Which still has nothing to do with whether Christians look to the same God as Jews and Muslims. Your ignorance of the role of demons in Islam is noted, but does nothing to prove your point. Satan is not seen as a god in any sense of the word in Catholicism or Christianity, and while Mary figures prominently in many aspects of some Catholic belief, she is simply not a part of the Deity except among some people (such as your MIL) who are hardly representative of doctrine.
I’m always amused when people of Religion A want to tell people of Religion B what they (people of Religion B) believe – even though it isn’t the A-People’s faith. And I’m amazed by the number of A’s who, when told by a B, “no, we don’t believe that,” still insist on informing them, “yes, you do.”
Who knows better than I do what I believe?
The belief of this Methodist is that the Jewish God, the Muslim God, and the Christian God are all the same God. Though a Jew (or a Muslim) has a perfect right to say that this is in their opinion wrong, it is nevertheless generally accepted by mainstream Christians as being historically accurate.
The first tenet of my faith is that there is only one God. ZEV as a Jew may tell you that I worship a false God because he personally does not understand or does not accept the Trinity, but his belief to the contrary does not mean that I worship more than one God – I emphatically do not, as I, like a Jew, consider polytheism the ultimate heresy. And I do find it a bit of an affront to be told that the God I worship is either polytheistic or false – but I respect ZEV’s right to believe what he chooses about my faith. But then, just wouldn’t rely on a a Jew for the most accurate spin on what a Christian believes.
In short, once we’re into “what God wants” or “what God is” or “what God can or cannot be constituted of,” we are in the area of personal beliefs, which as matters of faith are not amenable to proof or disproof. Looking at the the matter from the only fact-based or provable angle, which would be in the context of history, it is IMO indisputable that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship the same God.
True. There is always a grey area. I would argue that in the case of the big three (Christianity, Islam, Judaism: big three (BT), the fundamental nature of the almighty is not sufficiently different to overcome the logical presumption that all the monotheists - merely by definiton and logic, without reference to experience - worship the same god.
In the case of the BT we are dealing with an all powerful, all knowing, usually non-corporeal entity. Unless of course the all powerful decides to make a rare appearance. Perhaps the almighty might even be able to appear as an idol.
I’ll admit, in practice, the various monotheistic religions are at each other’s throats like convicts running low on cigarettes. Moreover, experience tells us that the faiths differ greatly. Or, maybe the practitioners wrongly think and act as if they differ greatly.
Perhaps the biggest problem faced by monotheists of all faiths is the cavalier assumption that in knowing their God, they know all there is to know about Him. I personally think that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all imperfect ways in which to conceive of the one God in which all of them believe, and the contradictions between their understandings are the result of error. Of the three, obviously I believe Christianity comes closest to the truth, or I would be something other than the Christian that I am. But I’m not prepared to claim that I or anyone else has a handle on the total truth, and that anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong – except to the extent that he claims to have that handle himself.
Zev, if you would, a thought experiment. G-d as you conceive Him is omnipotent, right? (Ignore whether he can commit logical contradictions, and all that other inane pseudo-philosophical garbage.) Hence He can, if He so chooses, experience the world and interact with others as if He were human, rather than in His Shekinah Glory. (Indeed, He appears to have done precisely that in the story of Abraham at Mamre.) Assume He wishes to do so, and in consequence does in fact do so. What would He do in order to do so, in your opinion? How would His doing what you conceive differ from the nature of Jesus as understood by Christians? (Ignore for a moment the Greek metaphysics of the Doctrine of the Trinity, and take the definition that in Jesus, the Christian sees God revealed in human form as your starting point for this analysis.)
I’m not seeking to push an issue with you here – but I’m most interested in seeing what your answer to that hypothetical would be.
**
Did I miss something? You’re now the second person to tell me that I said that Christianity is a polytheistic religion. I went over my four previous posts in this thread and found that I said nothing of the sort. I said that the diety of Christianity is a triune diety. Maybe I’m using the word “triune” wrongly. By “triune” I mean “three-in-one.” Christians hold (and please correct me if I am wrong) that God is composed of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and yet, He is still one being. Am I wrong in this? If so, please tell me. In the meantime, all I asserted is that such a diety cannot be the same as the Jewish Diety.
