Christain God vs Muslim God
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
For those of us outside these three (Jewish-Christian-Islamic) traditions, there's not a whole lot of reason to think that.
Of course, we might need to consider the possibility that revelation itself is an idea that's kind of native to and derived from these three traditions. Certainly the Jewish 'historic' revelatory model, where revelations were supposedly made at actual times and places to specific people.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'm not sure who you are addressing. If it's me, my answer is, 'No, not really. I just skimmed over them'.
I'd written a response to something Quantum Quack had written, Spidergoat had responded to that, and I was replying to what Spidergoat wrote.
In the time interval between Spidergoat's post and my reply, you engaged Goat, addressing his reply to me, and took the conversation off on another tangent that's of interest to you. That's perfectly fine with me and I'm not complaining. I just wanted to express my views about Spidergoat's point before I turned my attention to considering your views about it.
What could the Quran say about Muslims, there weren't any Muslims at the time it was written!
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that kind of monotheistic vision is more humane than some of its alternatives.
But would any of the three religions that we are discussing (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) accept that idea?
Each of the three seems to place tremendous emphasis on their own particular revelatory package. It's what defines their tradition and basically defines who is inside it and outside it. And drawing a line distinguishing inside or outside is a very big deal to all three of them.
I get the impression that you are perhaps trying to craft a more tolerant and inclusive kind of generic monotheism of your own design. Maybe it's something like the 'Noachian covenant' that Jews and Muslims talk about. Just worship the three religions' common God and don't worry about revelations, at least beyond those in the first half of Genesis where the God to be worshipped is introduced.
But I'm not sure that real-life Christians would be all that comfortable with people shrugging off Christ and the salvation that he offers. Nor would actual Muslims be entirely happy about the idea of dhimmis rising above their second-class status and ruling over Muslims. And while Jews seem to have included goys in their idea of God's final Kingdom, the Jews still imagine themselves as God's Chosen priestly nation and God's Kingdom will apparently be ruled from Jerusalem.
This:
Is completely contradicted by this:
According to whom?
If you pledge allegiance to one party, then, during the time of that allegiance, you would be a traitor if you would align yourself with another party.
Huh. So why should the people who call themselves "Muslims" have the exclusive monopoly over the Koran, and why should the Koran be read exclusively in the manner by giving those "Muslims" monopoly over it?
Probably not.
Indeed.
Not really. I am interested in a more meaningful approach to religious diversity.
I desire to find a way to think, talk and act about religious diversity without all the insane double binds, psychological manipulation etc. that are otherwise the standard fare of religious diversity.
Certainly.
But do you see how in what you sketched out above, great consideration is shown for the Christians, Muslims and Jews, and none for us who are not members of these religions?
That won't do. We can't have respect for them at the cost of respect for ourselves.
And also, ideas like this -
testify of a hope that they (Jews, Christians, Muslims) would change - and then, there would be peace on earth.
Seeking to come up with such a theory of religious diversity that all religions would accept is, IMO, a futile endeavor.
I think that the modern multicultural, multireligious situation, along with education in world religions, is presenting religions as far more accessible than they actually are. This then tends to lead to many unwarranted assumptions and many unrealistic expectations - and conversely, disappointments.
I am in favor of consequent religious exclusivism; I think esp. non-members can benefit from practicing this attitude.
I think it helps to acknowledge the gaps between people - such as the gap between a Christian and a non-Christian - and make an effort not to assume too much familiarity. I think especially the non-Christian (esp. if he has no other religious affiliation) will benefit from that.
Because in a relationship between a Christian and a non-Christian, for example, the Christian will try to get the upper hand and lay the whole responsibility for the relationship on the non-Christian. Psychologically, this is a very damaging dynamic for the non-Christian, while the Christian considers it perfectly normal.
There can be no geuine friendship between people of different religions, at least not as long as one or both parties is being serious about their respective religion.
Nor can there be genuine friendship between a religious and a non-religious person.
Because people from Peru don't read Arabic.
Listening to a microphone wielding Christian evangelist yesterday as he tried to compete with two large groups of Hare Krishnas wielding similar sound systems, in his frustration he yelled in to the microphone repeatedly that it was only through Jesus that one could get to God. Of course the Krishnas were not having a bar of it, much to the amusement and some concern of a possible violent venting, by the peak hour city crowd passing through them.
