Do all monotheistic religions worship the same God?

[Czarcasm]

In a currently running IMHO thread, The most significant person in the history of the whole world (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=588134), sitchensis posts this:Why JC and Muhammad when you could simplify it to just God? Don't all monotheistic religions all recognize the same God. Leaving aside the problem that "God" doesn't qualify as a person, I have heard this from various numerous people of various religions throughout my life, both personally and through many media outlets. Where did this idea come from, and(if you believe it) how could it possibly be true?

[DrFidelius]

If there is only onne God, then any religion which worships a True God (tm) MUST be approaching that one deity, albeit those frog-faced heathens over there are doing it all wrong.

If you are talking specifically about Judaism, Christianity and Islam, they know it is the same god because their books show they have continuity from Abraham, so they all recognize Abraham's God.

[Acid Lamp]

I'm not certain how to check up on this authoritatively, but I believe that all extant monotheistic religions are Abrahamic either directly, or by descent. So technically I believe that is a correct statement. The believers may quibble a bit about the etymology, or veracity of each "facet" of that deity, but is seems that the gods known as Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah are the same being. It can be argued that the Abrahamic faiths borrowed heavily from the monotheistic Zoroastrianism which may include that defunct deity into that same group.

There are some other sects that may be monotheistic in practice, but since they are offshoots of extant pantheistic religions I'm not certain they qualify.

[Czarcasm]

What about Sikhism, some sects of Hinduism, and (until fairly recently in history) the widespread worship of Shangdi?

[Acid Lamp]

Hmm.

Depends how we want to qualify the term Monotheism. I go for a strict interpretation myself, so According to the wiki on Shangdi :

However, this faith system was not truly monotheistic since other lesser gods and spirits, which varied with locality, were also worshiped along with Shangdi. Still, variants such as Mohism approached high monotheism, teaching that the function of lesser gods and ancestral spirits is merely to carry out the will of Shangdi, akin to angels in Western civilization.

And re: Sikhism:

Sikhs believe that God has been given many names, but they all refer to the One God VāhiGurū. The word Guru means teacher in Sanskrit. Sikhs believe that members of other religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Christianity all worship the same god, and the names Allah, Rahim, Karim, Hari, Raam and Paarbrahm are frequently mentioned in the Sikh holy scriptures. The Sikh reference to God is Akal Purakh (which means "the true immortal") or Waheguru, the primal being.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about Hinduism to speak to that question, but something tells me that it won't stand up to a strict interpretation of monotheism, probably being closer to Shangdi in practice.

[Peremensoe]

It can be argued that the Abrahamic faiths borrowed heavily from the monotheistic Zoroastrianism which may include that defunct deity into that same group.

Am I misunderstanding this remark? Zoroastrianism is not defunct.

[Chessic Sense]

I don't even understand what it means to be "the same God". It's like saying "Imagine a pink horse. Are we both imagining the same pink horse?" The word 'same' doesn't even make sense.

[Czarcasm]

Hmm.

Depends how we want to qualify the term Monotheism. I go for a strict interpretation myself, so According to the wiki on Shangdi :



And re: Sikhism:



I'm not knowledgeable enough about Hinduism to speak to that question, but something tells me that it won't stand up to a strict interpretation of monotheism, probably being closer to Shangdi in practice.How does the Trinity and the Hierarchy of Saints stand up to a strict interpretation of monotheism?

[Skald the Rhymer]

In a currently running IMHO thread, The most significant person in the history of the whole world (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=588134), sitchensis posts this: Leaving aside the problem that "God" doesn't qualify as a person, I have heard this from various numerous people of various religions throughout my life, both personally and through many media outlets. Where did this idea come from, and(if you believe it) how could it possibly be true?

I know persons who worship a singular & explicitly female Deity, so I'll say no.

[Simplicio]

I don't even understand what it means to be "the same God". It's like saying "Imagine a pink horse. Are we both imagining the same pink horse?" The word 'same' doesn't even make sense.

It makes sense to ask whether believers consider themselves to be worshiping the same God. Christians and Muslims pretty obviously consider themselves to be worshiping the same God as that of the Jews, for example, since their holy books (and history) make it explicit that their religions arose from Jewish roots.

[Skald the Rhymer]

It also occurs to me that most varieties of Christianity are only nominally monotheist. I don't see a real difference between the ideas of Gabriel & Metatron (created ex nihilo by the head of the pantheonor transformed from mortal to immortal in the latter) and those of Baldr and Freyja (related to or conquered by the head of hte pantheon). In either case you have an immortal and supreme God (Yahweh, Odin) with lesser but still divine associates.

It makes sense to ask whether believers consider themselves to be worshiping the same God. Christians and Muslims pretty obviously consider themselves to be worshiping the same God as that of the Jews, for example, since their holy books (and history) make it explicit that their religions arose from Jewish roots.

I know not a few Christians who consider that the Muslim Allah is not identical to their God.

[Czarcasm]

I know not a few Christians who consider that the Muslim Allah is not identical to their God.And how do Jews feel about the Trinity?

[Skald the Rhymer]

And how do Jews feel about the Trinity?

Assuming you mean religious Jews rather then ethnic ones, I feel safe in saying Jews disbelieve in the Trinity. Of course, not all Christians believe in the Trinity either.

[Czarcasm]

If we disqualify some sects because they were originally polytheistic, might we have to eliminate the Big Three? Some believe that Judaism was originally polytheistic.

[Skald the Rhymer]

If we disqualify some sects because they were originally polytheistic, might we have to eliminate the Big Three? Some believe that Judaism was originally polytheistic.

I wouldn't put it quite that way: more that Judaism evolved from polytheistic origins.

[Voyager]

And how do Jews feel about the Trinity?

More goyisher nonsense. :D

[Skald the Rhymer]

More goyisher nonsense. :D

Well, there's no god but Athena anyway. And Kara Thrace is her prophet.

[Voyager]

In a currently running IMHO thread, The most significant person in the history of the whole world (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=588134), sitchensis posts this: Leaving aside the problem that "God" doesn't qualify as a person, I have heard this from various numerous people of various religions throughout my life, both personally and through many media outlets. Where did this idea come from, and(if you believe it) how could it possibly be true?

I've been told by devout Hindus that they worship the same god as westerners. I think the motivation for this statement is clear and commendable - if my group actually worships the same god as your group, there is no need to fight about it.
But it doesn't help, because the next step is that we all worship the same god, but you don't understand him or what he wants, and we do. In some sense you might say that the God who had a son is different from the God who didn't, or you could say that the belief he has a son is just wrong, though the god is the same. So I don't think it holds up very well. It's not clear to me that all branches of Christianity worship the same god.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I know not a few Christians who consider that the Muslim Allah is not identical to their God.
They are simply uninformed. Mohammed identified his God as the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus.

