Chronic Murmuring

I agree. What if he had said something really controversial, like, "Jews, Christians, and Muslims all breathe oxygen."

Of course (as you point out), the controversy is hardly surprising, as many different groups within [Judaism/Christianity/Islam] don't think that other [Jews/Christians/Muslims] worship the same God, even within their own religion.

While I do agree wiht you on the importance of Christ's identity, I do not believe that this question can be separated from that of whose God is the true God. In the Christological controversies of the early church, two major points were debated. The second of these was the relationship between Jesus' divine and human natures. A balance had to be sought between Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Yet, it is the first of these that is more relevant to the current point. In simplified form, this debate sought a balance between Arianism and Modalism. In other words, before there could be any discussion of how Jesus' divine and human natures were related, there had to be a discussion of who God was. Was he one to the exclusion of the Trinity- only manifesting himself in different ways at different times? Or was the true God incapable of incarnation while it was actually the highest created being who manifested himself as the Christ? It is impossible to answer the question 'Who is Jesus?' unless we first have an adequate view of the Trinity. I submit that, unless Muslims or modern day Jews are consciously worshipping a triune God, then they are not worshipping the same God that the Christians acknowledge.

I don't know abaout that -- if I drive a car yet know nothing about what is under the hood or how it works, and you drive a car and know everything about that car -- am I not really driving a car? I think some one can have a different view of the same God -- they might not be right, but I think they are all referring to the same God

And if our host, Scott, drives a car but thinks that he is in a spaceship on his way to Mars -- is he not really driving a car? The scenario offered makes belief entirely irrelevant; yet, this is precisely the point in question when asking which God these various religious groups worship. Had the question been which God actually sustains the life of Christians, Jews, Muslims, or even Hindus, agnostics, and atheists--then you might have a point. Our beliefs have nothing to do with whether or not God really exists.

Nor is the question one of mere ignorance about essential attributes of God. I have made the claim that in order for Muslims or modern day Jews to worship the same God that Christians do, they cannot deny his triunity. The belief in monotheism is not currently sufficient as a lowest common denominator for belief in the same God. At one time, it may have been. Yet this is only because no one could be expected to believe what God had not yet revealed. Nevertheless, it is now the case that God has revealed himself as three in person and one in substance. It is not the case that Jews and Muslims worship a different God because they are ignorant of this revelation; they worship a different God because they positively deny this revelation.

Kevin - we can't answer correctly who Jesus is until we have an adequate understanding of the Trinity? That, I disagree with. In the biblical passage to which I'm referring, Jesus poses that very question to Peter himself. Jesus asks Peter who everyone thinks he is. Some say he's Elijah. Peter says he is the Christ, the Messiah. Did he understand Jesus to be the third person of the trinity, though? I get the sense that the apostles' understanding of Jesus's divine nature was far from perfect during his earthly ministry. Even after he died and was resurrected, they still seemed to only have a dim grasp of his divinity. The point being, though, that it seems to me as though there are analogous truths to our understanding of God - especially when we are considering three distinct religions joined by a common root of Yahweh religion.

I'm not trying to push this point too far, though. Obviously, there are important differences. But my point is - is it necessarily incorrect to say that we the three groups worship the same God? At what point can the definition be specific enough to give direction, yet still unite the three groups, yet still not get into some kind of universalism? I believe Christ is the only way to that God. But the God that the Jews, the Muslims and the Christians all worship seems to be the same object. It is the God of the Old Testament Jews, who has left a living record of his Words. There's enough there for me to feel comfortable granting Bush's statement.

Kevin,

These ar the historical facts as I see them: long before Christ was born of a woman, Islam branched from Judaism and they both worshipped the same God. With the coming of Christ and His death, Christianity came into being. Christians (while differing on the particular nature of God) worshipped the same God that was (and is) worshipped by Jews and Muslims. At no point that I am aware of did any of these groups change their official party line and say, "instead of worshipping Him [pointing at God], we will now worship him [pointing to smoe other entity]."

Do any of these groups have a perfect understanding of the God they worship?

