Okay, but I seem to recall it being voiced (on some other doctrinal thread) that doctrinal threads were intended to discuss what might be the biblical position on a particular matter, and not a matter of whether or not scripture itself is fact or fiction.
The purpose of this board is to explore doctrinal issues in the context of discussions, not monologues.
So, individual discussions could go in either direction.
Naturally, trying to squelch a discussion either way is not appropriate for Doctrinal.
In other words, posting and disagreeing with the Original Poster is fine.
Hijacking the thread to disagree or spamming the thread with the same idea ESPECIALLY WHILE ADDING NOTHING NEW,
should be discouraged regardless of the content.
Whole discussions posed to claim it's fiction have their own subforum now, and threads meant SPECIFICALLY
for that should be put there. Individual posts remain on their threads.
Maybe. But if so, then were those at Ephesus (which worshipped Diana) simply (or primarily) in disagreement about the attributes of God?
Is there anywhere to draw the line and say it's possible to worship a different god, even if only from a position of ignorance?
If so, where is it? Or, should any and all worship (of anything) that somehow "misses the mark" be lumped into this same category of ignorance?
Or, can and do some deliberately (i.e., not ignorantly) choose to worship something that is not God?
Perhaps Acts 17:23 needs a closer look. Is Paul's statement simply viewed as an opener to his presentation at Mars' hill, and not something that paints any and all worship (of anything) anywhere in the world?
In twi, I was taught (apparently, completely in error) that Athens had SO many gods that they
set up an altar to cover whoever was left out, a miscellaneous altar, and labelled that
"TO THE UNKNOWN GOD."
Apparently, historical sources agree on a completely different story.
The short of it was that they wanted to stop a plague. They offered on altars for every god they knew. No improvement.
So, they offered up offerings to a god they didn't know, and the plague stopped.
They concluded (post hoc, ergo propter hoc, after this, therefore because of this)
that "the unknown god" accepted their sacrifice and stopped the plague.
So, there were some altars made up to that "unknown god."
THAT's what Paul saw and commented on. So, yes, it was his "conversation starter" on Mars' Hill.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic at the core level. This was not the case regarding worship of Diana, the goddess of the hunt. Diana was a figure in Roman mythology. The common thread that ties together the 3 aforementioned religions was not present in the worship of Diana.
Few people here, if any, would claim every single act of worship, including druidic, satanic, Christian,
Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pastafarian, etc, would all be worshiping the same god. The discussion is to whether
the "people of the Book" are all worshiping the same God, not whether everyone who worships does.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic at the core level. This was not the case regarding worship of Diana, the goddess of the hunt. Diana was a figure in Roman mythology. The common thread that ties together the 3 aforementioned religions was not present in the worship of Diana.
Regardless of whether the root of their belief system stems from Abraham or from Nimrod, I'm inclined to think (somewhat along the lines of what Raf may have alluded to) that it's the worship that identifies which God is followed/served/believed (however you want to say it.) Of course, this also allows for a Christian (by name, at least) to worship amiss, and - as noted in the 3rd point below - might indeed make it very easy for both a Muslim and a Christian to worship the same God, albeit the wrong God!
Now, if it is viewed or thought that there is no God, then the question of this thread makes absolutely no sense.
But neither does it make much more sense if there is thought to be only one God (as no other God would exist that could be worshipped.)
The next viewpoint would be that there are two gods (which I suppose is how most here probably see this.) If this is correct, then everyone that worships will worship one or the other, and if done incorrectly and/or in ignorance, might lump untold numbers of "doctrinal enemies" together in a boat, unwittingly worshipping (in remarkably different ways) the same god.
Last on the list, is the very popular "multiples of gods" theory, which merits no further comment.
Apparently, historical sources agree on a completely different story.
The short of it was that they wanted to stop a plague. They offered on altars for every god they knew. No improvement.
So, they offered up offerings to a god they didn't know, and the plague stopped.
They concluded (post hoc, ergo propter hoc, after this, therefore because of this)
that "the unknown god" accepted their sacrifice and stopped the plague.
So, there were some altars made up to that "unknown god."
THAT's what Paul saw and commented on. So, yes, it was his "conversation starter" on Mars' Hill.