[Czarcasm]

More goyisher nonsense. :DBut would you consider the Trinity to be pretty much the same as the God of the Jews, just named differently?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Sikhism is descended from Islam, by the way. It's kind of a fusion of Islam and Hindu mysticism. They recognize their God as being identical to the Abrahamic God.

[Czarcasm]

Well, there's no god but Athena anyway. And Kara Thrace is her prophet.This is getting old.

[Skald the Rhymer]

They are simply uninformed. Mohammed identified his God as the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus.

Except that the God my father and sisters worship apparently has a penis, though he hasn't a body, and a blood-son with whom he is identical. I don't think it's unreasonable for Christians of a certain stripe to say that, since their beliefs about God are incompatible with Muslim beliefs, that they are not worshipping the same deity.

[Acid Lamp]

Am I misunderstanding this remark? Zoroastrianism is not defunct.

Sorry about that. I was under the impression is was extinct. It seems that there is a small population still practicing. Ha! Ignorance fought.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But would you consider the Trinity to be pretty much the same as the God of the Jews, just named differently?
Jews obviously do not recognize the possibility of a Triune God. I think it's interesting, though, that most Christians don't see a difference between their own conception of God and the Jewish one, but they think Allah is something totally different. In actuality, the Jewish and Islamic concepts of God are virtually identical (and mutually recognized as such), and it's the Christians that are off the reservation.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Except that the God my father and sisters worship apparently has a penis, though he hasn't a body, and a blood-son with whom he is identical. I don't think it's unreasonable for Christians of a certain stripe to say that, since their beliefs about God are incompatible with Muslim beliefs, that they are not worshipping the same deity.
Do they think they worship the same God as the Jews?

[Skald the Rhymer]

Jews obviously do not recognize the possibility of a Triune God. I think it's interesting, though, that most Christians don't see a difference between their own conception of God and the Jewish one, but they think Allah is something totally different. In actuality, the Jewish and Islamic concepts of God are virtually identical (and mutually recognized as such), and it's the Christians that are off the reservation.

Given that you concede that, why do you then aver that trinitarian Christians, in saying that they do not worship the same deity as Muslims, are incorrect?

Do they think they worship the same God as the Jews?

I honestly do not know. I vigorously avoid conversations about religion with all my family except for my wife, my son's sister, and my baby sister.

Having said that, I have heard clergymen in my father's denomination claim that non-Christian Jews are damned and worshipping a false God. I do now know that he believes this, and to my knowledge it is not an official Church of God in Christ doctrine.

[Voyager]

But would you consider the Trinity to be pretty much the same as the God of the Jews, just named differently?

Not unless you totally trivialize the concept. Our God never became mortal, and never had sons (not counting the ones in Genesis, that is). I've never understood the concept of the Holy Ghost, but I learned that God has no body and no form, and so I don't see how they are different. And it is nothing like the polytheistic roots of Judaism. The saints, on the other hand, seem to have taken on many of the characteristics of the minor gods of the Romans, being assigned specialties.

[Voyager]

Jews obviously do not recognize the possibility of a Triune God. I think it's interesting, though, that most Christians don't see a difference between their own conception of God and the Jewish one, but they think Allah is something totally different. In actuality, the Jewish and Islamic concepts of God are virtually identical (and mutually recognized as such), and it's the Christians that are off the reservation.

Except for showing up in the wrong place, I'd think that Mohammed had a lot more of the characteristics of the Messiah than Jesus did. It would be an interesting study.

[Acid Lamp]

How does the Trinity and the Hierarchy of Saints stand up to a strict interpretation of monotheism?

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't; though I make that basis on the term being defined as the belief in a single god. I don't think that the arguments of inclusive monotheism, trinitarian monotheism, pantheism, etc should be included under this blanket term. They are related, but distinct from the practical belief in a single, unbroken, deity.

To answer your question specifically, I don't think that trinitarian monotheism should be, or is a valid term. That practice would be better defined as polytheism, and would be called such if not for the special status of christianity in western society. It is described as :

The deities of polytheistic religions are agents in mythology, where they are portrayed as complex personages of greater or lesser status, with individual skills, needs, desires and histories. These gods are often seen as similar to humans (anthropomorphic) in their personality traits, but with addiarated from the animist beliefs prevalent in most folk religions. The gods of polytheism are in many cases the highest order of a continuum of supernatural beings or spirits, which may include ancestors, demons, wights and others. In some cases these spirits are divided into celestial or chthonic classes, and belief in the existence of all these beings does not imply that all are worshipped.

Simply replace the "supernatural beings or spirits, which may include ancestors, demons, wights and others" with saints and angels and other members of the heavenly host.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Given that you concede that, why do you then aver that trinitarian Christians, in saying that they do not worship the same deity as Muslims, are incorrect?
Because they are incorrect. Muslims identify their God as being the same as the Christian one. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, and even that he was born of a Virgin. They just think the Christians are mistaken about him being the son of God. This is theologically closer to Christianity than Judaism, but you don't typically hear Christians saying that the Jewish God is not the same as the christian God.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Because they are incorrect. Muslims identify their God as being the same as the Christian one.

The Christians making that claim are incorrect in the Muslim point of view.

Suppose I were serious about worshipping Athena. Suppose further I claimed that, while the Athena I worship is identical to the one to whom the Parthenon was dedicated, that the common conception of her is incorrect: that she was in no way related to Zeus, but rather that his worshippers co-opted her myths ages past and attempted to subordinate her to him, and that any claim that she leapt full-formed & full-armored from his forehead are incorrect. Mightn't a worshipper of the Olympians as described in Bulfinch then say, that "Yeah, I know Skald claims he worships the same Athena as we do, but that's not true," and have a reasonable argument?

May I ask why you are privileging the Islamic viewpoint to the evangelical Christian?

[Skald the Rhymer]

Not unless you totally trivialize the concept. Our God never became mortal, and never had sons (not counting the ones in Genesis,


What do you take the meaning of the phrase "the sons of God saw the daughters of men" to mean, may I ask?

I'm not challenging, just wondering.

[Skald the Rhymer]

The Christians making that claim are incorrect in the Muslim point of view.

This should be "The Muslims making that claim are incorrect in the evangelical Christian point of view."

