaism developed in this way because the branches of Judaism which didn't adopt such ideas repeatedly fell away from anything distinctively Jewish and blended into the surrounding populations, apostasizing.
2. Not place of birth, but family tradition is the key. Almost everyone is raised in some religious context by their family, whether it be to follow a religion or to reject religion. This is why small enclaves survive inside larger populations of a different faith.
--------------------
John Walter Biles
Historian in Training
Posts: 363 | From: Maryland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
Hi Doublethink;
Theocracies are bad no matter what religion you are, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish.....
You seem to be right; therefore, one reason I could not become Muslim is that the religion has no concept of a legitimate secular government. The only satisfactory state for a Moslem is an Islamic state.
Times were when Christians would say the equivalent, and the Christian Reconstructionists do so again. Beware of them. But by and large, we've outgrown that ambition, and done so by returning to our roots: powerless (to say the least) for 300 years. By contrast, the initial growth of Islam came through military conquest.
I wouldn't want to go so far as to suspect the personal patriotism of every American Moslem, but it would be interesting to hear how they reconcile these two loyalties in their own minds. Doesn't it require an act of revisionism?
[ 19. October 2005, 23:26: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kamek
Apprentice
# 5700
|
Posted
I know of a woman who grew up and was confirmed in the church I attend now who converted to Islam. I have never been introduced to her (Although I could be, her mother and I are friends.) so I haven't spoken to her directly on why she converted. But this is what I've heard.
Islam seems "real" to her. The prayer rug, the way of life is very meaningful. Perhaps, she felt for the first time that she was worshipping God. I can certainly understand that. She wears a head covering, has married a muslim (her second marriage to a muslim, the first ended in divorce) and is raising her children as muslims.
If Islam seems real then I suppose she thought that Christianity seemed unreal, intangible, ungraspable. I once saw a bit on TV about muslim on 60 Minutes (US news program) and there was a woman on there, a teacher in a muslim school, who said, "All you have to do, is follow the "rules"." OK, that might be a paraphrase and I can understand the attraction of that way of life but that right there is why I'm not a muslim.
Posts: 43 | From: Chicagoland | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
2. Ruth's assertion that monotheistic religions worship the same God is not an obvious truth. Monotheistic religions worth their salt, it could be equally argued, are either all wrong except one or all wrong.
Christians themselves dispute about this. I'd side with Ruth because a consequence of claiming that Moslems (and even, some say, Jews) do not worship our God, the omniscient and only God, is that God chooses to ignore their prayers on the grounds that they are addressed to a non-entity. I'm in no position either to know whether this is true or to advise God on the matter. But we have, I think, some counter-indication in Jesus's words "do not pray as the Gentiles do." That means, don't imagine that the name by which you call God is like some kind of magic key.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
But I love Christianity, especially for its moral and ethical core. Anyone can say that God will save you: I like a faith which encourages me to help others.
AFAIK, most religions have a moral and ethical core, and encourage you to help others.
See Shared Belief In The "Golden Rule"--ReligiousTolerance.org. Note the quotes from various faiths.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
AFAIK, most religions have a moral and ethical core, and encourage you to help others.
This raises the age old question of what is "real" religion, is it a belief system or a way of life? Belief is important insofar as if I didn't believe in Jesus, why would I follow Him? But again, is it the belief or the following which is true Christianity? I take the view that a Christian should be striving to obey Christ and live in imitation of Him, however inadequately.
But of course if Christ's ethics can be found in other religions of the world, it follows that one could live in obediance to Christ and be a Buddhist or a Muslim. This is why I believe that any or all of the world's major religions has the potential to be an authentic pathway to God. I would also endorse Golden Key's recommendation to visit the Religious Tolerance website. As a universalist I have found it very helpful in understanding the universal nature of much religious thought.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
If the Old Testament God is the same God Christians and Muslims worship, why were the New Testament and the prophet at all necessary?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Kwesi--
Because worshipping the same God doesn't mean you necessarily have the same ideas about that deity.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Golden Key: A clever answer, but doesn't it beg the question? How can a God be the same God if understandings of his nature are incompatible?
St Paul, himself, 'A Hebrew of Hebrews', was forced to the conclusion that the cross, a central theme of his preaching, was 'an offence to the Jews', let alone nonsense to the Greeks.
