|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religion of Jesus, or religion about Jesus?
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But either way that wasn't the question we got to for the last few pages.
The question we got to was whether the error in question is an error of a false revelation about God, or a revelation about a false God.
If you're a monotheist among monotheists, there are no false Gods. There are only false ideas about the true God.
"False gods" is a polytheist way of looking at it, terminology which a monotheist might use in a polytheist culture to make the point that only one of them is real.
So yes, applied to Jews and Muslims the distinction is philosophically incoherent.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
That is exactly how I think of it.
Any rule that describes grounds for calling a particular monotheistic view a "False God" is necessarily going to need arbitrary application and will throw up logical inconsistencies for that very reason.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I came across this today.
Ban on the use of the word Allah by Christians
This suggests that Muslims themselves believe Allah is their god and not ours.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, it only suggests that SOME Muslims believe that Allah is their god and not ours.
In the same way that some Christians believe that God is our God and not theirs.
It's readily been acknowledged somewhere upthread that some Muslims hold this view.
Others don't.
Those I've met seem to regard 'our' God and 'their' God as one and the same - only approached and understood/worshipped differently.
I don't know how representative that is.
I suspect there are a range of views - just as there are within Christianity and on these Boards.
Someone could see one of your posts, say, or my posts and think that the views expressed were representative of Christianity as a whole, when in fact they might not be.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm at a loss to understand why a view that Christianity is true and that we worship the True and Liviing God - which I fully accept ... hallelujah ... necessitates some kind of value judgement on whether the 'god' that others are reaching out for - however imperfectly - is somehow God or not.
The Apostle Paul didn't seem as squeamish as that when dealing with the Athenians.
I'd have thought the 'safest' option when dealing with Muslims or anyone else wouldn't be to speculate about the 'identity' of the deity they worship - these things are beyond the reach of speculation ultimately - but to simply treat them with respect and testify to what we believe and have found to be the case ...
'There might be many gods and many lords, but for us there is but One God the Father ... and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we exist through him ...' (1 Cor. 8:5-6, my slight paraphrase).
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I came across this today.
Ban on the use of the word Allah by Christians
This suggests that Muslims themselves believe Allah is their god and not ours.
No, it suggests that some of them think about God in exactly the same way you think about YHWH: that God is defined by a specific linguistic signifier.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, it only suggests that SOME Muslims believe that Allah is their god and not ours.
No, it means that an entire country believes this as far as legality is concerned.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Gamaliel--
I've always found that verse about "whatever other gods there may be" fascinating. Is it simply a matter of Paul not wanting to get distracted by arguments; or an acknowledgment that there might be various kinds of beings that we label "gods"; or had Paul seen or heard of indications that they might actually exist?
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, it only suggests that SOME Muslims believe that Allah is their god and not ours.
No, it means that an entire country believes this as far as legality is concerned.
It is nonsense to talk in terms of laws expressing what a country believes, still more nonsense to attempt to argue this means "believe" in the sense of religious belief.
And for the nth time, how people refer to God (signifier) is not the same as the essential nature of the referent (God himself), despite silly and most probably vote-grabbing legislation in non-Arabic-speaking countries.
My future son-in-law is an Arabic-speaking Christian. The word for God in his native language is Allah. Are you alleging this makes him a Muslim?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gamaliel--
I've always found that verse about "whatever other gods there may be" fascinating. Is it simply a matter of Paul not wanting to get distracted by arguments; or an acknowledgment that there might be various kinds of beings that we label "gods"; or had Paul seen or heard of indications that they might actually exist?
I'd go with the first two options.
I know there's a lot of debate as to when the Jews actually became fully monotheistic ... but I can't see any indication that a belief in the existence of other gods would have persisted until the time of the apostle Paul.
Of course, the Jews and early Christians were operating in a context where beliefs in a whole panoply of deities existed and were sanctioned by the Roman state.
The Jews used to get some stick for being monotheists.
At any rate - intriguing as it might be, the linguistic issue that Eutychus is drawing attention to is the moot point in this discussion, I think.