Christian scripture suggests that Christians don't. The dialog overheard from various Jewish and Islamic scholars suggest that a perfect understanding also eludes them.

I am, of course, excepting you from such an otherwise-seemingly-elusive perfect understanding of the nature of God and who worships Him, but more out of politeness than reason.

Uh, "smoe other entity" should read "some other entity."

Please cut me smoe slack ;-)

Scott-- you don't seem to be taking into account the idea of progressive revelation. At some point in history, the trinity had not yet been revealed. No one before this point could be expected to believe in the trinity in order to believe in the true God. I will, for the sake of argument, grant what you have said about Peter. Perhaps he didn't understand that Jesus was the second person of the trinity, yet he was able to make this profession of faith. All of this is, however, beside the point. Either the doctrine of the trinity had not yet been revealed at the time of Peter's confession [personally, I think this unlikely], or it had been revealed and Peter did not have a sufficient understanding of it to accept or deny it. Nevertheless, if he did understand it, it is not the case that he could have denied it. I am not arguing that ignorance of the trinity among monotheists constitutes a belief in a different god; rather, I am arguing that the rejection of the trinity, now that this doctrine has been revealed, constitutes the belief in a different god.

Even now, it is possible to believe in Jesus without an adequate understanding of the trinity. [Despite Bob's implications to the contrary, I have no advocated a perfest understanding of God.] But an inadequate understanding of the trinity is very much different from a denial of the trinity. Jesus cannot be the Christ unless he is the second person of the trinity and of one substance with the Father. It is one thing to be ignorant of this (although, I would hope that ignorance would currently apply only to very new converts); it is another thing to deny it. To return to the example of Arianism, the reason that this is a damnable heresy is not becuase they do not beieve in the historic person of Jesus; nor is it because they do not beleive that a pre-existent higher being can become incarnate. The problem comes because they believe that the god who became incarnate was of a different substance from the Father. The Christ of Arianism is inadequate unto salvation precisely because he is, supposedly, the incarnation of a created being and not 'very God of very God.'

You ask the question, "At what point can the definition be specific enough to give direction, yet still unite the three groups, yet still not get into some kind of universalism?" I am compelled to answer that that point is found in the doctrine of the trinity. You are correct that it is the God of OT Jews who has left a living record of his Words. And we, as Christians worship the God of the OT Jews. The question to ask is whether modern day Jews worship the God of the OT Jews.

Bob- you need to work on your historical facts. Islam arose no earlier than the 6th century AD.

Kevin,

I am, of course, mortified at my error, and beg indulgence. Not an excuse, just an explanation: I was erroneously working from the "sons of Abraham," not the birth of Mohammed.

That acknowledged, when did Juadaism decide to stop worshipping God and turn thier worship to another god? Does worship require rigid adherence to one specific dreed that, if it is not done correctly and with perfect understanding, is not worship at all?

News flash, if that is the case, than (most likely) none of us are worshipping God -- not even you.

If it requires only a certain amount of "perfect" understandingand correctness, well then, of course it is up to you to draw that line just back behind you. Wheh, just made that under the wire!

I think it is entirely possible that we all worship the same God, just with many different degrees of undertanding -- none perfect, some probably way off.

Maybe we should leave perfection up to God -- He probably does it better than you, or me, or some moderate-to-radical priest/preacher/rabbi/ayatollah.

Bob- You have made an impressive case against requiring a perfect understanding of God in order to worship him. But what does this have to with anything? I agree with you on this point and have not implied otherwise. The issue is not understanding God perfectly; it is believing what he has revealed about himself, however imperfect that belief may be. God has revealed himself as a single God who exists in three persons. It takes no effort whatever to believe this. On the other hand, please don't ask me to explain how the trinity is possible.

Jesus Christ is the only way to God. God cannot be worshipped unless he is approached through his Son. Consequently, anyone who does not approach God through Jesus has not worshipped the only true God. All religions, monotheistic or otherwise, that do not approach God through Jesus, must be worshipping something else.