This is not to say that there aren't differences of opinion concerning 'the God who is revealed in Christ Jesus', but are there not boundaries?
I believe the God of the Old Testament has too much influence over Christians, who are content with the God of Righteousness but cannot accept the God of Grace.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Golden Key: A clever answer, but doesn't it beg the question? How can a God be the same God if understandings of his nature are incompatible?
Because God, being God, has one incomprehensible nature, whereas humans, being finite, mortal, corruptible, fallible and all the rest, have many religions. Our religions cannot tell God what to be - they tell us what to think about him. As human entities, religons are pretty much guaranteed to be wrong about God.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Teufelchen: Your assertion that God is unknowable is an attractive proposition. The extension of the argument, however, would seem to raise the question as to whether it's worth bothering to go any further, because we cannot say anything sensible about something we know nothing about. Your conclusion that because religions are "human entities, they are "pretty much quaranteed to be wrong about God," would seem to confirm the point.
Christianity, for one, does not accept such a radical unknowability. Its belief that God was revealed in Jesus Christ is central to its understanding of the creator.
Charles Wesley asked a question similar to yours:
'With glorious clouds encompassed round/ Whom angels dimly see/ Will the unsearchable be found/Or God appear to me?'
and answered it:
'Didst thou not in our flesh appear/And live and die below/That I might now perceive thee near/And my redeemer know?'
The incarnation means that Christians claim to know something about the essential nature of God- a knowlege that is often uncomfortable because it raises difficult questions as to how they should live and what they should do.
Other religions make similar claims to divine revelation.
It seems to me the question "Why aren't you a Muslim?" is whether or not all religions have a mutual understanding of the nature of God. If they do have such a commonality then one's choice of religion is of little practical relevance. If there are essential differences then they have important consequences not only the nature of worship, but for approaches to defining and resolving the social, economic, and political problems that confront our world. In which case the decision to be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Animist or whatever is important because their adherents worship different Gods.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Kwesi asked:
quote:
Golden Key: A clever answer, but doesn't it beg the question? How can a God be the same God if understandings of his nature are incompatible?
My favorite explanation:
The Blind Men and the Elephant
OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
the decision to be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Animist or whatever is important because their adherents worship different Gods.
I think I agree with you completely until you come to this conclusion, which looks like a non-sequitur, at least as regards monotheists.
If we believe that our God is the only deity who exists, then how can we claim that anyone else praying to the only deity who exists is praying to a different god?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
In which case the decision to be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Animist or whatever is important because their adherents worship different Gods.
So by saying a different thing about God, we can create a new God? Do Christians and Jews not worship the same God? If you can show that they don't, I'll be seriously impressed. If you concede that they do, I'll naturally apply the same argument to Muslims and Jews.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Seems to me that anyone who believes in the existence of one God holds in their mind a mental image of Him.
These mental images differ. In some cases two people's images are clearly contrary - both cannot be true. In other cases, the differences are merely ones of emphasis. But I don't see a hard-and-fast line between the two cases - it's a matter of degree.
"Worshipping God" does not require one's mental image of Him to be perfectly accurate - if it did He probably wouldn't have any worshippers at all.
When we speak of the object of worship, we either mean the mental image or we mean the reality.
If you words one way, to mean the reality, and believe that the reality is that there is one God, then there isn't anyone else to worship - everyone who worships worships Him.
If you use words the other way, to mean the mental image, then we all worship our own mental image. And sometimes God is gracious enough to respond, to choose to take our prayer as addressed to Him.
Those who want to say that they worship the real God and their neighbour worships an imaginary God are misusing the language. All they're really saying is that they think their mental image is a more accurate one than their neighbour's.
God may, of course, choose to reject the worship of those whose mental image isn't accurate enough (however unBiblical a concept that may be). But that doesn't mean that they're not worshipping Him.
Sorry If I'm labour the point - it just seems to me such a non-issue based on sloppy language.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Those who want to say that they worship the real God and their neighbour worships an imaginary God are misusing the language. All they're really saying is that they think their mental image is a more accurate one than their neighbour's.
Or worse, they think their mental image is completely accurate, and anyone who 'worships' a different image is quite literally talking to themselves - God doesn't even hear them.