Well, I’ll agree with you that there is no empirical proof of God’s nature (or even of His existence), so it all does come down to a matter of personal belief. But simply because we all pray to a higher power that we believe is neither seeable nor touchable, yet we all believe that it affects us and the world in the most intimate and yet general of ways, does not mean that we all pray to the same being.
Zev Steinhardt
**
I agree with you Polycarp. No one knows the true “nature” (if the word can be used for a supernatural being) of God. What we all believe about the Diety comes down to us from our religious traditions. I cannot state that any given Christian assertion on the nature of God is wrong because I know God and He has told me that they are wrong; I don’t “know” God and He hasn’t told me directly anything. I can say, however, that in my belief, and in the beliefs of my religious teachings, that same assertion about the nature of God is wrong because our tradition (which, we believe, does go back to a literal God-given truth) teaches us XXXXX which directly contradicts the Christian assertion.
**
I hate to do this to you, Polycarp, but I have to cut your example short. You’ve allowed me the lattitude to exclude logical impossibilities (i.e. we agree that God can’t make a round square). My answer is going to depend on that lattitude.
I don’t have the text in front of me now, so a more formal explanation of this will have to wait until I get home. However, a Jewish scholar by the name of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan addressed this in a book he wrote about 30 years ago. I can’t promise that I’m getting this perfect from memory, but the basic premise is that God is a Perfect Being. A being that is perfect does not and has no need to change. Indeed, any change indicates that either he wasn’t perfect before and needs to now change or that he was perfect but, because of this change, is now no longer perfect. Indeed, the prophet Malachi states that God does not change. As such, the very nature of God does not change. Thus, we consider it that just as it is impossible for God to make a round square or a four sided triangle, it is also impossible for Him (in the context of being a Perfect, Unchanging Being) to decide to corpify Himself, duplicate Himself, or do anything else that changes the nature of that Perfection. So, in Jewish tradition, God could not choose to interact with the world as if He were human.
Zev Steinhardt
Don’t ask Catholics a question if you’re not willing to wait for an answer.
I can honestly say that saints were never an important part of the Catholic training I received. In fact, apart from an occasional plea to St. Anthony (then as now, I was an absent-minded nerd who lost things a lot), I never prayed to specific saints, and can’t remember anyone ever telling me I should.
zev_steinhardt said,
Isn’t it logically possible for more than one Perfect “state” to exist? Perhaps God can change from one Perfect form to another.
I never claimed Mary was part of the diety - I said she appears to observers to be worshipped in her own right. Nice strawman. And I think you are missing my point by a wide margin.
I am not attempting to tell Catholics what they believe. What I am attempting to do, is to show how Catholicism is percieved by outsiders. And outsiders commonly see Catholics as less-than-strict monothiests. Which is absolutely fine and Okay - I have nothing against that.
You have to admit that, objectively speaking, a student of mythology who gave his or her allegiance to no particular religion would see in Catholic religious worship as including non-monotheistic elements, quite aside from the trinity.
Heck, even Orthodox Christians, who are quite similar to Catholics, find Marianism an oddity: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.htm
As for Satan, he is clearly a god-like being – not in the sense that he is worshipped (except for heavy metal rockers 
), but in the sense that he is a supernatural being with power over the lives of everyday humans. Indeed, it is an open question as to whether his power is co-equal to the good Gods’ in this respect!
Define him as you will - as a fallen angel or whatever - to an outside observer, there is nothing that objectively seperates Satan from, say, Arhman in Zorastrianism (who is clearly an evil deity, and is called as such).
Indeed, the relative open-ness to polytheism displayed by Catholicism has very often been a positive boon for spreading the religion - I recommend study of the Virgin of Guadaloupe in this regard (who appeared to a converted Aztec on the very same spot sacred to the Aztec mother of the gods).