Sorry, I was distracted by work. :-)

[Malacandra]

I don't even understand what it means to be "the same God". It's like saying "Imagine a pink horse. Are we both imagining the same pink horse?" The word 'same' doesn't even make sense.

If you don't want to take part in the discussion, it is a simple matter merely to refrain from taking part. Adherents of the religions in question do not consider that they are imagining anything, and you can either accept that premise and debate meaningfully, or take yourself off to any of the other 5,479 "God doesn't exist, silly!" threads on the Dope.

[Voyager]

What do you take the meaning of the phrase "the sons of God saw the daughters of men" to mean, may I ask?

I'm not challenging, just wondering.

I think that is one of the legends left over from polytheistic times, when all gods had children, and edited into Genesis by the same editors who saw no problem with putting contradictory versions of the creation right next to one another. They get explained away, but mostly just ignored. They were nonpersons in my Hebrew School books. They are also about as far from what Jesus was supposed to be as you could get.

I'm sure there is tons in the Talmud explaining them, but I don't know it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The Orthodox explanation is that they were angels.

[Peremensoe]

I can't speak to what Chessic intended, but... I think there is a relevant question there.

Suppose we take it as a given that there is at least one "god," whatever that means. How could we tell if two people were talking about the same one?

I've had conversations with different members of the same Christian denomination who seemed to be talking about different concepts of God.

[ClaytonThroop]

If you don't want to take part in the discussion, it is a simple matter merely to refrain from taking part. Adherents of the religions in question do not consider that they are imagining anything, and you can either accept that premise and debate meaningfully, or take yourself off to any of the other 5,479 "God doesn't exist, silly!" threads on the Dope.

I don't see that as not participating, or thread shitting, or what have you. Perhaps could have been phrased differently, but it gets at the same question I have about this OP. What does it mean to worship the same god?

Clearly the big three disagree on some characteristics of god. Accepting that a god exists, at least two of them must be wrong about some or many details. Doesn't that mean their gods are not the same? What makes them the same? Is it just the shared written material, which is a just a subset of each religions writings?

Personally, the most common sense definition to me is that they are the same god if the adherents/leaders of the religions agree that they are the same god.

I am neither a student of history nor religion, so I'm prepared to be educated by those with more informed viewpoints, of course.


eta:
I can't speak to what Chessic intended, but... I think there is a relevant question here. Suppose we take it as a given that there is at least one "god," whatever that means.

How could we tell if two people were talking about the same one?

This is essentially what I'm wondering.

[hotflungwok]

Should I ask about Ahkenaton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten)?

[Skald the Rhymer]

The Orthodox explanation is that they were angels.

I know that. I was wondering what Voyager was taught as a tyke. Besides, the origin of angels is relevant to the issue, I think. If they are gendered and related to God in a physical sense, it argues against the God of Isaiah being the God of Muhammad, no?

[Chronos]

I think ultimately, it all comes down to how different people define "God". For instance, I would say that I worship the entity who created the Universe. If a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Wiccan or whatever makes the same claim, then I would say that I am worshiping the same God that that person is. If, on the other hand, someone says "I worship the God that made himself manifest to Moses in the Burning Bush", then I can't honestly say whether that person is worshiping the same god I am or not. Maybe the Creator spoke through the burning bush, maybe not: I don't know. Then, of course, someone might say "I worship the Creator of the Universe, and that god manifested to Moses through the Burning Bush". Now, I can say that that person and I are worshiping the same god, but that the other person has some additional ideas about God which may or may not be correct. And if I meet two people, one of whom says "I worship the Creator, who is unambiguously male", and another says "I worship the Creator, who is unambiguously female", then we all three worship the same God, and at least one of them has an incorrect notion about Es nature.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I know that. I was wondering what Voyager was taught as a tyke. Besides, the origin of angels is relevant to the issue, I think. If they are gendered and related to God in a physical sense, it argues against the God of Isaiah being the God of Muhammad, no?
Orthodox beliefs are not that they are related to God in a physical sense ("son of God" is an honorific in Judaism, not statement of literal descent), and I don't see how that argues against Muhammed and Isaiah having the same God anyway? What possible difference would it make? I'm not being glib, but I really don't understand your reasoning there. Could you explain? Let's say angels really are physical, biological, be-cocked sons of God. How does that argue against one of them giving a revelation to Muhammed?

[Skald the Rhymer]

Orthodox beliefs are not that they are related to God in a physical sense ("son of God" is an honorific in Judaism, not statement of literal descent), and I don't see how that argues against Muhammed and Isaiah having the same God anyway? What possible difference would it make?

I was not speaking of Orthodox theology; I was wondering what Voyager was taught as a child. Often persons are taught things, informally, at are at odds with their faith's theology.

To your latter point: if the "sons of God" were related to Yahweh as Hermes was thought to be related to Zeus -- i.e., being the product of intercourse with another entity -- then Yahweh has to be a physical being (sometimes, at least), which is very at odds with the notion of Allah, no? To a Muslim, God has no body, and there is nothing akin to him in any respect.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

To Jews too. There is no Jewish belief that God has any physical or body or literal offspring.

[Voyager]

I know that. I was wondering what Voyager was taught as a tyke. Besides, the origin of angels is relevant to the issue, I think. If they are gendered and related to God in a physical sense, it argues against the God of Isaiah being the God of Muhammad, no?

I was just trying to avoid nitpicking about the existence of sons of Gods in Jewish lore.
Whatever they were, they were nothing like Jesus. And I thought angels were not into the shtupping stuff these guys were.

I was taught nothing about them - they are one of the many interesting surprises I found when I actually read the Bible from cover to cover, and not the edited versions I got in Hebrew School. However, we were never taught that things pre-Abraham counted as history.

[Voyager]

Orthodox beliefs are not that they are related to God in a physical sense ("son of God" is an honorific in Judaism, not statement of literal descent), and I don't see how that argues against Muhammed and Isaiah having the same God anyway? What possible difference would it make? I'm not being glib, but I really don't understand your reasoning there. Could you explain? Let's say angels really are physical, biological, be-cocked sons of God. How does that argue against one of them giving a revelation to Muhammed?

I was raised Conservative, and I'll have to consult my Siddur, but I don't recall any mention of "sons of God" as an honorific or anything else. Children of Israel, or Israel, or descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, yes. Back then my Hebrew was good enough that I would have noticed such a blatant difference between the Hebrew and English. Anyhow, the context makes it clear that they were not human.

Not that it would have been a major theological problem. If God could make people, God could create sons also, and no mention of Mrs. God survives in the Bible itself.