Of course, when you consider the mental image most such people have of God this isn't surprising...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Is the God of the Jews different from the God of Christians, Islamists etc? (see Teufelchen 25th Oct)
Does God ignore or reject the worship of non-Christians (or non-Jews or non-Islamists etc…..? (see Alogon 20th Oct)
Is the theological dispute between different religions over the nature of God that of blind men describing the elephant? (see OliviaG 24th Oct)
1. It seems to me that the questions hinge on what is the essential nature of God and can it be known. For Christians the essential nature of God is revealed in Jesus Christ, and that nature and name is Love. Christians might also, after Paul, accept that “we see through a glass darkly.” I would, therefore, suggest to Russ (25th Oct)that differences between Christianity and other beliefs of (a) kind and (b) emphasis can be distinguished.
2. The God revealed in Jesus Christ can be distinguished from the God of the Hebrews in several fundamental ways. For the most part the God of the OT is racially partial: he favours the Israelites, despoils the Egyptians, strips the Philistines etc. of their traditional lands, urges genocide, tells Jews to abandon their foreign wives and children, and regards non-Jews as unclean. Gentiles who become ‘Jews’ are given a second class status. Remarkably for a monotheistic religion, Judaism is not interested in proselytising, presumably because their God is not interested in Gentiles. The modern manifestation of this God is to be found on the West Bank. I wonder how Palestinian Christians would react to being told they worship the same God as the Jews?
Do I need to elaborate on the God revealed in Christ: ‘new wine and old bottles’, ‘it was said aforetime….but I say unto you’, the commission to ‘make disciples of all nations,’ and the whole thrust of Luke in his Gospel and Acts where the Holy Spirit fell promiscuously on Jews and Gentiles, Male and Female, Bond and Free?
I would contend that the differences between the Old and New Testaments are more than matters of emphasis- there is a radical disjuncture. The New Testament was not a seamless continuation of Judaism, and problems arise when Christians seek to make it so. Narrow Christian sectarianism, frequently allied to a harsh social ethic, relies heavily on OT texts, not to mention the OT racism of the Boers in SA and settlers elsewhere.
That having been said, I recognise that there is a leitmotif in the OT, represented particularly by Jonah, that anticipates the fulfilment of the New Testament. To that extent we are in the area of emphasis. The writer of Jonah worships a God that Christians should recognise- though not, unfortunately, the ‘shock and awe’ brigade of Bush and Blair. If it is thought I thereby concede the case that Jews and Christians worship the same God, it should be noted that Jonah was written as a challenge to Jewish religious orthodoxy.
3. On the question of the acceptability of worship, it seems to me the Christian God can only respond to worship and prayers that are compatible with his nature. It follows that the prayers of non-professing Christians addressed to a God of Love are acceptable, and those of Christians that assume a different nature are unacceptable because they expect Him to act in a manner contrary to his essence. Similar remarks might be applied to actions.
4. I’m not really concerned as to whether Jews, Muslims and Christians worship the same God in some sort of ultimate sense, but rather to insist that all religious belief and worship does not inevitably lead to(the same) God. I want to assert that some of these insights, including some Christian ideas, are grossly defective. My pitch is to focus on the uniqueness of Christ in revealing to us a God of Love, who is the father of all and cares for all his children. It is against that Love that all our theological agreements and differences are measured.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
4. I’m not really concerned as to whether Jews, Muslims and Christians worship the same God in some sort of ultimate sense, but rather to insist that all religious belief and worship does not inevitably lead to(the same) God. I want to assert that some of these insights, including some Christian ideas, are grossly defective. My pitch is to focus on the uniqueness of Christ in revealing to us a God of Love, who is the father of all and cares for all his children. It is against that Love that all our theological agreements and differences are measured.