From its inception, the intent of Judaism was to point to Christ. When the Son of God finally became incarnate, those within Judaism who did not accept him demonstrated that they never had believed in the true God. Those who did believe in the true God accepted Jesus as their Messiah. Insofar as modern day Judaism denies that Jesus is the Christ, it cannot have as its object of worship the one true God. No one comes to the Father excpet through the Son.

Kevin, I completely can appreciate this, and possibly this does refute my post. But the question for me still becomes whether the different gods are indeed different deities if one of the branches has been late to accept the progressed revelation. I say this because, arguably, a modern-day Jew and a Jew in the time of Moses could conceivably have identical conceptions of God, and yet according to you, these are not the same gods?

Scott,

Well said.

Kevin,

So, we don't need to perfectly understand, just perfectly worship?

God can be (and is) worshipped in many ways. Whether He accepts it or not is up to Him.

I'm no trying to be new-agey here, I just think your narrow definition of worship should come with more qualifiers than you choose to give it.

Scott- If a modern day Jew and a Jew in the time of Moses have identical conceptions of God, then I cannot maintain that the object of their worship is not the same. But then, I'm not claiming that the standards suddenly changed. All of the Jews in Moses' time and until the time of Christ claimed to worship the same God. As long as they made the right profession of faith, both in word and act, there would be no reason for an outside observer to question this. They were allowed to be full participants in the Covenant. The same is true today. We accept other people as Christians based on their profession of faith. If they claim to believe in Jesus Christ as the exclusive means of their salvation, we take them at their word. But false professions are possible. Those who do make false professions are not in reality worshipping the same God as those who make a true profession. The same thing would apply to Moses' time. Ancient Israel was a mixture of false and true professions. The advent of Christ showed many of these false professions for what they really were.

Bob- Jesus Christ is the only way to worship God and he is the only way to salvation. If you think that this is narrow minded of me, then so be it. There are some points that cannot be compromised.

I'm writing from a public computer with a timer, so I had to break this comment up. Scott, you wanted to know why Bush's statement should concern you. You stated that the real question to answer is, "Who is Jesus?" I fully agree with you on this point. My question is this: Is there any reason for a Jew or Muslim, upon hearing that they worship the same God that Christians do, to suppose that Jesus is at all relevant? Will they not rather infer that worship of the same deity is sufficent for their salvation?

Kevin,

You seem to be confusing "worship" with "salvation."

Cain and Abel both worshipped God through their offerings; God accepted Abel's, but not Cain's.

If Cain's improper worship (as evidenced by his unaccepted offering) had meant that he was worshipping an entity other than God, why did God bother to reject something that was directed to some other entity?

In fact, my Bible states: "that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD."

Now, who exactly is "the LORD"?

Some other "the LORD"?

God's action seem to indicate that He thought they were both worshipping Him. But, hey, He's only God, so what does He know?

Other than that, your argument is flawless (unless, of course, you have made other errors that I am not smart enough to identify -- entirely possible).

Hey, rookie mistake, don't feel too bad.

I don't think that by saying that they worship the same God, that you necessaarily end up down that slippery slope.

What is it that is required for salvation? Belief in God? Even the devil believes in God. What is required for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. More later... Dinner is called.

Bob,
The account of Cain and Abel illustrates the possibility of improperly worshipping the true God. It has nothing to do with the current discussion, which is whether or not non-Christian monotheism constitutes the worship of a different God altogether. As to confusing "worship" and "salvation," I don't believe that this is the case; however, I do admit to making a very close connection between the two.

Scott,
I was going to answer your comment but will wait instead for the indicated "more later." I'm not sure which slippery slope you mean and, once again, I've run out of time to write more today.

Kevin: I'm trying to understand why you wrote that without separating the deities and noting that they are not the same gods, we will lose our ability to effectively witness to Muslims and Jews. That's the slippery slope I'm talking about. Does maintaining the position that we are all worshipping the same Jewish God then entail that the Jews and the Muslims are not in need of obeying that same said God, who requires they turn to Christ in faith and discipleship? That's my point. I can maintain both - that the God they worship is the God I worship, only they are in rebellion to him since they do not submit to his revelation in Christ.