[fuzzypickles]

It can be argued that the Abrahamic faiths borrowed heavily from the monotheistic Zoroastrianism...
Has any connection been established between Ahuramazda and YHWH? I was under the impression that early Judaism and Zoroastrianism developed independently.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Should I ask about Ahkenaton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten)?
It seems to me that Aten, the Sun God, would be a definite counterproof to the claim that all monotheistic religions worship the same God. On the other hand, that worship did not last very long.

[Acid Lamp]

Has any connection been established between Ahuramazda and YHWH? I was under the impression that early Judaism and Zoroastrianism developed independently.

That is out of my league. I do know that they share similar basic ideals and thematic elements. Since they evolved in the same general area and time period, I was taught that it is commonly believed they influenced one another to the point that the deity is probably the same being. The differences being regional and etymological rather than any practical distinguishing traits.

[Peremensoe]

Has any connection been established between Ahuramazda and YHWH? I was under the impression that early Judaism and Zoroastrianism developed independently.

That wouldn't preclude them being "about" the same deity in the metaphysical sense that Chronos was talking about.

[sisu]

We are all trying to describe the unexplainable in language that suits our culture. There are many paths to God.

[Czarcasm]

We are all trying to describe the unexplainable in language that suits our culture. There are many paths to God.There are roads that lead to Paris, roads that lead to Pittsburgh, roads that lead to Portland and roads that lead to Port-au-Prince. Now, while all these roads may lead to something called a "city", in no way do all these roads lead to the same city with different names.

[even sven]

Where did this idea come from, and(if you believe it) how could it possibly be true?

There are two ways to go about this.

The first is that the exact nature of God is outside of human comprehension. The best we can do is make up our own very human set of metaphors to help us make a little more sense of the world and hopefully grasp a glimpse of God. God is ultimately indescribably, but religion can get us a set of tools that can help us understand or experience God. The exact approach we take is not as important as the destination. Indeed, all of them might be useful.

You can think of this as a book with different translations. Each of the books will be different from each other, but (if the translations aren't completely bad) will essentially be the same book and contain the same truths.

The Abrahamic version of "one God" is a bit different. It's based on the idea that each religion represents a step in human understand of God's nature, and a new agreement with God.

Think of it like a book with new editions, with each edition claiming to supplant the old. In some way they can be thought of as the same book, but each edition's advocates can be pretty defensive of their position on the truth.

[Czarcasm]

There are two ways to go about this.

The first is that the exact nature of God is outside of human comprehension. The best we can do is make up our own very human set of metaphors to help us make a little more sense of the world and hopefully grasp a glimpse of God. God is ultimately indescribably, but religion can get us a set of tools that can help us understand or experience God. The exact approach we take is not as important as the destination. Indeed, all of them might be useful.

You can think of this as a book with different translations. Each of the books will be different from each other, but (if the translations aren't completely bad) will essentially be the same book and contain the same truths.

The Abrahamic version of "one God" is a bit different. It's based on the idea that each religion represents a step in human understand of God's nature, and a new agreement with God.

Think of it like a book with new editions, with each edition claiming to supplant the old. In some way they can be thought of as the same book, but each edition's advocates can be pretty defensive of their position on the truth.
But this is assuming that all the books lead to God, isn't it? Are you prepared for the possibility that some of the books might not lead to God at all? If so, then you must consider the possibility that your own personal book might be one of those.

[Czarcasm]

I can understand this "all roads lead to God" philosophy-it absolves one from both feeling doubt about the path taken, and feeling pressure about "saving" others.

[even sven]

But this is assuming that all the books lead to God, isn't it? Are you prepared for the possibility that some of the books might not lead to God at all? If so, then you must consider the possibility that your own personal book might be one of those.

Sure. It's possible, to extend the metaphor, that there are some books that are just utter gibberish, or just horribly flawed translations, or about something else entirely. This would be the equivalent to a religion that does not lead to any understanding of or experience of God. If what you call your "religion" consists of typing "Ooga Booga" one hundred times every morning, I think we'd all agree that won't lead to any actual interaction with any sort of divine.

But you can believe that "Ooga Booga" will not lead to any knowledge of or experience with God, while believing that meditation, prayer, Catholic Mass, Hindu temple ceremonies and and Sufi poetry might.

For the record, I am not religious in any meaningful way. I am the kind of agnostic who believes that the nature or existence of God is so unknowable that it's not worth wasting too much time thinking about it.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Well here's the problem, while people with Abrahmic beliefs all believe in a God derived from the God of the Hebrews, religions such as Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and et. al all deny a significant part of God ie the Trinity or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, without which God is not really the same God.

[Czarcasm]

Well here's the problem, while people with Abrahmic beliefs all believe in a God derived from the God of the Hebrews, religions such as Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and et. al all deny a significant part of God ie the Trinity or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, without which God is not really the same God.Yep, that is the quirky thing about Christianity, isn't it? When it reintroduced polytheism into the mix, it was sort of a step backwards, which caused the others to step back and say, "I thought we had gotten past that bit??"

[Mijin]

Just want to say about the whole "Why do Christians associate more with Judaism than Islam, when the latter recognizes more of christians' beliefs?".

I think it's the difference between root and branch. Judaism is considered a root on which Christianity is based, whereas Islam is considered a separate branch. So similarity doesn't enter into it.

This is just the same as how many Christian denominations consider other denominations (such as Mormonism) flat-out wrong, but still consider Judaism a close relative.

And Muslims do a similar thing with say the Shia and Ahmedi denominations.

[even sven]

I can understand this "all roads lead to God" philosophy-it absolves one from both feeling doubt about the path taken, and feeling pressure about "saving" others.

Think of it as "My religion has value to me. I imagine other people's religion has value to them." Religion doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. I think that all but the most fundamentalist of believers acknowledges that they do not have a perfect understanding of the divine, but are instead working towards it in the best way that they know how.

It's like love. Someone may love their spouse immensely. This doesn't mean they think they have a perfect marriage, or they never have times of crisis and doubt. They probably on some level recognize that they could have married someone else and probably had a satisfactory marriage. I think most people realize that there are not pre-destined soul mates, but that after enough time two people can grow together to the point that they end up functioning like soul mates.

This also doesn't mean they think they have a perfect understanding of love. If they had to judge another's relationship, they may or may not feel confident saying "Yes, that couple is in love' or "no they are not." Perhaps they can tell the obviously abusive relationship is not real love, but aren't willing to make a judgement about the couple that might just fight because they are overworked. They just know that they know what works for them.