Perhaps I should have footnoted to this list to clarify that in the context of this conversation, I don't regard the Trinitarian position as being pluralistic, any more than I would consider God and Jesus Christ to be representative of anything more than one position or one Lord (though I plainly don't think of them as being exactly the same.) Neither do I view the devil (and his minions) as more than one enemy.
The defining characteristic of the "one, true God" is not worship. It is not works. It is not blind obedience to any one group or thought or even fantasy about God. It is not limited or confined or enshrined in ANY man-made theology, ideology, or philosophy. There is no "one right way" of either worshipping or pleasing God. There is, IMO, no human act of heart or mind can define, prescribe, or limit God to one specific belief system or religion conjured up by man or any group of people.
So then, how do we know if the way we think, act, and behave indeed is directed toward pleasing the one true God? BY THE PRESENCE OR ANSENCE OF FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT. Love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, kindness, meekness, self-control and patience. FRIT OF THE SPIRIT is the only way to identify those human beings who are living and worshipping the true God. Name any benevolent, beneficent church or religion which does not include the idea that these fruit are not to be desired or that they do not contribute in a Godly way to the improvement and benefit of all mankind regardless of the specific words, teachings, beliefs used to describe or define that faith.
Yes! As long as there have been humans living on this planet, we have seen long histories where the opposite of fruit of the spirit is flourishing. Hatreds, wars, murders, idolatry, blind obedience to the "lust and passions of the flesh", tyrants, Kings, lords, emperors, dictators of every kind have been as much a part of human history as the fruit of the Spirit have. Talk is cheap. The words and thoughts of man, according to the Bible, "are only evil continually". "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh."
It seems to me, TLC, that your theological basis for limiting and restricting worship, service, and praise to God is still wrapped up in your Pauline skewed "one Way only" Christianity. Your belief system appears to be threatened by diversity and disagreement. My suggestion? The the fruit do the talking.
FYI, I am a Christian, and, by personal choice, I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.. One man's ceiling is another man's floor, as Paul Simon wrote. I do not limit God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Brahma, Vishnu, Confucius, The Great Spirit of the Indigenous Sioux tribes, among other Indigenous Peoples, here and around the world, nor do I limit or confirm the beliefs of others regarding who and what their God is. If JC wasn't God, then most certainly none of the churches formed in His name, nor any of their "spiritual leaders" can be God either. Like others here have posted, God and Christ know how to sort the mail. I agree wholeheartedly with Steve Lortz:
"A Sioux can pray to the Great Spirit, and if that Sioux intends her prayer to reach the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, it will." Amen.
FYI, I am a Christian, and, by personal choice, I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.. One man's ceiling is another man's floor, as Paul Simon wrote. I do not limit God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Brahma, Vishnu, Confucius, The Great Spirit of the Indigenous Sioux tribes, among other Indigenous Peoples, here and around the world, nor do I limit or confirm the beliefs of others regarding who and what their God is. If JC wasn't God, then most certainly none of the churches formed in His name, nor any of their "spiritual leaders" can be God either. Like others here have posted, God and Christ know how to sort the mail. I agree wholeheartedly with Steve Lortz:
"A Sioux can pray to the Great Spirit, and if that Sioux intends her prayer to reach the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, it will." Amen.
The defining characteristic of the "one, true God" is not worship. It is not works. It is not blind obedience to any one group or thought or even fantasy about God. It is not limited or confined or enshrined in ANY man-made theology, ideology, or philosophy. There is no "one right way" of either worshipping or pleasing God. There is, IMO, no human act of heart or mind can define, prescribe, or limit God to one specific belief system or religion conjured up by man or any group of people.
So then, how do we know if the way we think, act, and behave indeed is directed toward pleasing the one true God? BY THE PRESENCE OR ANSENCE OF FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT. Love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, kindness, meekness, self-control and patience. FRIT OF THE SPIRIT is the only way to identify those human beings who are living and worshipping the true God. Name any benevolent, beneficent church or religion which does not include the idea that these fruit are not to be desired or that they do not contribute in a Godly way to the improvement and benefit of all mankind regardless of the specific words, teachings, beliefs used to describe or define that faith.
Yes! As long as there have been humans living on this planet, we have seen long histories where the opposite of fruit of the spirit is flourishing. Hatreds, wars, murders, idolatry, blind obedience to the "lust and passions of the flesh", tyrants, Kings, lords, emperors, dictators of every kind have been as much a part of human history as the fruit of the Spirit have. Talk is cheap. The words and thoughts of man, according to the Bible, "are only evil continually". "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh."