In essence, and again from an outside perspective, Catholicism appears to be more polytheistic than monotheistic. Indeed, I see the tension between polytheistic practice and monotheistic theory as being a major part of Catholicism. Since I have no stake in either monotheism or polytheism, and regard them as equally valid (or not), it is immaterial to me - other than as an interesting problem of definition.
I would be happy to hear arguments as to why I am wrong - assuming that you are capable or willing to make any, aside from repeatedly asserting I am wrong and pointing out my ignorance.
I think Rexdart has put his finger on it. The attributes which Jews, Christians and Muslims identify in their concepts of God are not identical.
There is a good degree of common ground between the three faiths. All identify the following attributes in God
He is unique – no other God truly exists.
He is the creator of all things.
He is all-powerful and all-loving
He is the God of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham and Isaac
These are fairly significant characteristics, and to my mind they justify a conclusion that the God which adherents of all three faiths conceive of is, in important respects, the same God.
However the three faiths also differ between themselves in the attributes which they identify in God. As has been pointed out, Christians identify the attribute of trinity in God, and the attribute of incarnation. Jews and Muslims do not – indeed, Zev tells us that most Jews would explicitly reject the possibility of divine incarnation. No doubt there are also differences between the attributes which Jews and Muslims identify.
What seems to follow from all this is that whether the three faiths worship “the same God” is not an either/or question. You can legitimately (and perhaps more accurately) speak of <I>the extent to which</I> the three faiths worship the same God or, better, the extent to which the three faiths agree on the attributes of God.
(You could also, of course, speak about the extent to which Christians (or Jews or Muslims) differ or agree among themselves about the attributes of God.)
I must say I would find it difficult to argue that Christians worship the same God as Jews (or recognise substantially the same attributes in God as Jews do), but that Muslims do not. I’m open to correction, but I think that the Jewish and Muslim concepts of God are much closer to one another than either of them is to the Christian concept.
Finally, with respect to Malthus, I agree with tomndebb that his points about Satan, Mary, the saints, icons and so forth are something of a red herring in this context. Even if we accept that the attitudes of (some) Christians to Mary, etc, are attitudes which, from a Jewish perspective, are proper to God alone, this merely demonstrates that Christians and Jews differ about what is proper to God. It does not prove that Christians identify Mary, Satan and so forth as God, especially as they explicitly deny this.
I apologize for my snide rhetorical question. I merely assumed that saints were of more real theological importance than Djinn are to Muslims, but if I am wrong I apologize.
The importance of saints seems, from what I have heard, to vary widely among Catholics. Does the idea of praying to saints seem odd from a theological perspective, even if you don’t do it very often?
What about Mary? Was she important in your training?
They “explicitly deny this” precisely because of their historical ties to Judaism - which has resulted in the importance of monotheism being engrafted into the religion. One need not take this denial at face value, but look at the objective factors.
One of the central aspects of the definition of god from a Jewish perspective is his singularity. If he is not singular, if other supernatural beings with godlike powers exist, he is not the same. Indeed, you yourself identified one of the central, important aspects of the nature of god, the ones which unite the three faiths, as god’s singularity!
So these other aspects are not read herrings, as I see it. If I am correct, and Mary, Satan and saints can legitimately be seen as alternative dieties (albeit with lesser powers), then the gods, although unquestionably sharing a common origin, are not the same - according to the criteria you have chosen. The Catholic god is not unique and singular, even accepting that the trinity = one.
From a lay Catholic, No it doesn’t. The Saints have a sort of small area of attention and some power via the Holy Spirit. Its all going back to God anyway, as non have power except through him. We personalize it more by taking our prayers through intermediaries, because, hey, its a bit wierd asking God to help you get through the day!
Saints have no power on their own. Neither does Mary, really. As the mother of Jesus, she has a sort of special status. Se is considered the closest thing we humans have to the divine in our midst, aside from Jesus himself. But no, she isn’t divine in and of herself.
Actually, Mary is used more as a teaching tool and example for laymen, not as someone you routinely pray towards.
By this logic, anyone accepting that John Edwards can talk with the dead is guilty of pantheism and idolotry.