[Mijin]

This is just the same as how many Christian denominations consider other denominations (such as Mormonism) flat-out wrong, but still consider Judaism a close relative.

And Muslims do a similar thing with say the Shia and Ahmedi denominations.

<missed edit window>

I don't think I've put this very well and Mormonism wasn't a good example to use. Hope my point wasn't lost amidst this.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I was raised Conservative, and I'll have to consult my Siddur, but I don't recall any mention of "sons of God" as an honorific or anything else. Children of Israel, or Israel, or descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, yes. Back then my Hebrew was good enough that I would have noticed such a blatant difference between the Hebrew and English. Anyhow, the context makes it clear that they were not human.

Not that it would have been a major theological problem. If God could make people, God could create sons also, and no mention of Mrs. God survives in the Bible itself.
"Son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible as an honorific for kings of Israel (it's used for David and the Davidic line in particular). It's is also used a few times to refer to Israel as a whole.

In reference to the Nephilim passage, it's an artificact of a earlier polytheistic origin, whence the "Sons of El" represented deities subordinate to the "Father" god in the Canaanite pantheon, but 2nd Temple era Jewish texts interpret the Nephilim passage as referring to angels and sometimes change the phrase to "sons of Heaven."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Has any connection been established between Ahuramazda and YHWH? I was under the impression that early Judaism and Zoroastrianism developed independently.
Judaism was greatly influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism after the exile. Zoriastrianism changed Judaism from a henotheistic religion to a monotheistic one, and also gave Judaism it's eschaton (The concept of an end to the world and a day of Judgement).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well here's the problem, while people with Abrahmic beliefs all believe in a God derived from the God of the Hebrews, religions such as Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and et. al all deny a significant part of God ie the Trinity or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, without which God is not really the same God.
I think it's more accurate to say that Christianity added an element. It's kind of tendentious to say that other religions are "denying a part of God," when Christians made that part up themselves, and it isn't really 100% consonant with normal montheism, truth be known.

[sisu]

There are roads that lead to Paris, roads that lead to Pittsburgh, roads that lead to Portland and roads that lead to Port-au-Prince. Now, while all these roads may lead to something called a "city", in no way do all these roads lead to the same city with different names.

I call bulldust on this, I think they all do lead to something, some a re bit lost due to them idolising an individual.

Do you think that Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, JFK, Desmond Tutu etc are not all very much in touch with "god"?

No one can say their way is the only way, even me.

I can understand this "all roads lead to God" philosophy-it absolves one from both feeling doubt about the path taken, and feeling pressure about "saving" others.

Play the ball not the man.

I feel that it is my duty to spread light and love throughout my life. I am not trying to make you anything you are not. Saving people from self loathing is what I do through example.

But this is assuming that all the books lead to God, isn't it? Are you prepared for the possibility that some of the books might not lead to God at all? If so, then you must consider the possibility that your own personal book might be one of those.

The book is not the point, it is meant as a guide. All men & women will read something different into it. The search for spiritual fullfilment will always be about what's true in your heart not about words on a page. You can read about God in any book, if your heart is open.

Man did not invent Time, he merely named it.

[E-Sabbath]

I would like to put into consideration Cao Dai. It's a lovely Vietnamese religion.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cao_Dai
It is in no way, shape, or form related to the Abrahamistic religions, though.

[Arnold Winkelried]

I would like to put into consideration Cao Dai. It's a lovely Vietnamese religion.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cao_Dai
It is in no way, shape, or form related to the Abrahamistic religions, though.
Are you sure about that? It seems to have some Western influences. e.g. at the Wikipedia page I see:
one of the Venerated entities is Jesus Christ, along with other people like Quan Âm (Guan Yin), Lão Tử (Laozi), Thích-ca Mâu-ni (Buddha), Khổng Tử (Confucius), Quan Vũ (Guan Yu, Lý Thái Bạch (Li Po), and Khương Thái Công (Jiang Ziya).
In a painting depicting the Three Saints signing a covenant between God and humanity, we see Victor Hugo along with Sun Yat-sen and Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm.

Of course, from what it says about their theology, it is very different from Christianity, e.g. There are 36 levels of heaven and 72 planets harboring intelligent life, with number one being the closest to heaven and 72 nearest to Hell (Earth is number 68).

[Czarcasm]

You can read about God in any book, if your heart is open.Might I suggest you read Harlan Ellison's Deathbird Stories, then, and let me know what insights about God you got from it.

[E-Sabbath]

Well, it has _influences_ from western religions, Arnold, but it's not related to them. For a crude analogy, Jesus is maybe a neighbor who throws house parties, but he's not an uncle, aunt, or grandparent, or even a godfather.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm not knowledgeable enough about Hinduism to speak to that question, but something tells me that it won't stand up to a strict interpretation of monotheism, probably being closer to Shangdi in practice.
It's not the same thing. Hindus (largely) consider the Hindu pantheon to be different facets of the same entity. In other words, "God" is broken down into mini-gods for our convenience, not because that's how things actually are.

For example, Ganesh is the "remover of obstacles". If you want to be a pilot, but you're blind, you pray to Ganesh to remove your blindness. However, you're not actually praying to Ganesh; you're asking God/the Trimurti/Brahman to put on his obstacle-removing hat.

My understanding of Shangdi is that worshippers prayed to the lower gods to intercede with God on their behalf. Similar to the way Catholics pray to saints to intercede with God on their behalf.

There are some sects which hold that the lower gods are discrete entities, but that's not the majority view.
I've been told by devout Hindus that they worship the same god as westerners. I think the motivation for this statement is clear and commendable - if my group actually worships the same god as your group, there is no need to fight about it.
That's pretty much how it works. Hindus believe that all religions are reflections of the same basic truths- and that all G/gods are manifestations of the same being. So Christians who pray to Jesus are doing the same thing as Hindus praying to Ganesh- praying to a manifestation of the supreme being as they interpret him.

[Acid Lamp]

It's not the same thing. Hindus (largely) consider the Hindu pantheon to be different facets of the same entity. In other words, "God" is broken down into mini-gods for our convenience, not because that's how things actually are.

For example, Ganesh is the "remover of obstacles". If you want to be a pilot, but you're blind, you pray to Ganesh to remove your blindness. However, you're not actually praying to Ganesh; you're asking God/the Trimurti/Brahman to put on his obstacle-removing hat.

My understanding of Shangdi is that worshippers prayed to the lower gods to intercede with God on their behalf. Similar to the way Catholics pray to saints to intercede with God on their behalf.