It seems to me, TLC, that your theological basis for limiting and restricting worship, service, and praise to God is still wrapped up in your Pauline skewed "one Way only" Christianity. Your belief system appears to be threatened by diversity and disagreement. My suggestion? The the fruit do the talking.
Cast your interpretation (of anything) in whatever direction you want. But if (as it appears) you're intending to relate it to something I wrote, then I'll point out that I plainly stated that I was inclined to think that it's the worship that identifies which God is followed, served, or believed - and not that it's the worship itself which defines God. Furthermore, given that I actually said nothing previously concerning what I thought worship was or should be, you're mighty quick trying to pigeonhole me into whatever corner you think I ought to belong based on your prejudiced views of Pauline based Christology. Frankly speaking, I'm not sure whether you might know less about that, or about what I really think or believe... neither of which are at risk or in imminent danger from you or any of the "diversity" you think you represent or bring.
And btw, fruit of the spirit (which is spoken of in Galatians) is exactly that - being "of the spirit." In other words, not of our own selves. It's the attributes of the inner man that starts to eek through the cracks of our mortal bodies and fleshly minds.
TLC..... Your not so subtle antagonistic attitudes toward what I post in the various forums we cross paths on is annoyingly unnecessary IMO. What is it that causes you to be so accusatory and belligerent toward me? What did I do to get your panties in such a bunch? Present tense or 30 years ago. Feel free to spew forth.
TLC..... Your not so subtle antagonistic attitudes toward what I post in the various forums we cross paths on is annoyingly unnecessary IMO. What is it that causes you to be so accusatory and belligerent toward me? What did I do to get your panties in such a bunch? Present tense or 30 years ago. Feel free to spew forth.
Why take things I post so personally? Why try to draw so much focus, thought, or attention upon yourself (or what you suppose others think of you)?
You continue to demonstrate well-practiced avoidance behavior, IMO, TLC. Bill Maize will give you a gold star for answering a question with a question. But, it accomplishes nothing other than you stroking yourself and demonstrating your prolonged adolescence and being stuck in it.
Oooohhh.....you're so witty and bright in your waybrained mind aren't you? You really amaze yourself don't you? As soon as you go into your waybrain, you habitually descend to the logical fallacies of adhominem attack, red herrings, and false equvalence, just as you learned from dictor. It's reflexive for you now isn't it? Well-practiced avoidance behavior and thinking. Relax pilgrim!......you have arrived......LOL!
If you insist upon playing the roll of egotistical, self-serving, pseudo-intellectual, annoying TROLL here, carry on. You're doing an excellent job. Dictor and Ethelbert would be proud of your faithfulness to foolishness and meaningless use of logical fallacies. Keep your mirrors clean so you can enjoy yourself. TTFN.
You guys are approaching this issue from vastly different theological perspectives. TLC, I invite you to expand your understanding to appreciate what DWBH is trying to say. DWBH, I invite you to recognize the perspective from which TLC sees the issue.
TLC:
"Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them, for since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20)
So it's conceivable, even Biblical, that one may appreciate God as Creator without knowing his attributes. So a pre-Colombian Native American praying to "the Great Spirit" may indeed be honored by God, though that person could not possibly understand God as revealed in the scriptures.
DWBH: Any religion can posit a Creator and call that creator "God," but once that creator is given fictional attributes, he becomes a false god by any reasonable Biblical definition. So it seems odd to say they're the same God just because they have an attribute in common.
Apologies if my attempt to broker peace here is misguided.
It's not attributes of God that I claimed they share. My simple statement back before TLC's hissy fit was this: The source material for ALL 3 religions known as the Abrahamic faiths, is the same.....the Hebrew Old Testament. All three Faith's AGREE that the HOT is properly canonized as "god's (or Allah's) Word. Therefore, all agree as to the basic attributes of the same Hebrew Old Testament God as described from Genesis through Malachi.
