Interesting, so exactly what is a True Christian ™? You can’t even agree amongst yourselves which denomination is right (from JW to Mormon to Catholic to Primitive Baptist, etc), so I find your assertion curious at best.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Stoid posited the equivalence of Al’lah with YHWH (and threw in Christianity for good measure).
She’s effectively right.
I will grant the point Karen Armstrong makes, that Mohammed took the chief god of the pre-Muslim Arab pantheon, equated him to the God of the Jews and Christians, and proclaimed him as the only God.
And this differs how from the early Jewish conceptions of God? There are numerous “artifacts” in Scripture that speak of YHWH as “supreme among the gods,” the only one worthy of a Jew’s worship. From this initial conception, they came to recognize Him as the only true God, beside whom the gods of the goiim were merely idols and superstition.
Christianity might cause a little acid reflux among the devout Jews and Muslims, in that its conception of God includes His immanence in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and in the Holy Spirit as the mode whereby God is present with and in each of us.
But all three faiths proclaim the same deity.
IMHO, Judaism and Islam have distorted views of Him, as does much of Christianity. But the identity of the conceptual construct is based on the same origins. Which means, for me, the reality behind the concept is the same.
Whether Athanasius, Luther, Akiba, and Ali would have been able to come to some agreement on who He is, is beside the point. The Ultimate towards whom they directed their lives is the same.
Actually, Jewish/Arab tension really only dates back about 100 years, if that, and has more to do with the Zionist movement, and the effect Zionism and the formation of the state of Israel had on the Arab nationalist movement. Historically, for most of the time the Arabs were Muslim, Jews were seen as People of the Book, while not Muslim, still able to practice their faith and live their lives relatively freely. Before Islam, there were Jewish Arab tribes, the Herodian dynasty of the Kingdom of Israel was Arab, and even earlier, according to the bible, Solomon had good relationships with the Queen of Sheba, which was probably on the Arabian penninsula, so I think your placing the tensions on the relationship between Isaac and Ishmael is incorrect.
I’ve always found this to be specious. Each of the three faiths denies something sacred to the other two, in a cosmic game of rochambeau. Any Christian who says “Jesus Christ is Lord” and meets a Muslim who says “Jesus Christ is not God, nor even the Son of God” and can come away from that thinking he shares a deity with the Muslim is confused, in my opinion.
**Muslim:**Allah never had a son - Jesus was a prophet. Mohammed is the last best prophet of Allah.
**Jew:**Jesus is not the Messiah. Mohammed was delusional.
**Christian:**Christ is the Messiah, God incarnate and the Son of God. Mohammed was delusional.
How can these statements be reconciled into “We have the same god?”
Because they’re only quibbling over prophets and messiahs?
Heh, big only.
But they all claim the same root Big Guy in the Sky.
Is it not fair to say that Christians, Muslims, and Jews have more in common than, say, Christans and Hindus? Yeah, there are a lot of differences, but “Children of the Book” all spring from the same tradition.
Funny, the Muslims think the exactly the same thing.
If Bush wants to rah rah rah for religion, then I think he should be a big booster for all religions. Okay, for a lot of religions. Sure, he can favor the protestant christian god if he wants, that’s only natural given his constituency, but at least *try[/] to be for increased spirituality. Otherwise, I don’t think he should play cheerleader for any religion.
At the end of the day, America is a melting pot for different people, religions, races, cultures and religions, and such an emphasis on a christian god, is a contradiction. If he really wants to extend hands, why not quote from the Koran instead of from Psalms? Or from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, or Buddhism, or Taoism, or any other -ism out there?
Or, he could actually be a booster for no religions, and not worry about leaving anybody out. And as an added little minor bonus, he’ll be actually pretending to follow the Constitution, like he took an oath to do.
Nice take, China Guy, but on another thread here we were debating the appropriateness of Bush as a Christian quoting from the Psalms in a Presidential speech.
I see no problem in him (a) holding his own faith, Baptist Christianity IIRC, and (b) acting as leader of a pluralist nation. And that does not mean he needs to compromise his own faith by fishing for votes among other faiths. (In fact, I think the latter would see through it and he would be castigated by members of his own for doing so. And by me, BTW: I don’t always agree with his stance but I respect him for having one that includes pluralism and tolerance and for standing by it.)
Oh, and Revtim, there is absolutely nothing in the Presidential oath or the Constitution requiring that the President have no religious beliefs. Secularism is to be sure the default position, from which we can all speak to our own ideological preferences. But it’s not required. It may be appropriate to take at times, but it’s not mandated of him.
I didn’t say he should, I said that it would be an extremely meaningful gesture. Praying aside, Ramadan largely involves fasting during daylight hours, which wouldn’t be difficult for him. If he followed the fasting schedule, it would be an act of sympatico unlike any other I can remember among world leaders. It would make holding a dinner for muslim leaders look like flipping a quarter to a homeless person, comparatively.
I didn’t say it was likely. But it would be profound.
Try reading my post again. I never said that he shouldn’t have beliefs, I said he shouldn’t be a booster for any religions. He could do his worshipping in private, and at least pretend to believe in the non establishment clause that he took an oath to defend. Oh wait, I forgot, he can’t or he might lose the Christian Right vote.
A true Christian is someone who follows the covenant given by Jesus Christ. A true Christian does not add to the Bible and he does not take away from the Bible. If a person follows the Bible and doesnt change it to suit their needs, then that is the right denomination. So yes, I can know what is right. Just because someone says they are Christian does not mean they are. It would be silly for us to get together to decide which denomination is right when we may not even consider denomination X to be Christian. Remember, Grapenuts is neither grapes nor nuts.
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
That’s a bit harsh. Fundies don’t dislike Methodists. They may not agree on certain things, but that doesn’t mean they don’t like them.
**
Your legendary wit is as sharp as ever. Thank you for adding so much to the conversation. :rolleyes:
**
100 yrs? Have you read the Old Testament? The Jews’ own history is full of stories of wars with Ishmael’s descendants. The only reason there wasn’t that much conflict in the NT is that the Romans wouldn’t have put up with it.
FWIW, I don’t claim to be Holy Jerseydiamond. I am human and make lots of mistakes. I wish I could be more Christ-like, but that fact is I fall just like everyone else, but at least I know I have something to fix.