Kwesi, you've said a lot that's controversial, and I'm sure others more able than I will be drawing you up on your views on Judaism. I've selected the above paragraph, though, because I agree with it fairly strongly. I hope I've never come across as saying that all religious worship inevitably leads to the same God. My position is that I can't believe in more than one god, so I see all religion as being either directed at that one God, or not really directed at God at all. However, I think that in our limited mortal capacity, we're not qualified to judge how well a given religion approaches God. As Christians we believe in God as the God of Love revealed in Jesus Christ. But I'm not going to say that religions which depict God in different ways are not depicting the God of Love at all. Nor will I pretend that our view of God, even though lively and sincere, is ever able (in this life) to be complete. The other faiths may very well be right about God in ways which we can't readily grasp. Simply comparing texts or images and saying 'Our view does X and yours doesn't, so ours is right' is to miss the complexity of the situation.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Teufelchen: As Christians we believe in God as the God of Love revealed in Jesus Christ. But I'm not going to say that religions which depict God in different ways are not depicting the God of Love at all. Nor will I pretend that our view of God, even though lively and sincere, is ever able (in this life) to be complete. The other faiths may very well be right about God in ways which we can't readily grasp.
Dear Teufelchen, thank you for your measured and thoughful reply. I apologise for any misrepresentation of your position; and I would not wish to dissociate myself form the remarks quoted above.
Moreover, as I suggested earlier, my own belief is that there is more than one Old Testament, and that God has spoken to ancestors other than those of Abraham. Indeed, there are those who explain the spread of Christianity south of the Sahara in terms of its engagement with idea of God known to primal religions. Christ is seen as fulfilment.It may well be, too, that a richer understanding of the gospel will come from theologians coming to Christianity from and with a knowledge of these cultural backgrounds. (Note the work of Professor Kwame Bediako of the Akrofi-Christaller Centre, Akropong-Akuapem, Ghana).
I would agree on reflection that my description of Judaism is too limited- though I would not wish to dissociate myself from those remarks until persuaded otherwise. Clearly, the social teaching of the prophets has contributed hugely to Christian notions of social justice and so on, and the servant passages of Isaiah are sentiments which we share.
Part of my reason for wishing to draw a distinction between Judaism, Christianity and Islam is that the integrity of those who hold each of those separate positions should not be compromised by the suggestion they are all the same really. Indeed, as I indicated earlier, i believe that engagement with other religions holds the virtual certainty that they will enrich the understanding of our own.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
In a nutshell,
because Jesus died for me, Mohammed didn't
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
In a nutshell,
because Jesus died for me, Mohammed didn't
But a Muslim would say that he was a Muslim because Mohammed brought the final message (Qu'ran) from God, and Isa (Jesus) didn't, great though he was. Your reply begs the question of why you have chosen to believe one set of statements about God rather than another.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
I see your point, Teufelchen, but I disagree with the conclusion. Jesus proclaimed the proximity of Kingdom of God and salvation, which would be the ultimate message from a Christian point of view. The difference is that He died for that message, whereas Mohammed didn't. I think the moral authority is therefore on the side of Jesus, and the basis for my choice.
A comparison of the messages is another debate, but that is no longer goes in a nutshell.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Jesus proclaimed the proximity of Kingdom of God and salvation, which would be the ultimate message from a Christian point of view. The difference is that He died for that message, whereas Mohammed didn't. I think the moral authority is therefore on the side of Jesus...
Th idea that dying for something lends moral authority to it is often asserted by Christians (or by people trying to lend moral authority to an immoral war, or by...). Am I the only one who finds this notion absurd? When we consider all the thngs that people have died for -- including things that people died en mass for, most of these things are morally repugnant. Do we embrace the moral virtue of Naziism or Communism because so many people were willing to die for them? Do we embrace the Mongol hordes?
Folks have been dying for stupid things for as long as there have been folks. If you say, "but this person was God," you hardly add to the virtue of His position by saying that He died for His beliefs. Once you acknowledge the divinity of Christ, the game os over. Without acknowledging that divinity, the death is just a routine event.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
I see your point, Teufelchen, but I disagree with the conclusion. Jesus proclaimed the proximity of Kingdom of God and salvation, which would be the ultimate message from a Christian point of view. The difference is that He died for that message, whereas Mohammed didn't. I think the moral authority is therefore on the side of Jesus, and the basis for my choice.
A comparison of the messages is another debate, but that is no longer goes in a nutshell.
Tclune has already made a good point about this argument. Like him, I also find it absurd and reject it. But with a view to highlighting how a theoretical Muslim (rather than a Christian liberal) might respond, here's the counter-argument:
"You say that Isa died for the message which he brought. Now I agree that he was willing to die for his message, but the Qu'ran teaches that those who thought they killed him were deceived by God, who had mercy on his servant Isa. And the message for which he would have died was that of Islam, which is perfect Submission to the will of Almighty God. As your own scripture says, he was obedient unto death."