Secondly, they do indeed believe false things about God insofar as they reject the deity of Christ, the trinity in general, and other doctrines concerning God's identity. But, the question I have is whether or not these false beliefs mean that the god himself is different, or if it merely means there is error. I'm thinking of worship in a directional sense - we all face towards the God of the Old Testaement, and so in that sense, can be said to worship the same deity. And since that is fairly specific, it would seem to me that there's a sense in which Bush's statement is true, despite the other two branches' rejection of the deity of Christ and the Trinity. These rejections are fatal; don't get me wrong. But they are akin to the mistakes of the Samaritans in the time of Christ. Jesus, for instance, when speaking to the Samaritan woman did not seem at all pleased with the woman's novelty and her people's innovation about the Jewish religion. But he did not seem to me to reject the idea that they were directionally facing the true God, even though their worship entailed fatal errors for which they were culpable.

Scott,
There is a long tradition of doing just what you advocate. First, establish a common belief in God. Next, move from this God to a belief in Christ. Usually, this common deity need be nothing more than the creator and he can be identified as the object of any branch of monotheism. Your basic classical apologetics approach. Although I disagree with it, I'm not going to argue the point here (well, not much). A common deity is proclaimed but there is always the sense of the inadequacy of this belief. The intent all along is to point someone to Christ. In the context of Bush's statement, the same conotation does not exist. The declaration of a common deity is meant to imply that this belief alone is sufficient. The political context of the statement has removed any implication that Christ is necessary.

I do admit that effective evangelism is possible by moving from a belief in monotheism to a belief in Christ. Nevertheless, I still maintain that the main premise is in error. I've already mentioned some of the reasons. First, the difference between a trinitarian and a unitarian God is great enough to indicate a different God altogether. Second, no one can come to the Father except through Christ. Both of these deserve a much fuller treatment.

You mentioned the idea that worship is directional- "we all face the God of the Old Testament." I agree with the idea of directionality, but I think you have a lot of us facing the wrong way. The Old Testament Saints looked forward to Christ. We look back to Christ. The focal point is not the God of the OT. The focal point is the fullness of Christ. I'd say more but, once again, I'm out of time.

I am familiar with the classical tradition, and the role of building up to Christ from those basic principles. While I'm not going to comment on when and where that might or might not be appropriate, I'll just note briefly that I wasn't arguing Bush's statement was appropriate for those kinds of purposes. Rather, I was simply noting that there is a very real sense in which Christians, Muslims and Jews share, not belief in some basic, general monotheistic deity, but rather, in the Jewish deity, Yahweh, himself. There is a line of prophets (with some differences there, but for the most part, much still in common) and there is agreement about basic scriptural texts. There is common geography, as well. So on that level, we are directionally facing the same deity - that is, Yahweh.

So what I'm arguing is not that because we all agree in some sort of amorphous, monotheistic deity, that therefore we all share a common belief in the same God. Or that our gods are the same. I'm saying that, our gods are the same because they all reference the ancient god of Israel whose name is Yahweh. I don't know, Kevin - that seems to me pretty darn specific.

As for the statement that a trinitarian god and a unitarian god are different - again, I've not argued for either of those. Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship Yahweh. And you did concede that insofar as an OT Jew, and a modern Jew both had identical conceptions about God that therefore this God could be considered the same God, despite the fact that the earlier Jew possessed faith and the latter does not. This is one counterexample to your argument that the later development in trinitarian theology necessarily represents a radical shift away from earlier understandings of God. My position is that the earlier understandings of God were sufficiently narrow to allow Bush's statement to still be true, even despite further developments in Trinitarian theology.

Sorry if this is somewhat rambling. I'm sleepy.

As to what Bush meant - he may very well have meant that the Jews did not need faith in Christ, nor that Muslims did as well. If he did that meant that, though, then he would be making a fairly extreme break with his other statements in which he presents himself publicly to be a run-of-the-mill souther evangelical. So, on those grounds, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he has not abandoned a belief in the uniqueness of Christ nor the centrality of faith in Christ to salvation, thus effectively excluding any individual who is not a follower of Jesus Christ.

