Yep, folks, the Southern Baptists, the National Association of Evangelicals, and various other evangelical groups said it again.
The irony is that for once, Bush said something I agree with:
But this time it wasn’t just Falwell and other cranks disagreeing:
Not to mention, maybe Haggard doesn’t worship the same God I do, or maybe he just has a revised version of the New Testament, which attaches a very low level of importance to prosperity. (Doesn’t say much about health, either.)
If he thinks the Christian God encourages freedom, love, and forgiveness, maybe he shouldn’t fight against giving gays the freedom to marry, so they can love each other as they see fit, and forgive them for having the temerity to desire the same rights as others. But I digress.
At any rate, this reaction to Bush’s remarks brings the “Muslims don’t worship our God” bit firmly into the heart of American evangelical Christianity; it’s not a fringe thing any more.
They are mistaken. We may see the same God differently, but they recognize the God of Abraham as their God, as do we. End of story.
Of course, the idea that everyone worships the same God can also be used for evil, or at least condescenscion: “We worship the same god, but they worship him wrong! We must go to them and give them the correct way of worshiping our god!”
In this case, however, the rational groups on both sides know that the two religions worship the same deity. The idea of `the god of Abraham’ is the clincher, really.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
Yep, folks, the Southern Baptists, the National Association of Evangelicals, and various other evangelical groups said it again.
The irony is that for once, Bush said something I agree with: But this time it wasn’t just Falwell and other cranks disagreeing: Not to mention, maybe Haggard doesn’t worship the same God I do, or maybe he just has a revised version of the New Testament, which attaches a very low level of importance to prosperity. (Doesn’t say much about health, either.)
[quote]
This has the fundies in a tizzy. They continue to beleive that because the Qu’ran denies the godhood of Jesus that therefore the god Muslims worship is not the God of the Bible. When asked why they don’t believe that Jews also don’t worship a foreing god, the fundies wriggle most amusingly in trying to balance two contradictory thoughts at the same time.
Haggard is clearly using the Eleventh edition of the Newspeak Dictionary, in which “freedom” is used in the sense of “being free of lice” or “free of disease”; any other meaning is doubleplusungood crimethink for fundies.
Not according the fundie party membership, who continue to maintain that because Islam is absolutely monotheist and denies that God has a son, it cannot be worshipping the Christian triune God. When asked why they do not believe the Jews to worship a foreign god, the fundies wriggle most amusingly as they try to reconcile two contradictory thoughts at the same time.
Moreover, they fail to realize that “Allah” just means “God” and is used of YHWH in the Bible in Arabic–they say that the Arabic Bible translations must be demonically inspired.
Is “thou shalt be condescending towards believers” the First Commandment in the Atheist Bible or something? Seems there’s a lot of it around here lately.
I think Christians who ridicule or who are condescending towards atheists are jerks. I think it’s true in the other direction as well.
Well sure Bush said that over there in England; Englishmen and Muslims are, for the most part, foreigners. Let’s just see what he has to say when he is talking to real Americans in America.
Hmmm. Not quite end of story, actually. The question is not whether Allah is the Arabic translation of God. This overly simplistic definition may suffice for some, but it hardly satisfies the underlying question, that being, whether the characteristics and attributes of God are consistent with those of Allah.
I submit they are not. The essential claims of Christianity and Islam cannot be reconciled. Either Jesus is the only begotten son of God (Christianity) or He is not (Islam). Either Isaac was the son of Abraham, offered as a sacrifice at God’s command, or his brother Ishmael was. And there are many, many more differences between the two religions. It’s a cop-out, or perhaps a dismissive tactic to equate two clearly dissimilar positions. Anyone can call his deity god; rock, Vishnu, Chluthu, whatever. Taking it at face value is convenient, but useless.
As to Jews and Christians, the situation is somewhat different. Jesus, born into a Jewish family and community, claimed title to the promises in the OT. His disciples were Jews, and the early church was almost exclusively Jewish by birth. Paul explicitly details the nature of the national unbelief, the way being made for the Gentiles as a result, and the endtime return of God’s attention to the Jews. He also clearly details that salvation is by grace, not by works, which is, again, a distinct contrast with Islam.
It may be comforting, even pacifying, to think that Christians and Muslims are close in faith, but the sharp, striking differences in the core essentials dispute such a conclusion.
I won’t touch the claim that Allah values slavery, hate, grudges, and sickness… But what about prosperity? Jesus “give away your belongings and overturn the stalls in the temple” Christ stands for prosperity now? And Allah for poverty? Or is he being metaphorical?
I’m not sure most non-Muslims have enough knowledge to be so sure about the core values of Islam as contained in the Quran. The form of Islam we hear about most encourages the subjugation of women and discourages their education, yet from what studying I have done, not only did Mohammed appear not to support that, I remember an incident when, when the women complained that the men were being taught better than they were, he taught them himself. I’ve read the basic tenets of Islam and they did not strike me as opposed to Christianity in terms of moral behaviour.
I would also point out that Mohammed was operating in a polytheistic society. In such a society, viewing Christ as the Son of God could easily lead to having two separate gods, let alone what happens when you bring in the notoriously slippery concept of the Trinity. Rather than devolve back to a pantheon, I can see a logical reason why in that environment, Christ would be presented as a prophet, not a god.
However you then contradict yourself by making this argument. If one of the key reasons Islam and Christianity cannot be taken to be worshipping the same God is the dispute over Jesus’ divinity, then Judaism is just as dissimilar and it is just as poor a tactic to gloss over that difference for Jews as it is for Muslims. In point of fact the famed medieval Jewsh theologian Maimonides argued ( in part ) from that very thesis that Islam and Judaism were not idolatrous, but Christianity potentially was. I believe a couple of the Orthodox Jews on this board have made essentially the same point, as here:
So who is correct? You or zev? Or are you both wrong :)?
From my own standpoint as a non-believer the argument rests on overall similarity and historical evolution and on that basis, I’d have to conclude they all worship different conceptions of the same God. But obviously that is just MHO. I do find these divergent POV’s interesting, though.
When athiest Berrand Russell was imprisoned, he was asked his religion. He replied, “Athiest.”
Unfamiliar with the word, the jailer answered, “Well, we all worship the same god, we just have different names for him…”
I was going to make the same comment Tamerlane did, and cite the same post of Zev’s. I’d like to commend him for getting there first, and for pointing out that, while there may be shared heritage, judeo-christian usually means, honestly, just christian.