This argument is dependent on the acceptance of Qu'ranic authority in the same way that yours is on that of the Bible.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I'd alter the original statement -- Jesus didn't die for his message, he died and rose for me -- to bring salvation to me and all others. (I suspec that is what was actually meant by the original.)
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I'd alter the original statement -- Jesus didn't die for his message, he died and rose for me -- to bring salvation to me and all others. (I suspec that is what was actually meant by the original.)
John
But you believe this because you are a Christian. If you were a Muslim, you would instead believe that the Qu'ran was given to enlighten mankind and djinn about the mercy and judgement of God. You would believe in the hope of salvation as God will be more merciful and yet more just than we can know, rather than through atoning sacrifice.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I'd alter the original statement -- Jesus didn't die for his message, he died and rose for me -- to bring salvation to me and all others. (I suspec that is what was actually meant by the original.)
John
But you believe this because you are a Christian. If you were a Muslim, you would instead believe that the Qu'ran was given to enlighten mankind and djinn about the mercy and judgement of God. You would believe in the hope of salvation as God will be more merciful and yet more just than we can know, rather than through atoning sacrifice.
T.
Or maybe not. Otherwise there would be no converts from Islam to Christianity. Ever read, "I dared to call him, Father" by Bilquis Sheikh?
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
If you were a Muslim, you would instead believe that the Qu'ran was given to enlighten mankind and djinn about the mercy and judgement of God. You would believe in the hope of salvation as God will be more merciful and yet more just than we can know, rather than through atoning sacrifice.
T.
Or maybe not. Otherwise there would be no converts from Islam to Christianity. Ever read, "I dared to call him, Father" by Bilquis Sheikh?
I haven't read that book, no.
Obviously people's beliefs and opinions can change. What I'm trying to say is that I find it very unsatisfying to read so many responses here which essentially say:
'I'm a Christian because I believe in Christ.'
I think the OP was seeking explanations, not tautologies. My point is that someone who believes the tenets of Islam would not agree with the positions our fellow-posters find so self-evident. I want to understand how people came to believe Christianity's set of beliefs rather than Islam's.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
I agree with you. Maybe it is hard for some people to understand that you (general sense)actually arrived at your decision based on a lot of thought, time, effort, and research.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitelaughter
Shipmate
# 10611
|
Posted
I'm not a Muslim for different reasons, depending on the state I'm in.
When I'm doubting my own beliefs, I tend to drop back to the following - either this world is all there is, or it isn't. If it is, then I want to encourage a belief system that makes the world a better place. The best places on the planet at the moment are Western Democracies- built on a mixture of agnosticism, Judaism & Christianity. The attempts to have a Western society without religion have been disasters - the Soviet bloc, Fascism, Norfolk Is, the French Terror.
If this world isn't everything - then nothing changes. A place full of Salvation Army officers will be Heavenly, no matter what it's called. A place full of Muslims will be Hellish. Would you be willing to spend eternity in Saudi Arabia?
When I'm kicking back, I value my friends - and ask myself whose friendship I value. Jesus died for me. Not 'might have', did. You could argue that he was mistaken, and his death was unnecessary, but he clearly didn't think so: he did what he thought was necessary to save us. That's someone I want as a friend. Mohammad spends an entire chapter of the Koran going on about how he expects to be treated. (yes, I've read it in full). If the society matrons want him, they can have him - I wouldn't invite him into my home, much less let him influence my life.
When I'm in full worship mode, I'm alive with the fire of love - and when I'm coming down off that high, I'm at my most determined to resolve any arguments, break my irritating habits and make people's lives better. If I'd been born a Muslim (and this is based on my knowledge of my own personality) I'd be making a commitment to blow other people up. Not surprisingly, I don't miss that.
Oh, and on Christianity being second to Islam on the terror stakes - hah. Who are you comparing either religion to? The obvious candidate for horror would be atheism: responsible for both the Nazis(granted they dabbled with Paganism) and Marxism. I've a lot more time for Islam than for atheism!
God Bless...