Speakign as a Catholic, He both Singular and Triune. He takes more than one form in our limited human understanding. There are not three Gods, but rather one God who cannot be wholly understood in from one angle. You can look at a mountain from one slope, and later find the opposite slope reveals new beauties you hadn’t dreamt of before.
No, Satan only exists because God created him and allows the defiler to use his strength for evil. God could take that power away in a heartbeat, but just as He loves us, he also loves his wayward child.
Mary has no power in herself, only that which the Holy Spirit grants.
The problem, here, is that you keep taking the attitiudes of some Catholics and extrapolating that to Catholicism. You can find threads on this MB where I have pointed out that some Catholics have indulged in polytheistic belief. However, that is a separate issue from whether Catholicism has, throughout its entire history and at its core, embraced that polytheistic approach.
If we’re attempting to identify the differences and similarities of the three faiths under discussion, I do not consider the turnings and deviations of any group away from their core belief as pertinent. Otherwise, we need to include the various occasions when Jews offered sacrifices on the high places or carried amulets into battle. These were clearly not central to Jewish faith, even violating it, but some Jews–even among the religios leaders–still did it.
Hey, Zev, Kaplan could have been a Scholastic theologian along with Aquinas. That was a central point that those guys made on the same subject. (There would have probably been a couple of other issues where they disagreed, of course.)
Debates about definition are always sterile, and this is rapidly degenerating into one. Still . . .
Well, Mary and the saints are “supernatural beings” only in the sense that all souls which survive physical death are “superanatural beings”. And I’m not sure what you mean by saying that they possess “godlike powers . . . albeit . . . lesser powers”. Since God is (to Christians, Jews and Muslims) omnipotent, I think “lesser powers” cannot really be “godlike”.
Yes, if you are correct, and if Mary and the saints can legitimately be seen (in some varieties of Chrisianity) as alternative dieties, then those varieties of Christianity can be seen as polytheistic. But surely that begs the question?
Perhaps I misunderstand your argument. Are you saying that the Jewish/Muslim concept is of a God who cannot exist alongside any other supernatural being? And therefore that this is one more attribute in which the Jewish/Muslim concept of God differs from the Christian concept of God?
Or are you saying that the attributes which Christians recognise in Mary and the saints are attributes which Jews and Muslims recognise only in God? In which case we are down to a problem of definition. It is common to all three faiths that God is uncreated. Mary and the saints are created beings; therefore they cannot be God. Therefore, from a Jewish/Muslim perspective, Christians may err in ascribing certain attributes to Mary and the saints, but they do not therefore deify Mary and the saints.
Perhaps another way to put it is to say that, in Christian/Muslim thinking, God alone possesses [whatever attribute it is that Christians are supposed to ascribe to Mary and the saints], whereas in Christian thinking this is plainly not the case. This is therefore one more way in which the attributes of God, as perceived by Christians, differ from those perceived by Jews and Muslims.
Is it not the case that certain saints are “patrons” of particular activities, as in “X is the patron saint of Y”?
To an outsider, this looks a lot like the old polytheistic system of having lots of specialized gods - though in theory, of course, it all goes back to some central, power-giving commonality.
How does this differ from Hinduism, which has numberless dieties - all united by the central power-bestowing force of Bhrama?
Heck, maybe all gods are really the same, monotheistic diety - a solution I would be comfortable with!
This is having one’s cake and eating it too. The “special status” accorded to Mary looks, again to an outsider, very much like divinity.
Remember, according to theory, Jesus is not divine “in and of himself” but is part of the mystery of the trinity … all saints, mary, the devil, etc. are all eminations of that central power-giver, I understand.
What about all of those Marian sites of pilgramage? The piles of tossed-away crutches? The apparations at Fatima and elsewhere?
Certainly, some Catholics see Mary as something special.
A minor quibble - “pantheism” is the worship of the diety as embodied in the universe itself (the opposite is “trancendentalism”). The word you are looking for is “polytheism”, the worship of multiple transendental gods.