There are some sects which hold that the lower gods are discrete entities, but that's not the majority view.


snip.

Additional question:

If that is the case, then is the term god/dess the properly translated title for these facets or is the term untranslatable to English? I'm confused by the habit of local Hindus I know that use the term "god/ dess" in regards to these entities. They seem to convey more that these are discrete entities that exist independently while still being part of the whole. Similar to the Christian trinity.

[Really Not All That Bright]

People still act as though they're separate entities most of the time; it's a philosophical distinction, rather than a practical one.

That said, the facets are devas- quite literally, gods. The Supreme Being deal has a number of different names depending on what period of history you look at, but translates most simply into English as capital-G God.

[SecondJudith]

Someone may love their spouse immensely. This doesn't mean they think they have a perfect marriage, or they never have times of crisis and doubt. They probably on some level recognize that they could have married someone else and probably had a satisfactory marriage.

They just know that they know what works for them.

I think this is a really insightful post, especially the parts I've quoted.

[sisu]

Might I suggest you read Harlan Ellison's Deathbird Stories, then, and let me know what insights about God you got from it.

Well it is about the battles that exist between what god is really about and mankinds' desire to chase the shiny new things. It is in some senses a moral play about pain and suffering.

I think that the first book looked at evil as coming from satan. Now we all know that satan is a metphor for the black that exists within all of us when we stray from selfless love [or god]. The golden rule and all that stuff.

read it many many years ago so may be a bit rusty.

[Chronos]

Is Zoroastrianism really monotheistic, though? I had understood that Zoroastrianism recognizes two divine beings, roughly equal in power, one of whom is good and one of whom is evil.

[Czarcasm]

Well it is about the battles that exist between what god is really about and mankinds' desire to chase the shiny new things. It is in some senses a moral play about pain and suffering.No, it isn't.

I think that the first book looked at evil as coming from satan.No, it didn't. Now we all know that satan is a metphor for the black that exists within all of us when we stray from selfless love [or god].No, we all don't. The golden rule and all that stuff.Too vague to counter.

Read it many many years ago so may be a bit rusty.Like a Brillo pad at the bottom of the sea.

[sisu]

OK so a man goes with the snake [representing our fall] to see God to ask him to save the world. A good story that in some ways shows that [evil] satan is a part of who we are as humans.

What happens when we no longer believe? Do the gods go away? In some ways this reflects the argument about what is the true god, is the Mormon god the same as the Christian god? well I say yes.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Is Zoroastrianism really monotheistic, though? I had understood that Zoroastrianism recognizes two divine beings, roughly equal in power, one of whom is good and one of whom is evil.
Modern Zoroastrianism identifies as purely monotheistic, with only one creator God. It's fair to say it was more akin to a dualistic view in ancient times, but Ahura Mazda was still the only object of worship. He was opposed by an evil anti-God (Ahriman), but Ahriman was not on object of worship, but as a daeva - a devil, who was scheduled to be destroyed on the Day of Judgement. He's basically analogous to Satan in Christian theology. I suppose it's debatable whether this would have made ancient Zoroastianism truly monotheistic, but the same can be said about Christianity (not only with Satan, but with its pantheon of angels and demons).

The whole idea of a comsic battle between good and evil forces, culminating in a final battle/day of judgement/end of the world, all comes from Zoroastrianism.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Also, Freddie Mercury.

[Musicat]

If many related religions such as protestant sects all worship the same God, then why have they separated and stay apart, not to mention religions with wider gulfs between them?

Because of differing ideas on how to worship.

Why would the same God want to be worshipped differently?

My God wants me to do this, but your God wants you to do that.

Therefore, I don't think we are talking about the same God.

[Acid Lamp]

If many related religions such as protestant sects all worship the same God, then why have they separated and stay apart, not to mention religions with wider gulfs between them?

Because of differing ideas on how to worship.

Why would the same God want to be worshipped differently?

My God wants me to do this, but your God wants you to do that.

Therefore, I don't think we are talking about the same God.

That would subject us to endless nittling sub divisions of a given deity. From an outsider's perspective, we have to draw a line somewhere at what include as "the Same God". Generally this is done through tracing the history of any given sect; if they worship the same being in name and mythological record, then it is the same deity regardless of worship practice.

[Musicat]

That would subject us to endless nittling sub divisions of a given deity. Yep. Pretty much like we have today.

Methodists don't go to Lutheran or Baptist services unless no other Methodist church is available. Perhaps it's because of a nittling subdivision of some deity.

[Peremensoe]

My God wants me to do this, but your God wants you to do that.

Therefore, I don't think we are talking about the same God.

As I mentioned, I've met people in the same church who apparently have different ideas about what their God is and may "want" from them.

It seems much more likely to me that, whatever "God" might be, such differences in interpretation reflect the inadequacies of understanding on the human side, rather than actual differences on the God side.

[Peremensoe]

Is Zoroastrianism really monotheistic, though? I had understood that Zoroastrianism recognizes two divine beings, roughly equal in power, one of whom is good and one of whom is evil.

Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, respectively (there are other versions of the names). Yes, that's about what I recall from my brief world religions overview in high school.

But then, within a year after that, I met the one and only actual Zoroastrian (from India) that I've had as a personal friend, and actually discussed religion with.

I gathered that it was not so different from Christian notions of the struggle between God and Satan, wherein the match may seem roughly equal in many contexts, or even favoring Satan, but ultimately God was certain to prevail. The only clear doctrinal difference to me is that Ahriman did not in any sense come from Ahura Mazda.

[Musicat]

As I mentioned, I've met people in the same church who apparently have different ideas about what their God is and may "want" from them.And if their differences are great enough, they split apart.

I saw this happen in my community. One large Presbyterian church had a small group within it that didn't like where the main church was going and how it was run, but weren't influential enough to affect it. So they started their own church a few miles away doing it their way.

And while they might feel both worship the same God, they don't worship in the same manner, and this was important enough to them to break strong ties with other worshipers.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."

-Emo Philips

[Measure for Measure]

The ecumenical take is that God is mysterious, so nobody can be sure that they understand Him perfectly. So wildly different patterns of observance are to be expected.

[Raiko]

Given that you concede that, why do you then aver that trinitarian Christians, in saying that they do not worship the same deity as Muslims, are incorrect?



I honestly do not know. I vigorously avoid conversations about religion with all my family except for my wife, my son's sister, and my baby sister.

Having said that, I have heard clergymen in my father's denomination claim that non-Christian Jews are damned and worshipping a false God. I do now know that he believes this, and to my knowledge it is not an official Church of God in Christ doctrine.