Now, what they do with the Haddakas and Halakkas and the oral Rabbinical traditions of Maimonades et al among the Jews, The Koran and the various Islamic sects formed around it and multiple Islamic commentaries through the centuries for Muslims, and the New Testament, The Pauline religion version of Christianity, along with long-held church traditions and literally hundreds of thousands of commentaries dating back to the first century and the volumes written by the "Church Fathers" like Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. THAT's where the intense differences between the three lie. Not in forms of worship or the Mosaic Law , or Sharia Law, or Pauline laws and rituals. But rather in the various INTERPRETATIONS of the SAME SOURCE MATERIAL. Those diverse interpretations do not change the attributes or nature of Jahweh/Jehovah/Elohim/Allah/Muhammad or Jesus(for you trinitarians out there). They are simply man-mad differences of interpretation of the same Hebrew "scripture". IMO, man-invented theologies, Christologies, eschatologies, hermeneutics, and exegesis bears no legitimate weight as "godbreathed". Men not only did the writing, they did the thinking behind it. TLC maintains that ALL SCRIPTURA, most espayshully the Pauline letters, are "the word of God". I absolutely do not come close to accepting that "by faith" or because dictor or Ethelbert, or Schofield, or Darby and whomever else said so. I've read them all, some more than once, and I find them to be less than credible. I admit, I have always particularly enjoyed Bullinger and Welch. Their scholarship and excellence in NT Greek, and Latin, along with their voluminous written works and lexical aides, are astonishing. However, none of them are "godbreathed".
So, maybe now, hissy fits notwithstanding, further reasonable and rational discussion on this topic may continue. We'll see..............Peace.
"Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them, for since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20)
So it's conceivable, even Biblical, that one may appreciate God as Creator without knowing his attributes. So a pre-Colombian Native American praying to "the Great Spirit" may indeed be honored by God, though that person could not possibly understand God as revealed in the scriptures.
Raf, do you think or suppose there is (or might be) a difference between knowing or believing (or, without defining it any further, "appreciating") that there is only one God, versus deriving any benefit from it?
If so, then does it even matter what a person knows or believes (or worships) if the result (or in effect, the non-result) of such knowing/belief/worship is... nothing for that person?
So, it appears to me that (as you may have alluded to once already) the underlying question of this thread is mute apart from some sort of reasonable definition and understanding of what is meant by "worship." Do Muslims and Christians worship the same?
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
The purpose of this board is to explore doctrinal issues in the context of discussions, not monologues.
So, individual discussions could go in either direction.
Naturally, trying to squelch a discussion either way is not appropriate for Doctrinal.
In other words, posting and disagreeing with the Original Poster is fine.
Hijacking the thread to disagree or spamming the thread with the same idea ESPECIALLY WHILE ADDING NOTHING NEW,
should be discouraged regardless of the content.
Whole discussions posed to claim it's fiction have their own subforum now, and threads meant SPECIFICALLY
for that should be put there. Individual posts remain on their threads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In twi, I was taught (apparently, completely in error) that Athens had SO many gods that they
set up an altar to cover whoever was left out, a miscellaneous altar, and labelled that
"TO THE UNKNOWN GOD."
Apparently, historical sources agree on a completely different story.
The short of it was that they wanted to stop a plague. They offered on altars for every god they knew. No improvement.
So, they offered up offerings to a god they didn't know, and the plague stopped.
They concluded (post hoc, ergo propter hoc, after this, therefore because of this)
that "the unknown god" accepted their sacrifice and stopped the plague.
So, there were some altars made up to that "unknown god."
THAT's what Paul saw and commented on. So, yes, it was his "conversation starter" on Mars' Hill.
http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/the_unknown_God.htm
http://odb.org/1994/03/11/to-the-unknown-god/
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Few people here, if any, would claim every single act of worship, including druidic, satanic, Christian,
Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pastafarian, etc, would all be worshiping the same god. The discussion is to whether
the "people of the Book" are all worshiping the same God, not whether everyone who worships does.
(I got that from the title of the thread.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Regardless of whether the root of their belief system stems from Abraham or from Nimrod, I'm inclined to think (somewhat along the lines of what Raf may have alluded to) that it's the worship that identifies which God is followed/served/believed (however you want to say it.) Of course, this also allows for a Christian (by name, at least) to worship amiss, and - as noted in the 3rd point below - might indeed make it very easy for both a Muslim and a Christian to worship the same God, albeit the wrong God!
Yes, I've likewise heard/read this before, and think that best explains it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Perhaps I should have footnoted to this list to clarify that in the context of this conversation, I don't regard the Trinitarian position as being pluralistic, any more than I would consider God and Jesus Christ to be representative of anything more than one position or one Lord (though I plainly don't think of them as being exactly the same.) Neither do I view the devil (and his minions) as more than one enemy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Retracted
Not important why
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Not to be argumentative here......