[The H.Krishnas had obviosly planned to make a peacefull, but not silent, protest against the ranting of this particular Christian evengelist group]
Preaching a monopoly over "after-death" by using the "son of God" as a marketing extortion doesn't sit well with most fair minded persons and it is little wonder that those of Islamic background take great offense to this obvious religious marketing use of God and his prophet Jesus Christ.
To me it is merely preposterous but to those who have serious alternative religious views would, no doubt, consider this sort of message [ regardless of whether a right or wrong representation of Christianity] as being a direct offense to their own particular beliefs about the universality of God [ If God should exist at all ]
Possibly it is a lack of empathy on behalf of one group claiming that their particular passion for worship is not shared by others even if the subject of that worship is different to their own?
The issue is to me the claiming of a monopoly or exclusivity by one group over another, yet the God in question appears to be the SAME God... which to me simply reeks of egocentricism and power corruption.
One wonders though that if all those concerned seriously considered what the words "Universality of God" actually mean we might actualy see a more harmonious use of religious theosophy.
* the confrontation between both groups ended peacfully with police asking the evangelist to tone down his language of fire and brimstone with out Jesus [scaring the child witnesses ] and lower the volume of his amplified screaming.
[The H.Krishnas had obviosly planned to make a peacefull, but not silent, protest against the ranting of this particular Christian evengelist group]
Preaching a monopoly over "after-death" by using the "son of God" as a marketing extortion doesn't sit well with most fair minded persons and it is little wonder that those of Islamic background take great offense to this obvious religious marketing use of God and his prophet Jesus Christ.
To me it is merely preposterous but to those who have serious alternative religious views would, no doubt, consider this sort of message [ regardless of whether a right or wrong representation of Christianity] as being a direct offense to their own particular beliefs about the universality of God [ If God should exist at all ]
Possibly it is a lack of empathy on behalf of one group claiming that their particular passion for worship is not shared by others even if the subject of that worship is different to their own?
The issue is to me the claiming of a monopoly or exclusivity by one group over another, yet the God in question appears to be the SAME God... which to me simply reeks of egocentricism and power corruption.
One wonders though that if all those concerned seriously considered what the words "Universality of God" actually mean we might actualy see a more harmonious use of religious theosophy.
* the confrontation between both groups ended peacfully with police asking the evangelist to tone down his language of fire and brimstone with out Jesus [scaring the child witnesses ] and lower the volume of his amplified screaming.
Last edited:
The Arabs had to learn Arabic too.
That has only become possible in recent centuries. What about before that? God just didn't care?
Ha! I'd love to see this!
It's too bad that the police interfere / had to interfere, as that made the religious look immature and impotent.
And the Christians believe that the Hare Krishnas and the Muslims etc. are being offensive.
It's precisely because their objects of worship is different that there is conflict.
The Christians and the Hare Krishnas don't just worship differently,
they worship different gods.
As such, there is a conflict of interests. This isn't an issue of empathy or lack thereof.
But they don't think they are worshipping the same god.
You can only seriously ask this if you take for granted that the Abrahamic salvationist/exclusivist template is the one and only right one.
IOW, only a Christian could ask what you're asking.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Perhaps it would be better to see these verse's..............
841
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
842
The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . . .331
843
The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
844
In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
845
To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
verses from what exactly?
Wynn,
Why my error:
I stand corrected..unless a Hindu yogic specialist would like to comment.
Why my error:
certainly though the H.Krishnas are worshiping Krishna apparently born to this Earth some 3228 years BCE, lived for 126 years and died 3102 BCEBrahmā (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मा; IAST:Brahmā) is the Hindu god (deva) of creation and one of the Trimūrti, the others being Viṣņu and Śiva. According to the Brahmā Purāņa, he is the father of Manu, and from Manu all human beings are descended. In the Rāmāyaņa and the Mahābhārata, he is often referred to as the progenitor or great grandsire of all human beings - wiki
Last edited:
K
keith1
Guest
yawa, allah, pete, and repete were in a helicopter.
pete, allah, and yawa fell out.
Who was left?
pete, allah, and yawa fell out.
Who was left?
I know..I know.... the heli pilot!??? yes??? yes??