I don't beleive in any god (I start all my theological arguments that way to avoid confusion of why I seem to be arguing from multiple points)

Jesus' teachings were specifically to bring gentiles into the grace of the god of Abraham. They may apply to the jews if a certain number of them wish it but the "old fashioned" way of attonement or The Covenant still works for them.

[Latro]

I gathered that it was not so different from Christian notions of the struggle between God and Satan, wherein the match may seem roughly equal in many contexts, or even favoring Satan, but ultimately God was certain to prevail. The only clear doctrinal difference to me is that Ahriman did not in any sense come from Ahura Mazda.

The dualistic idea, of two super-gods battling it out with each other aided by their cohorts of lesser-Gods, is definitely a Persian idea introduced into Judaism. Remember it was the Persians that freed the Jews from Babylon and "Israel"was part of the Persian empire.
After the Persian period Judaism develloped on it's own again and became less dualistic and more monotheistic.

It's the Christians that picked up on the idea again, when they started reading the Old-Testament texts. Giving more power to Satan by their interpretations of the texts, "untainted" by current Jewish doctrine

[even sven]

If many related religions such as protestant sects all worship the same God, then why have they separated and stay apart, not to mention religions with wider gulfs between them?

Because of differing ideas on how to worship.

Why would the same God want to be worshipped differently?

My God wants me to do this, but your God wants you to do that.

Therefore, I don't think we are talking about the same God.

Maybe God doesn't really care about the exact details. Really, I don't think most monotheistic gods "need" much out of people. Religion is not really for God, but for humans. We take the basic idea of "let's think about God" and make it more complicated for our own purposes.

I have friends who watch movies with me, and I have friends who go out dancing with me. Both are my friends, and I'm inviting both to my party.

[Czarcasm]

I have friends who watch movies with me, and I have friends who go out dancing with me. Both are my friends, and I'm inviting both to my party.Now, if you had friends that watched movies with you that insisted that they were your only real friends, while the friends that danced with you insisted that they were your only real friends, and you knew this but invited both to your party without correcting either one we'd have a real analogy.

[Latro]

And there's those that order you to be their freind, and that it's wrong to dance.

[SecondJudith]

Now, if you had friends that watched movies with you that insisted that they were your only real friends, while the friends that danced with you insisted that they were your only real friends, and you knew this but invited both to your party without correcting either one we'd have a real analogy.

So...you invite them both to your party and hope everyone has a good time and sees that the "real friend" distinction is silly and not useful? I'm not seeing how inviting them both to the party isn't "correcting" them both.

In the analogy, that is. I've lost track of what that means for talking about monothetic religions. :D

[Czarcasm]

Are there any truly monotheistic religions out there that started that way and stayed that way?

[Chronos]

Depends on what you mean by "started that way". Judaism, for instance, probably developed from polytheistic beliefs, but you could make a fair argument that it wasn't Judaism until they went monotheistic. With Islam, the argument is possibly even stronger.

[Latro]

Are there any truly monotheistic religions out there that started that way and stayed that way?

Maybe Ekhnaton's, as mentioned, but it didn't stay that long.

But is there, or was there a true monotheistic religion?
I mean no Satan no angels. no saints, no spirits, nothing. Just one God.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Are there any truly monotheistic religions out there that started that way and stayed that way?
Islam.

[Chronos]

I mean no Satan no angels. no saints, no spirits, nothing. Just one God. As in, one single unitary being greater than humans? I'm pretty sure that you'll find either "angels" or aspects, or both, in every religion, but I'd be interested in any examples anyone else comes up with. And I don't think it's even possible to have a religion without an analogue of saints: Any organized religion will have people who originally organized it, and those original organizers will surely be afforded special respect by their followers.

[Boyo Jim]

If there actually IS one God, then I think it's fair to say that all monotheistic religions worship that one God, though their name for God may differ and their understanding of God's rules may be more or less correct and complete.

It's my personal belief that there is NO God, which leads me to conclude that all deists are worshiping fantasies of some kind. Since these fantasies are internally generated, though in most cases with "guidance" from spiritual and/or religious leaders, I think it's obvious that there is not one fantasy they all worship. There are as many or more "gods" as there are brains of of people who believe in one or more gods. Even crazy Fred Phelps doesn't worship the exact same God as the crazy members of his own congregation.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I agree that when it comes right down to it, conceptions of god are so variable, subjective and idiosyncratic that you can't find perfect theological syncronicity between even two people, much less across whole super-religions, but Hindu thought answers that by saying that "God" appears to each individual in the particular way they need it, and that it's all ultimately the same thing if sincere devotion is pursued (it still leads to loss of ego, compassion, etc.). Even God isn't really God. God is just a way for humans to think about Brahman, which is beyond all words or ability to conceptualize. The ultimate ground of all being. Existence itself.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Even Hinduism hasn't come up with a good answer to why everyone else thinks God is a beardy man in a white robe, though.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

How many people really think that?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, Michaelangelo, for one.

[humanafterall]

Well, science has proven the existence of a Higher Power (God), but whether It is the god of the 3 monotheistic religions remains to be seen. and as to what God looks like, and the Bible stating that God made us in It's image, I do not think God looks like us, God is what ever It wants to be; I think that our minds are made similar to God's. Does that make God a giant Brain? maybe.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Science has proven the existence of God? I must have missed the memo.

[Tom Scud]

Are there any truly monotheistic religions out there that started that way and stayed that way?

Islam.

If angels and saints are ruled out of court, Islam falls well short as well. Angels (as well as oddities like Khidr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khidr)) are right there in the Qur'an, and while some Wahhabi types frown on cults of saints, they're probably more prevalent than not as the religion is actually practiced.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Not just right there in the Qu'ran - the angel Gabriel is supposed to have dictated the Qu'ran to Mohammed.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, science has proven the existence of a Higher Power (God)
When did this happen?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If angels and saints are ruled out of court, Islam falls well short as well. Angels (as well as oddities like Khidr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khidr)) are right there in the Qur'an, and while some Wahhabi types frown on cults of saints, they're probably more prevalent than not as the religion is actually practiced.
That's true. I guess it's all about how you define what a "god" is. Certainly angels and demons have their roots in polytheistic beliefs.

[Zamander]

It probably does not serve as an example of a true monotheistic religion as such, but isn't Spinozan god basically that. For Spinoza, there is really just one thing existing, god, which makes everything a part of god. Whether this counts as monotheism is up for discussion I guess. I guess we all would just be confused and minute parts of god trying to get along.