As for your last statement - I think you're making too strong of a statement by setting the Old Testament god against Christ. It almost sounds dispensational, and I suspect that you're not a dispensantionalist. But regardless, remember that I'm not advocating any kind of "pointing people to the God of the OT." I'm simply noting that I think there's some legitimacy to Bush's statement, since each of the three groups do worship a very specific deity named Yahweh - each of which share a very specific history in a very specific part of the world. You keep taking it to a more general level - trinitarianism vs. monotheism vs. unitarianism. I've never made those arguments, though. I'm centering the entire discussion on the person of Yahweh, which all three groups share in common.

And secondly, I'm also being somewhat academic with this. I'm simply stating that I think Bush's statement is true as far as it goes. Does it mine the bottoms of all questions relevant to his statements? Obviously, no. He does even mention salvation, nor Christ. His statement was mainly political, and more than likely had to do with his attempt to distance himself from rhetoric that might be construed as imperialistic ala the Crusades. If anything, his statement seems ambiguous, though, for all the reasons you're noting. But I don't think yet that it's truly a serious error, for all the reasons I've noted.

As I understand your argument, you are not saying that Christians, Muslims, and Jews worship the same God because they are monotheists. Instead,it is because they all reference Yahweh, the God of ancient Israel. My response to this is that unless one goes through Christ, it is not possible to reference Yahweh. I'd like to get back to defending this; however, for the next few days I'll be too busy with other things.

Your response ignores the fact that they all *do* reference Yahweh. Other than that, it is brilliant.

And reference, worship, and salvation are all different things. They can be related, but they are not synonymous.

Bush's description was not complete, but that doesn't make it wrong.

If I were to say that the Earth was round, I would be correct, as Scott notes, "as far as it goes." I would not be wrong because I neglected to say that it is mostly covered with water, has magnetic poles, and is peopled by dogmatic beings.