That aside, the distinction between believing in superstitions and in alternative dieties may be blurry - but not I think that blurry.
I am leaving the Trinity alone for the moment, and concentrating on the “externals” - Mary, saints, and Satan.
Again, I fully understand the notion that there is one power-giver. Naturally, this is Catholic doctrine - it could hardly be otherwise. However, I merely point out that to an outside observer, Catholicism appears to be less-than-strictly monotheistic.
No doubt all apparent contradictions are resolved, either by theology or by the fact that the mysteries of god are beyond mere human understanding. 
While god may in fact be capable of destroying Satan in a heartbeat (although he apparently has something, well, a little more Apocalyptic in mind for the end of time! 
), while Satan is still around, he certainly appears to have the attributes of a diety - albeit a lesser and subordinate diety.
My point is that while I may in fact be wrong, the issue itself is not a side-show or a red herring - hence the question-beggery. To call the issue a red herring is equal question-beggery, so I ask to be excused.
I think that in Jewish thinking at least, God is singular. Other gods cannot exist. In Muslim thinking, supposed Christian “polytheism” has always been a rallying battle cry, although of course Christians are also “people of the book” and deserving of protection. I seem to recall that a common Muslim saying about Christians was that they “added gods to god” - not seen as a good thing.
I agree that it is essentially a problem of definitions. I see you are shifting your ground somewhat, in that in your first post you listed several aspects which were the essential criteria to judge whether the three faiths held the same notion of god, whereas above you seem to have discarded the rest in favour of only one of them - that god is uncreated (and therefore that the created cannot be god). By this definition, most of the so-called “gods” of the Greek pantheon are not gods, being created or born, so worshipping them is okay from a Christian perspective … I presume. 
Even accepting for the moment that Marianism and saint worship are minor deviations from core beliefs (which I do not think to be the case), the existence and role of Satan clearly cannot be said to be so marginal - he is clearly essential to all Christian theology.
If I was less than clear, my apologies. My first list was intended as a non-exhaustive list of important attributes which all three faiths attribute to God. Being uncreated is, I think, the corollary of being the creator of all things, so it was simply a restatement of one element of that list. There is, in fact, more than one element in that list which is inconsistent with the idea that Mary or the saints are divine.
As for the Greek gods, no, worshipping them is not okay from a Christian perspective. Worshipping Mary and the saints is also not OK. Worship is due to God alone.
Let’s not get into a pointless argument about what “worship” means, and the distinction between “worship” and “veneration”. Whatever it is that Christian do in respect of Mary and the saint, it does not amount to an acknowledgement of their divinity. The most we can say is that some Christians have an attitude towards Mary and the saints which most Jews and Muslims would consider ought properly to be held only towards God.
I can certainly live with that summary.
Although it would only be fair to note that some theologians have pointed out practices in both Judaism and Islam that are incompatible with strict monotheism as well - for example, in Judaism the attitude towards the Torah comes awfully close to idolitary (according to some sticklers), and ditto for Islam and the Koran (which some Muslims consider to have existed eternally before Mohammad wrote it down). To say nothing of such oddities as the Khabbalah.
Personally, I have always thought that the Mystics of all faiths had the best idea - many believe that all gods of all faiths are one, and that distinctions between them are man-made and irrelevant distractions. Whatever method used by humans to understand the reality of the diety is equally valid (excluding of course those which harm others, like human sacrifice). Certainly, a god of the entire universe would not manifest itself only to one tribe, group or religion to the exclusion of all others …
Of course, many mystics also go even further and discard the idea of a transendental diety as man-made as well - not false, but simply a personification of a diety which is really not seperate from creation. It is only natural that humans imagine a human god. Indeed, the central mystery of Christianity, if it could be summed up in one statement, is that of a god who is both a universal pan-creator (god the father) and an ordinary human at the same time (god the son).
From at least some mystics’ point of view, there is no problem with god the son - only he is not unique, but rather is the model and example for us all. And no doubt there is also “god the horse”, “god the fish” and “god the lichen” as well. Indeed, there is nothing and nowhere that god is not.