Reading through some of the exchanges I've come to the conclusion that some contributors would benefit from a basic linguistic course of some kind.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My future son-in-law is an Arabic-speaking Christian. The word for God in his native language is Allah. Are you alleging this makes him a Muslim?
No, but I think you need to ask yourself why exactly the Malaysian Muslims don't want a Christian to use the name Allah in respect of the Christian God.
What is their reasoning?
[Duplicate Post Deleted]
[ 23. January 2015, 17:49: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think the 'to the unknown God' thing is a bit of a red herring. This was not a god they worshipped consciously or purposefully; this was an altar raised out of superstition and the fear that they had 'left one out'.
Paul used their misconception to tell them that the god they did not know was actually THE God of the universe. They knew all the other idols but had failed to realise that the one true God was just a shadowy superstition to them.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
One could ask you a similar question in reverse, Mudfrog ...
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, but I think you need to ask yourself why exactly the Malaysian Muslims don't want a Christian to use the name Allah in respect of the Christian God.
What is their reasoning?
I would assume that their reasoning is similar to yours, but only in reverse.
Both these Muslims and your good self are attempting to put clear water between their own beliefs and other people's.
By insisting that the Christian God isn't God at all but some kind of figment of the Christian theological imagination, they hope to affirm the uniqueness of Islam.
Similarly, it appears to me that you are seeking to defend or assert the uniqueness of the Christian revelation by dismissing any possibility that the God the Muslims are worshipping - however imperfectly from a Christian POV - is anything other than a figment of the Islamic theological imagination.
Can you not see the similarities?
I submit that your position is actually closer to theirs than you might be comfortable to acknowledge ie. these are both fundamentalist points of view.
However, on the other hand, you might be entirely happy to acknowledge the parallels and similarities. In which case I wish you well but find myself unable to agree with you.
I believe it's perfectly possible to believe in Christ as God's ultimate, perfect and unique revelation of Himself without having to posit that any other attempts to reach out to him - imperfect or inadequate as they might be - imply that such people aren't reaching out for God at all.
I really don't see the problem and why you are insisting that there is one.
Nor do I see the 'to an Unknown God' incident as a red-herring. It is entirely pertinent. Sure, the details are different but the principle is surely similar?
I don't understand why you are insisting on such a dualistic world-view. It's perfectly possible to defend the uniqueness of the Christian revelation without resorting to such a thing.
[code]
[ 23. January 2015, 14:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
However we read the incident with the idol to an 'Unknown God', I think we'd all agree that it is an example of an excellent missiological principle.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the 'to the unknown God' thing is a bit of a red herring. This was not a god they worshipped consciously or purposefully; this was an altar raised out of superstition and the fear that they had 'left one out'.
Paul used their misconception to tell them that the god they did not know was actually THE God of the universe. They knew all the other idols but had failed to realise that the one true God was just a shadowy superstition to them.
Well ... yes, he didn't pick the idol of Zeus or Hermes out, for instance and say, 'Well, Zeus or Hermes have this, that and the other attributes and we can see those too more supremely exemplified in Christ ... etc etc ...'
I do find myself wondering what he would have said if the 'Unknown God' inscription hadn't presented him with such a golden opportunity ...
The point is, he didn't seek to dismiss or disrespect their beliefs, he found something he could use to lever some light into the situation.
It doesn't really matter what the Athenians motives were, superstition, fear of having left one out or whatever else - what matters is that the Apostle Paul was able to use it to point to a more excellent way and to the True and Living God.
If there are any red herrings here it's the attempts to make value judgements about other people's conceptions about the divine and their motives or state of mind. As the Americans would say, that's outside of our pay grade.
As the Apostle Paul didn't encounter any Muslims because they didn't exist at that time, we have no way of knowing what he would or wouldn't have said to them.
Of course, the Church was still around when Islam emerged - and suffered from it in terms of warfare and conquest and so on ... but from what I can gather some contemporary Christian writers at that time seemed to regard Islam as some kind of heresy rather than a completely different religion - although others certainly thought of it as devilish and completely 'alien'.
I suspect the mileage varied then as now.