just searching for muslim homework for year4

What Bush was trying to say, most likely to sound less controversial and prejudicial, even though he hismelf has made statements in the past in reference to Jews, in which he was asked if he believed that Jews can go to heaven and he said no, so I believe that he merely said it for political purposes, however the same God to more open-minded individuals implies that most of us believe in a Higher Power who comes to us in different ways or different paths; meaning that this Higher Power presents itself to people of all faiths in different ways, but God ofcourse doesn't mean Jesus, who was human and therefore not divine. God is an existance that is neither woman or man or creature, but simply a force that exists within the universe and corresponds with nature through Evolution, etc., and sometimes in the lives of mankind and in events that take place on earth. God and the Universe are one. Science and History will one day reveal to us the ALL of the truths of nature, mankind and God, although we have acquired more knowledge today than we did in the past we still have more knowledge to gain. People struggle with knowledge, because they choose not ot accept the facts, which have been proven, unlike bibles, whcih have not been proven. What has been proven is that a bible is the word of mankind and not really the word of any God, simply put Modern Technology and History has proven that bibles were written by scholars and not saints, but ordinary men, so therefore they can not be entirely authentic. I do know that there have been claims that the Old Hebrew bible has foretold some events in history, but that still doesn't mean that it was written by God, perhaps some of the writers of those accounts had pscychic powers or visions like Nostradamus who was a French Jewish Psychic in the 16th Century, perhaps it was the power of the human mind and not God, which still cannot be fully understood afterall the average person only uses 30% to 40% of his or her brain and not the 100% which is left unused and therefore unanswered. Things that we see as miracles aren't really miracles, we only see them as such because we can't understand them, because we haven't come to fully understand all of the huamn mind yet nor have we unlocked all the answers to nature, the universe and the spirit world yet. I believe god, but as I said God is not human, but a higher power who corresponds with the universe, and who connects with different faiths in different ways, but does not appear in human form, because God is divine. I don't believe that there is such a thing as a chosen or superior faith of people, what makes a person superior is intelligence, tolerance and showing kindess to others, which very few people today are and in history have been. I don't believe that the higher power picks people to spread it's word, I believe that people make such choices on their own, no one is chosen, only enlightened through knowledge of the higher power. So yes Adoni is just as much God as Allah is, however Jesus is not, because he was in the form of man. Jesus could have been merely a Rabbi or someone who possessed strong mental powers, such as telepathy or foreseeing, but that still does not make him a God, in fact very many Christians don't believe that he was God hismelf only the Son of God, mostly Catholics, Bapists and Evangelists and a few other religious sects believe that he was God come to earth. I am of the Liberal Jewish faith and I believe more so in rationality than the bible itself, I believe that Science and History are authentic, but that although they have proven that mankind did not steem from Adam and Eve and that the universe was created by the big bang, they still haven't been able to prove who or what created teh big bang in the first place, basically how did it all begin. I respect Atheists, but I don't agree with them, because the question of the possibility of a higher power still remains and I believe very much so in the spirit world due to my own personal experiences, not to mention that there have been hundreds of documented cases that prove that indeed the human spirit does exist. I do not however believe in heaven or hell. I believe that once we die we do live live, but on another level in what I believe is the spitit world, some of us walk familiar places of our past lives, because we don't realize that we have crossed over or we have unfinished business that does not allow us to be at peace in the spirit world. I also believe in the possibility of reincarnation of the human spirit, but not because of Karman, but rather because of unfinished business or a more important venture. I don't believe that people are born sinners, I believe that people can commit sinful or bad acts, but not they are eternally evil, there is always a reason for everyone's actions; rather good or bad, even though most people don't want to admit it, rather it is our upbringing, society,etc. itself, something drives us to do bad things which are not entirely unexcusable, but can be understood, often pain and anger cause us to do bad things, but that does not make us evil. I don't believe in the term evil, that's a strong word observed for thsoe born as such and I don't think that people are born evil. I believe that mankind is both good and bad just as God is. God although divine cannot always be understood in the minds of mankind; what we see as bad may not be what God sees as such. I don't believe that anyone can ever be punished for being who they are in regards to religion, race, color, nationality and sexual orientation. I don't believe that people are punished or judged by this higher power for these reasons. A person I believe should be judged by their character and nothing else. I don't believe that murderers are doomed to be hell as I said I don't believe in that, I believe that they will become englightened when they enter the spirit world. I don't believe that this spirit world has white pearly gates and angels floating everywhere, I believe it simply corresponds with the universe and nature itself; that the living world is connected to the spirit world, that once dead we become immortal,able to go anywhere and do anything. I don't believe in judgement day so to speak, but in being englightened, which means that we will be free of intolerance and haterd or others rather learn that at the moment we die or by observing the events of the living and thinking back to our own lives.I believe that badness only lies in the hearts and minds of mankind in life and in the spirit world until they become englightened, so therefore I don't believe in a Devil or in Demons. I am very pro-choice, because I am for reason and for the rights of people to live theri lives as they choose. I respect the rights of homosexuals as individuals even though I do not agree with their chosen lifestyle for myself. I feel that homosexuality is adnormal, but I don't feel that it is sinful. Homosexuality is adnormal, because biology and nature say so, not because any bible does. If everyone were a homosexual, not including bisexuals than the human race would no longer exist, because homosexuals can not reproduce. I don't believe that people are born Gay, there is no proof to prove that, some tests were taken, however the gays tested had Aids and other diseases, which could have contributed to the main factors that gays wer pointing out, such as the size and differences of their braisn, etc. I believe that being Gay is a Psychological choice, concentrated heavily on uncomforability sexually with the opposite sex, but a choice nonetheless. I also believe that social and other factors play a role in leading to this Psychological choice. I'm not saying that it can necessarily be cured, but that it is indeed Psychological and not a defect caused before or after birth. It is indeed how one views others, whcih is also a social matter, many gays say that they don't really see nor consider the sexuality fo the person that they are in love with. Overall I don't care is someone goes with a man or a woman if they are the same gender, it's usually those who are most uncomforable or insecure about themselves that care about matters such a these when what people should be caring about is the Environment and the hate and the violence that still greatly exists in the world today in matters of race, religion, nationality, etc.

Female, 24, Europe, Multicultural, Liberal Jewish Faith