Posts: 114 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Maybe it is hard for some people to understand that you (general sense)actually arrived at your decision based on a lot of thought, time, effort, and research.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Thank you. It seems to me that if one's belief in Christianity can be completely explained by where and when one was born, then it's at very least a good argument for examining it. (In such a situation I can't say re-examining it, by definition.) One might decide that Christianity really is true then, or not, but at least one will have thought about it.
Obviously if one believes one has a relationship with Christ, and not just an assent to doctrines, the nature of that examination may be different -- but still, I think, making sure one is not just passively absorbing whatever culture one has been born into is really important.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
If this world isn't everything - then nothing changes. A place full of Salvation Army officers will be Heavenly, no matter what it's called. A place full of Muslims will be Hellish. Would you be willing to spend eternity in Saudi Arabia?
Blink
**Automatically** heavenly, and **automatically** hellish?
Salvation Army folks are still human beings, as are Muslims. So each one is going to be a mixed bag, and some easier to be around than others.
I've never known any Salv. Army folks, other than meeting bell-ringers, and I've been acquainted with some nice Muslims.
I wouldn't like eternity in Saudi Arabia because of the weather.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.F. Steve
Shipmate
# 9057
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
If this world isn't everything - then nothing changes. A place full of Salvation Army officers will be Heavenly, no matter what it's called. A place full of Muslims will be Hellish. Would you be willing to spend eternity in Saudi Arabia?
Blink
**Automatically** heavenly, and **automatically** hellish?
Salvation Army folks are still human beings, as are Muslims. So each one is going to be a mixed bag, and some easier to be around than others.
I've never known any Salv. Army folks, other than meeting bell-ringers, and I've been acquainted with some nice Muslims.
I wouldn't like eternity in Saudi Arabia because of the weather.
Um, I think those bell-ringers are usually just volunteers from various groups. Is the Salvation Army a church-type group as well? I always thought those bell-ringers were supporting their larger operation, thrift stores, in support of the homeless.
--------------------
Lived in FL, TX, NE, CA... I'm now immune to culture shock.
Posts: 1187 | From: Central CA Coast | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Yes, the ringers are usually volunteers, and SA is a church-type group. It's a Protestant religious order--it just uses military terminology rather than "sister/brother".
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitelaughter
Shipmate
# 10611
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
[/qb]
AFAIK, most religions have a moral and ethical core, and encourage you to help others.
See Shared Belief In The "Golden Rule"--ReligiousTolerance.org. Note the quotes from various faiths. [/QB][/QUOTE]
There are exceptions - the Golden Rule doesn't exist in the Australian Aboriginal tribes, for example.
And given that most of the examples given are from societies on the old Silk Route or from religions which are very new, I suspect that the Golden Rule is a meme rather than an instinctive belief.
Posts: 114 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitelaughter
Shipmate
# 10611
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
**Automatically** heavenly, and **automatically** hellish?
Salvation Army folks are still human beings, as are Muslims. So each one is going to be a mixed bag, and some easier to be around than others.
I've never known any Salv. Army folks, other than meeting bell-ringers, and I've been acquainted with some nice Muslims. [/QB]
I didn't use the word "automatically" - but what the hey: yes.
Part of human nature is to adapt your actions (and even thoughts) to those around you. If you are surrounded by good people, you'll be a better person.
The reverse is also true.
Pity you don't know any Salvos; great people, which is why I used them as an example despite not being one.
A question for your "nice Muslims":
What would they do if one of their relatives converted to a non-Muslim faith and it was clear they would not return to Islam?
Finally, there are some 50 odd Islamic nations on the planet - if there is no difference between the believers of different faiths, why are their nations all so horrible?
Posts: 114 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
Is the Salvation Army a church-type group as well? I always thought those bell-ringers were supporting their larger operation, thrift stores, in support of the homeless.
Don't know about the bellringing, but here in the UK the Sally Army (do the women still wear those daft hats?) have a great tradition of doing what very few other people want to do - they provide refuge and care for the homeless. And yes, they are a church-type group - a whole Christian denomination in themselves. They used to be well known for visiting pubs (bars) and asking for cash from punters. I don't remember ever seeing anyone not giving to them. Though they wore daft hats, they were always well respected for the work they did. I haven't seen them around the pubs for a few years now. They would probably get beaten up by binge drinkers.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