Ultimately, I think the whole question lies in the realm of speculation - which isn't to say that it's not worth discussing - simply that it doesn't seem capable of any resolution to me ... these are issues of faith and not 'scientific' enquiry.
Which is what I was driving at with the Pauline quote about, 'there might be many gods and many lords - but for us ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think you need to ask yourself why exactly the Malaysian Muslims don't want a Christian to use the name Allah in respect of the Christian God.
What is their reasoning?
I would put it a little differently to Gamaliel: their reasoning (of some Malaysian Muslims) is exactly the same as yours. They want to own God, and more especially claim a monopoly on God as they understand him.
Because of how Islam is structured, they associate God with a specific language, which is why they insist on calling God Allah, in much the same way that you claim there is something intrinsically divinely special about the YHWH tetragrammaton that only Hebrew can communicate.
My problems with this are:
a) it's stupid for anybody, including Christians, to attempt to own or claim a monopoly on God.
b) it's stupid to confuse the signifier with the referent
c) you repeatedly attempt to caricature all Muslim piety as being to a false god, whilst simultaneously invoking near-identical arguments to claim a Christian monopoly on God. This mentality is the sort of thing that gives rise to religious wars.
I believe that Islam is misguided and that Christianity has a better handle on the revelation of God, but to write off everyone else's approaches to God is 1) hugely judgemental 2) unbiblical 3) perilous (because it amounts to being wise in your own eyes).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
To cut to the chase, perhaps I can repeat a question I asked you three weeks ago here:
quote:
Mudfrog, do you view Muslims by definition as modern-day Baal-worshippers?
I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate, should you so wish, that you don't.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To cut to the chase, perhaps I can repeat a question I asked you three weeks ago here:
quote:
Mudfrog, do you view Muslims by definition as modern-day Baal-worshippers?
I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate, should you so wish, that you don't.
Yes, in that the sense that the question to the prophets of Baal - if the Lord is God or if Baal is God - suggests that only one of them could be God; I therefore would say that all those who are monotheists from the worshippers of the Aten right through to Allah - are worshipping a god of different character, intent, essence and salvation-provision than YHWH.
The gods of the nations are no gods at all.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, that's clear enough I suppose.
I met an inmate at the prison yesterday who I could describe as a "seeker" from a Christian background, lots of questions and concern about getting in with the wrong company in jail. He had just managed to arrange a cell transfer to be with a Muslim with whom he gets on well, each respects the other's religious convictions and he figures he will be a lot better off with him than anyone else.
I think this is a smart move and a moving demonstration of trust on his part at a time when Islamic radicalisation in prisons is all over the news here.
It seems to me that you are more likely to view the new cellmate as a potential jihadist and by your own admission, you think he is worshipping an idol, presumably with a demon crouching behind it.
Did my "seeker" friend do the wrong thing?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems to me that you are more likely to view the new cellmate as a potential jihadist and by your own admission, you think he is worshipping an idol, presumably with a demon crouching behind it.
I'm actually slightly offended by your caricature of my belief and my assumed attitude towards individual Muslim people.
I certainly do NOT assume that any Muslim might be a jihadist!
And no, I do not believe that there is a demon crouching behind the Allah that he may worship.
If you have read CS Lewis' The Last Battle, you will find there a basic attitude towards the adherents of different faiths - hardly concleaded by Lewis as Muslims - and that whilst I believe they are following a god (Tash/Allah) that is not the true god (Aslan/God in Christ), I also believe that faithful followers of any religion will be given credit for their love and fidelity to the god of their culture and upbringing where the truth is not fully available to them.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure the comparison of Allah with a demonic god demanding human sacrifices is not what C. S. Lewis intended, and it's pretty damn offensive to boot. There is no meaningful connection between the Calormene religion and Islam, except that the culture has a generic "oriental", quasi-Persian, tone to it. As Lewis was a classicist it seems far more likely that this culture was inspired by 1001 Nights than by anything to do with Islam.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I was really making no comment on the character of Tash and its relation to Allah; I was indeed thinking of the cultural identity of the Calormene's but if that is a stumbling block in my argument then I would withdraw it.