The defining characteristic of the "one, true God" is not worship. It is not works. It is not blind obedience to any one group or thought or even fantasy about God. It is not limited or confined or enshrined in ANY man-made theology, ideology, or philosophy. There is no "one right way" of either worshipping or pleasing God. There is, IMO, no human act of heart or mind can define, prescribe, or limit God to one specific belief system or religion conjured up by man or any group of people.
So then, how do we know if the way we think, act, and behave indeed is directed toward pleasing the one true God? BY THE PRESENCE OR ANSENCE OF FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT. Love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, kindness, meekness, self-control and patience. FRIT OF THE SPIRIT is the only way to identify those human beings who are living and worshipping the true God. Name any benevolent, beneficent church or religion which does not include the idea that these fruit are not to be desired or that they do not contribute in a Godly way to the improvement and benefit of all mankind regardless of the specific words, teachings, beliefs used to describe or define that faith.
Yes! As long as there have been humans living on this planet, we have seen long histories where the opposite of fruit of the spirit is flourishing. Hatreds, wars, murders, idolatry, blind obedience to the "lust and passions of the flesh", tyrants, Kings, lords, emperors, dictators of every kind have been as much a part of human history as the fruit of the Spirit have. Talk is cheap. The words and thoughts of man, according to the Bible, "are only evil continually". "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh."
It seems to me, TLC, that your theological basis for limiting and restricting worship, service, and praise to God is still wrapped up in your Pauline skewed "one Way only" Christianity. Your belief system appears to be threatened by diversity and disagreement. My suggestion? The the fruit do the talking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
FYI, I am a Christian, and, by personal choice, I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.. One man's ceiling is another man's floor, as Paul Simon wrote. I do not limit God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Brahma, Vishnu, Confucius, The Great Spirit of the Indigenous Sioux tribes, among other Indigenous Peoples, here and around the world, nor do I limit or confirm the beliefs of others regarding who and what their God is. If JC wasn't God, then most certainly none of the churches formed in His name, nor any of their "spiritual leaders" can be God either. Like others here have posted, God and Christ know how to sort the mail. I agree wholeheartedly with Steve Lortz:
"A Sioux can pray to the Great Spirit, and if that Sioux intends her prayer to reach the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, it will." Amen.
FYI, I am a Christian, and, by personal choice, I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.. One man's ceiling is another man's floor, as Paul Simon wrote. I do not limit God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Brahma, Vishnu, Confucius, The Great Spirit of the Indigenous Sioux tribes, among other Indigenous Peoples, here and around the world, nor do I limit or confirm the beliefs of others regarding who and what their God is. If JC wasn't God, then most certainly none of the churches formed in His name, nor any of their "spiritual leaders" can be God either. Like others here have posted, God and Christ know how to sort the mail. I agree wholeheartedly with Steve Lortz:
"A Sioux can pray to the Great Spirit, and if that Sioux intends her prayer to reach the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, it will." Amen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Cast your interpretation (of anything) in whatever direction you want. But if (as it appears) you're intending to relate it to something I wrote, then I'll point out that I plainly stated that I was inclined to think that it's the worship that identifies which God is followed, served, or believed - and not that it's the worship itself which defines God. Furthermore, given that I actually said nothing previously concerning what I thought worship was or should be, you're mighty quick trying to pigeonhole me into whatever corner you think I ought to belong based on your prejudiced views of Pauline based Christology. Frankly speaking, I'm not sure whether you might know less about that, or about what I really think or believe... neither of which are at risk or in imminent danger from you or any of the "diversity" you think you represent or bring.
And btw, fruit of the spirit (which is spoken of in Galatians) is exactly that - being "of the spirit." In other words, not of our own selves. It's the attributes of the inner man that starts to eek through the cracks of our mortal bodies and fleshly minds.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
And what does it mean if and when it reaches Him? Is it something that God needs... or something which man needs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That's really a whole other topic, in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
TLC..... Your not so subtle antagonistic attitudes toward what I post in the various forums we cross paths on is annoyingly unnecessary IMO. What is it that causes you to be so accusatory and belligerent toward me? What did I do to get your panties in such a bunch? Present tense or 30 years ago. Feel free to spew forth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Why take things I post so personally? Why try to draw so much focus, thought, or attention upon yourself (or what you suppose others think of you)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
You continue to demonstrate well-practiced avoidance behavior, IMO, TLC. Bill Maize will give you a gold star for answering a question with a question. But, it accomplishes nothing other than you stroking yourself and demonstrating your prolonged adolescence and being stuck in it.