[Blaster Master]

Well, science has proven the existence of a Higher Power (God), but whether It is the god of the 3 monotheistic religions remains to be seen. and as to what God looks like, and the Bible stating that God made us in It's image, I do not think God looks like us, God is what ever It wants to be; I think that our minds are made similar to God's. Does that make God a giant Brain? maybe.

I have to ask, how did science proving the existence of God? Even as a Christian myself, I don't think that it's possible to prove his existence scientifically.


Second, I think the idea of "what God looks like" is as nonsensical as asking what any non-physical concept looks like. Appearance is a high-level property of matter. To imply that God has some sort of appearance is to imply that he's made of matter which goes against most common concepts of the nature of God.

As a thought experiment, imagine you ask two kids to draw something, like a tree or a house or a dog; chances are they will share many characteristics in common and anyone looking at the images will be able to tell what they're pictures of. Now ask the same two kids to draw happy or love or some other non-physical concept. Chances are the two pictures will have little in common where one kid my draw happy as himself at an amusement part and the other might draw himself getting presents at Christmas or whatever. I believe that the appearance of God is much like this latter example, where we represent his appearance through related concepts. For instance, we need to personify him and being a traditionally patriarchal society, obviously an old man represents many of the concepts of God to Western culture. I think this is also why God or gods in many Eastern religions have different appearances.

And as a bit of an aside, I specifically interpret the idea of being made in God's image not to say we look like him but rather we are made so as to generally want to be like him and share many of the same values. That is, not a physical image, but a spiritual one.

[Czarcasm]

In Christianity, Angels=minor gods and Jesus=demigod?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I would say so, but Christians get highly agitated if you suggest that to them.

[Tom Scud]

In Christianity, Angels=minor gods and Jesus=demigod?

I would say so, but Christians get highly agitated if you suggest that to them.

I don't think the Jesus=demigod thing quite works; he and the Spirit are supposed to be essentially co-equal with the Father. Also, I'd draw a distinction beteween Christian Trinitarianism & classical (as in ancient Greek, as passed down through various writings) polytheism in that the three elements of the Trinity are not ever at odds with one another - there's a sort of informal sense in which the Father is the kick-ass smiter while Jesus is all about the mercy stuff, but I don't think any Christian would say that they're really at odds if brought up against it.

[glowacks]

My understanding is that the three parts of the Trinity are different aspects of the same God, much as a person (Bob) might be the treasurer of their home owner association, a high school baseball assistant coach, and regional sales manager of XYZ corp at different times but all at the same time as well. If you lived in Bob's subdivision and wanted to know the financial status, you likely wouldn't call up his office and ask for the regional sales manager, nor would you likely go to a practice he was coaching. Not a perfect or even great analogy, but my understanding of the concept.

The saints in Christian worship are considerably different from other lesser gods in that they are (generally) historical people who lived and died like any other. The special thing about them is that the church has recognized that by the way they lived their life their souls must be in heaven. They are prayed to due to their being previous humans along with their proximity to God. While in sorta it doesn't make much logical sense to think about God being "too busy" to deal with all the prayers directed at him, it's more for the worshipers' benefit - they feel like their prayers are more likely to be heard by someone who isn't being "burdened" by the entirety of existence.

--

Christianity developed directly out of Judaism. Jesus was, as a human, a Jew. His contemporary followers were all Jews. Mohammad was not specifically Jewish or Christian, and one tradition holds him to originally be from another monotheist faith that existed along side of them in Arabia. Additionally, there was vague awareness of a supreme god called Allah in pre-Islamic Arabia, but most worship was directed toward more specific deities. Thus while Islam is (or claims to be) an Abrahamic religion, it is reasonable for Christians (and Jews for that matter) to believe that they are not: unlike Christianity, it did not develop directly from Judaism.

But to answer the question of whether they worship "the same God", Chessic Sense made a very good point despite its seemingly critical tone. Every person has a different conception of God due to their personal experiences. I personally believe that organized religion is a complete waste of time because it makes no sense to tell other people how to experience something that must be by its very nature intensely personal. If you're going to tell people to have faith in something with practically no evidence, it makes very little sense to tell them how exactly that faith should be expressed. I personally have faith that there is some "first cause", but that's about it. If there's other people who have similar beliefs about the nature of the universe, it makes little sense to say we believe in the same God, because we probably have slightly different conceptions of what exactly our beliefs mean for the origin of the universe and whether there exists a reality beyond our material universe. If I claim that the "God" the Abrahamic religions worship is the same as the "first cause" I believe in, it makes little sense to say that we believe in the same God because their natures are only very vaguely similar. Since it's only via similar claims that one can say that religions worship the same god, I personally believe everyone worships their own God(s) as revealed to them in the course of their life.

Certainly there's another kind of answer, one that's more historical and social in nature, wherein you investigate the development of different religions and attempt to determine whether their concepts of the divine developed continuously or whether there was some abrupt discontinuity wherein someone came up with a completely radical new idea that was never before even considered. And in such a study, you'd really be talking about how much the new religions were influenced by the old, and could only give estimates of how much of the previous idea of a deity was retained. You could give changes ratings on a scale from Anglicanism (where the original change was only in how the church was being administered on Earth) to Akhenaten (who attempted the most radical change I am aware of). But it's definitely a sliding scale and not something where you can say yes or no or draw a line between when a change in belief means a change in god and when it doesn't.

[SeldomSeen]

My understanding is that the three parts of the Trinity are different aspects of the same God, much as a person (Bob) might be the treasurer of their home owner association, a high school baseball assistant coach, and regional sales manager of XYZ corp at different times but all at the same time as well. If you lived in Bob's subdivision and wanted to know the financial status, you likely wouldn't call up his office and ask for the regional sales manager, nor would you likely go to a practice he was coaching. Not a perfect or even great analogy, but my understanding of the concept.

Actually, I think that's quite a good analogy. That's always been my understanding of the triune godhead as well...three different manifestations of one supreme being. However, many Christians - especially those of fundamentalist bent will argue that point ad infinatum. They'll say "no, it really is three distinct entities....but all three are one....but there's really three of 'em... I used to spend a lot of time arguing with fundamentalists, but I've pretty much given it up. Makes my brain hurt.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most so-called polytheistic religions also acknowledge some sort of "Great Spirit" or uber-I-am, or something that's over all the other gods? If so, that would indicate that most religions are ultimately monotheistic, but with rituals to acknowledge the lesser powers as well, call them saints, angels, spirits, djinns or what have you.
SS