My point, however, still stands. Tash is not the true God and is not a misunderstood or dimly-seen version of Aslan.
They are 2 separate and distinct beings and only Aslan is worthy of honour.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Are you saying that Allah is a distinct being in some way - in the way that Tash was in some way a different being to Aslan? If so, I refer you to Russ's very sensible post at the top of this page of this thread.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mudfrog, how does your view in any way commend or adorn the Gospel?
Well, first of all you have ignored what I said about the sincere adherents of other faiths being graciously accepted where they have heard incompletely or incorrectly.
Secondly, the Gospel is nothing if not Christ centred and cross-focussed.
Thirdly, there is no Gospel outside the context of Mosaic covenant and Christ's fulfilment of that as a remedy for universal sin through him being the incarnation of YHWH, the only begotten Son and the only atoning and risen sacrifice.
So by affirming that YHWH our God is One (and alone), that we must have no other gods but him, and that we must love YHWH our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength and love our neighbour as ourselves, then that is commending the Gospel and honouring Christ.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Are you saying that Allah is a distinct being in some way - in the way that Tash was in some way a different being to Aslan? If so, I refer you to Russ's very sensible post at the top of this page of this thread.
That is exactly what I am saying.
Allah has a very different character, identity and essence to the God who revealed himself to, and made specific covenants with, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses; who spoke through the prophets and then was incarnate in Jesus.
If you are saying that Allah is the same god then maybe you might want to consider that the god who revealed himself to Moses was the Aten as well (something I read recently).
Not all 'One Gods' can be the one God - especially if they look, sound and behave differently in subsequent revelations to how they did previously.
eg. how can God make a covenant with Isaac and then Jacob/Israel and then lead Moses, granting him the covenant of the promised Land; reveal himself in Christ, attest to Christ's divine Sonship, make an atonement through Christ crucified and risen and then that same God 600 uears later deny the covenant with Isaac, Jacob and Moses, deny the divine name of YHWH, deny his incarnation, deny the crucifixion and disown his beloved Son in whom he had once been 'well pleased'?
How is that the same god?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Isn't the god[s] of the Bible pretty inconsistent as well?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Mudfrog:
So you think that all Muslims are in essence Baal-worshippers but some of them might be alright in the end?
And that despite Paul suggesting in 1 Cor 10:20 that behind every idol lurks a demon, there is no demon crouching behind Allah/Baal?
I'm confused.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok you accept that grace can be extended to adherents of other faiths.
But what about Russ's point about polytheism or Eutychus's linguistic point? You haven't dealt with either of those. Neither of them are suggesting that there is another Gospel or revelation. Nor am I
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Are you saying that Allah is a distinct being in some way - in the way that Tash was in some way a different being to Aslan? If so, I refer you to Russ's very sensible post at the top of this page of this thread.
That is exactly what I am saying.
Allah has a very different character, identity and essence to the God who revealed himself to, and made specific covenants with, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses
People keep saying this. I can't see it myself. Is there anything about Allah's character that at least one group of Christians wouldn't agree was true of God? (I mean, character, not actions.)
Allah's character, for instance, is merciful and compassionate. Is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob not merciful and compassionate?
The difference in soteriology between Christianity and Islam depends upon the respective doctrines of sin and humanity.
Identity and essence is question-begging.
quote:
eg. how can God make a covenant with Isaac and then Jacob/Israel and then lead Moses, granting him the covenant of the promised Land; reveal himself in Christ, attest to Christ's divine Sonship, make an atonement through Christ crucified and risen and then that same God 600 uears later deny the covenant with Isaac, Jacob and Moses, deny the divine name of YHWH, deny his incarnation, deny the crucifixion and disown his beloved Son in whom he had once been 'well pleased'?
How is that the same god?
That's a wife-beating question. The obvious answer (from a Christian point of view (*)) is that no god denied the divine name of YHWH. And if Mohammed thought God did, Mohammed was mistaken about God.
The God Muslims call Allah created the heavens and the earth according to Muslims. Are you saying that some God other than the father of our Lord Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth?