Oooohhh.....you're so witty and bright in your waybrained mind aren't you? You really amaze yourself don't you? As soon as you go into your waybrain, you habitually descend to the logical fallacies of adhominem attack, red herrings, and false equvalence, just as you learned from dictor. It's reflexive for you now isn't it? Well-practiced avoidance behavior and thinking. Relax pilgrim!......you have arrived......LOL!
If you insist upon playing the roll of egotistical, self-serving, pseudo-intellectual, annoying TROLL here, carry on. You're doing an excellent job. Dictor and Ethelbert would be proud of your faithfulness to foolishness and meaningless use of logical fallacies. Keep your mirrors clean so you can enjoy yourself. TTFN.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You guys are approaching this issue from vastly different theological perspectives. TLC, I invite you to expand your understanding to appreciate what DWBH is trying to say. DWBH, I invite you to recognize the perspective from which TLC sees the issue.
TLC:
"Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them, for since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20)
So it's conceivable, even Biblical, that one may appreciate God as Creator without knowing his attributes. So a pre-Colombian Native American praying to "the Great Spirit" may indeed be honored by God, though that person could not possibly understand God as revealed in the scriptures.
DWBH: Any religion can posit a Creator and call that creator "God," but once that creator is given fictional attributes, he becomes a false god by any reasonable Biblical definition. So it seems odd to say they're the same God just because they have an attribute in common.
Apologies if my attempt to broker peace here is misguided.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Thanks Raf!
No apologies necessary as far as I'm concerned.
It's not attributes of God that I claimed they share. My simple statement back before TLC's hissy fit was this: The source material for ALL 3 religions known as the Abrahamic faiths, is the same.....the Hebrew Old Testament. All three Faith's AGREE that the HOT is properly canonized as "god's (or Allah's) Word. Therefore, all agree as to the basic attributes of the same Hebrew Old Testament God as described from Genesis through Malachi.
Now, what they do with the Haddakas and Halakkas and the oral Rabbinical traditions of Maimonades et al among the Jews, The Koran and the various Islamic sects formed around it and multiple Islamic commentaries through the centuries for Muslims, and the New Testament, The Pauline religion version of Christianity, along with long-held church traditions and literally hundreds of thousands of commentaries dating back to the first century and the volumes written by the "Church Fathers" like Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. THAT's where the intense differences between the three lie. Not in forms of worship or the Mosaic Law , or Sharia Law, or Pauline laws and rituals. But rather in the various INTERPRETATIONS of the SAME SOURCE MATERIAL. Those diverse interpretations do not change the attributes or nature of Jahweh/Jehovah/Elohim/Allah/Muhammad or Jesus(for you trinitarians out there). They are simply man-mad differences of interpretation of the same Hebrew "scripture". IMO, man-invented theologies, Christologies, eschatologies, hermeneutics, and exegesis bears no legitimate weight as "godbreathed". Men not only did the writing, they did the thinking behind it. TLC maintains that ALL SCRIPTURA, most espayshully the Pauline letters, are "the word of God". I absolutely do not come close to accepting that "by faith" or because dictor or Ethelbert, or Schofield, or Darby and whomever else said so. I've read them all, some more than once, and I find them to be less than credible. I admit, I have always particularly enjoyed Bullinger and Welch. Their scholarship and excellence in NT Greek, and Latin, along with their voluminous written works and lexical aides, are astonishing. However, none of them are "godbreathed".
So, maybe now, hissy fits notwithstanding, further reasonable and rational discussion on this topic may continue. We'll see..............Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Guess not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Raf, do you think or suppose there is (or might be) a difference between knowing or believing (or, without defining it any further, "appreciating") that there is only one God, versus deriving any benefit from it?
If so, then does it even matter what a person knows or believes (or worships) if the result (or in effect, the non-result) of such knowing/belief/worship is... nothing for that person?
So, it appears to me that (as you may have alluded to once already) the underlying question of this thread is mute apart from some sort of reasonable definition and understanding of what is meant by "worship." Do Muslims and Christians worship the same?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.