Assuming Christianity is true(*) you have to claim Muslims are mistaken about Allah in some way. Given the charitable assumption about where they're mistaken and the uncharitable assumption why go with the uncharitable assumption about where they're mistaken?
(*) there's always one atheist or Buddhist or generic theist who comes along at this point...
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
THE difference is, that the only God Christians can know, but very mainly don't, is free of redemptive violence in ALL its forms.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
eg. how can God make a covenant with Isaac and then Jacob/Israel and then lead Moses, granting him the covenant of the promised Land; reveal himself in Christ, attest to Christ's divine Sonship, make an atonement through Christ crucified and risen and then that same God 600 uears later deny the covenant with Isaac, Jacob and Moses, deny the divine name of YHWH, deny his incarnation, deny the crucifixion and disown his beloved Son in whom he had once been 'well pleased'?
How is that the same god?
The same way that the God of the Jews is the same God, yet they deny Christ.
Many Christians would say that the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, et al was fulfilled in Christ ("This cup is the new covenant in my blood") and no longer relevant. Do they then worship a false/different God?
And is it so difficult to imagine that 600 years later a large group of people is deceived into believing that God was changing things up again? Same God, new covenant?
You have to understand that the basic narrative within Islam concerning the Judeo-Christian scriptures is that they were altered/corrupted and what they currently say is not what they originally said: thus necessitating the Koran.
And again, if the true definition of the one, true God is so Christ-centered, then why are you so favorable towards a religion that largely despises Christ and so antagonistic towards a religion that loves and adores him as a prophet of Allah?
The cognitive dissonance is staggering.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As is the level of reductionism and the apparent inability to recognise that one's concept of God may or may not be congruent with God as he is nor to deal witth the very basic linguistic issues that Eutychus has raised.
None of us here believe that God changed his mind 600 years after the Incarnation and inaugurated another covenant. We all believe the Muslims got the wrong end of the stick there - otherwise we would be Muslims not Christians.
I still don't see how a wrong concept of what God has done in Christ tells us other than that some people, sadly, have a wrong concept of what God did in Christ. The rest is speculation.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Mudfrog, my God is different to yours and all our Gods are different to God.
And your point is?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure I expresssed myself as clearly as I should have done in my challenge to Mudfrog about whether his view - or attitude perhaps - commended or adorned the Gospel.
I wasn't suggesting that the Gospel was anything other than Christ-centred and cross-centred ... rather I had in mind the point that Dafyd has articulated so clearly ...
Namely, how does adopting the least charitable conclusion rather than choosing a more charitable one fit with the 'love believes all things' aspect we read about in 1 Corinthians 13?
What do we actually gain by adopting the least charitable conclusion?
What do we actually lose by adopting the most charitable slant?
It strikes me that we can have a Christ-centred, cross-centred Gospel without having to believe the worst about everyone else.
As Russ and Mdijon have elucidated upthread, there's something philosophically awry if we're Monotheists and claim that other people's God or gods are somehow different 'beings'.
Either they don't actually exist or else their God is the One who does exist but they've got some misconceptions about him.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Mudfrog's view strikes me as unnecessarily reductionist and also less likely to lead to constructive dialogue and indeed missiological approaches.
I honestly can't see what he 'gains' by holding this kind of view - unless, as Eutychus has suggested, it's to reinforce his own faith - which surely isn't that weak that it needs this kind of reinforcement? - or to convince himself that he's got God all sussed and packaged in a nice neat box.
We none of us have, of course. God wouldn't be God is we could do so.
I'm prepared to take my own advice and believe the best in Mudfrog's case ... that he's adopted this kind of view out of a well-meaning intent to defend the Gospel ... by placing clear blue water between it and any other Monotheistic system.
Which is fine.
But there are other ways to do that without speculating who or what Muslims are praying to when they pray. If there is only One God then ultimately whoever is praying is going to be reaching out to him in some way - however flawed.
Whether those prayers 'reach' God or what he thinks about them isn't our remit to suggest or pontificate on. God is God. We aren't.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
