Muslims & Christians: Same God?

[Mendalla]

@GeoFee

We can be certain that Jesus and his disciples all truly believed what they were saying about Jesus and his claims. Who would be willing to die for a lie?

Truly believed does not equal true, though. Many truly believed in a small geocentric universe, but that did not make it true. In fact, the universe is vast (we cannot, and never will be able to, see all of it) and not anything-centric; it has no "centre" in any conventional sense. Not being "true", in other words, does not necessarily mean something is a lie, it often means a misunderstanding or incomplete understanding.

Of course, in the realm of religion, "truth" is often defined only by one's faith. There is no other basis to many religious truth statements. What you believe does not automatically translate into what others believe nor does it automatically become more true than what others believe.

 

[GordW]

@GordW

I am taking their word for it of course. Why claim something if you don't believe what you're saying?

In the same way, how can I know what exactly what you believe about what you're writing? Why should I take your word for what you're saying?

It is quite simple, really. If Jesus asks Peter, "Who do you say I am?", and he responds, "You are the Messiah", then I have good reason to believe Peter believed Jesus was the Messiah. Similarly, if Jesus claims to be the Son of God, I have reason to believe that he believes he is the Son of God.

The other thing I am not sure you realize is that your objection that all religions are equally valid is also a statement of faith, since you can't prove that either. Moreover, you can't say that all religious claims to truth are equally valid unless you yourself claim to be able to see above all religious claims to truth (in order to be able to know that). This of course, is self-refuting, since you are attempting to say there are no absolutes from the pinnacle of an absolute.

I posit that EVERYTHING we make about our belief systems is a statement of faith. Even (or perhaps especially) when we believe it wholeheartedly to be a statement of fact. But just because I (or you or Jae or ...) believe something wholeheartedly to be an absolute truth/fact does not mean that it is. It might be, or it might only be if you see from the same point of view as the speaker/writer.

"You will find Luke that many of the truths we cling to depend on your point of view" (Obi-Wan [in post-death form] to Luke in the swamps of Dagobah in ROTJ -- quote may not be exactly word for word, been a while since I watched the movie)

 

[GordW]

@Luce NDs

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps I'm not smart or deep enough

Join the club...

 

[Geo]

@Mendalla​

You are absolutely correct that truly believed doesn't equate to really "true". There is no way to "prove" what is really true in terms of philosophical statements that cannot be empirically verified. As a Christian, I believe I have good reasons or arguments for believing that what Jesus said was really true, but I can't prove it.

However, that's not the issue here.

I am glad you were willing to concede that objective truths do exist (ie, that the universe is not geocentric). This means that anyone who believes it is geocentric is actually wrong, since the truth that the universe is not geocentric is binding on all people, regardless of what they believe about it.

I am puzzled then as to why you don't think that there can be objective religious truths either, just because you can't physically demonstrate that. Therefore, you are making a statement of faith on your belief, not fact.

The other thing I'm not sure you realize is that your own reasoning refutes itself. If what you believe about religion is no more true than what others believe about it, then why is your statement of belief anymore true than mine? Indeed, why disagree or try to pursue others of your view if theirs are already just as valid?

Religious relativists fail to see the fatal flaw in their reasoning, even though it is right below their nose. You can't claim that all religious views are relative from the pinnacle of an absolute.

 

[Geo]

@GordW

"But just because I (or you or Jae or ...) believe something wholeheartedly to be an absolute truth/fact does not mean that it is..."

Is this statement absolutely true? If it is, then the statement refutes itself. Or is the statement only relatively true? This means that it is not binding on my view that objective religious truth does exist, and therefore it is meaningless to try to convince me of your view.

In true relativism, it is impossible to truly convey any real meaning in communication.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Join the club...

If you are really curious, there are two tricks to making Luce's musings come to life: i) read aloud, ii) brush up on your classical references.

 

[Mendalla]

I am puzzled then as to why you don't think that there can be objective religious truths either, just because you can't physically demonstrate that. Therefore, you are making a statement of faith on your belief, not fact.

Religious truths could be objective, but I have never seen a single shred of evidence to convince me of it. Religious truth, in my experience, belongs to a different realm from the truth of math and science.

Let us be clear here, I am not a atheist denying your metaphysical truth, I am an agnostic who holds that it is likely not possible to prove metaphysical truths conclusively. Yes, that's a statement of faith. The difference between me and a hard theist or hard atheist is that I concede that it is a statement of faith and that there is no need for me to convert others to my faith. I express it, to be sure. I point out to others where their statements of faith are just that and that I have no obligation to accept them (some posters here seem to assume that everyone has to accept everything they say as long as they can cite a Bible verse to support it ). But I do not expect you or anyone else to become an agnostic or abandon their faith on my say-so. I simply argue the case for my point of view as part of exploring it and that of others. Likely, even if I do become a theist of some kind again, I will remain an agnostic to the extent that I will continue to concede that that theism is my faith, not something I can prove to others. I would make a very bad Christian in that way.

The other thing I'm not sure you realize is that your own reasoning refutes itself. If what you believe about religion is no more true than what others believe about it, then why is your statement of belief anymore true than mine? Indeed, why disagree or try to pursue others of your view if theirs are already just as valid?

.

Never said it was, actually. My agnosticism is no more objectively true than your theism. Was merely making the point that your statement about "not dying for a lie" really proves nothing about the truth of the Christian faith, only that those persons did sincerely believe in it. I do it for the purpose of discussion and because I do think it would help religious acceptance and respect a lot if more people would realize that "have faith in" and "believe" are subjective statements. If they don't take that argument, then I'm fine with that. I don't get brownie points in heaven for converting people (assuming there even is a heaven, another thing I'm agnostic on ).

Nice to have you back. I'd forgotten what an eloquent, thoughtful speaker for your faith you are. Welcome!

 

[Geo]

Thanks for the kind words! I can totally understand and respect where you're coming from as well.

My agnosticism is no more objectively true than your theism.

The only way you could know this is if you had a higher vantage point than everyone else. Which of course, is the very thing you are saying others don't have

Was merely making the point that your statement about "not dying for a lie" really proves nothing about the truth of the Christian faith, only that those persons did sincerely believe in it.

Again you are correct in that it doesn't prove anything about it. However, this point is one of the stronger arguments for Christian truth in my view. Christianity would likely not have gotten off the ground if it weren't for the sincerity of the belief of the earliest disciples. They must have all truly believed that Jesus was who he claimed he was, and seen him again in bodily form after he was resurrected from the dead - along with all of the other early eyewitnesses. This of course points to the likelihood that it actually happened. Otherwise, most of them wouldn't have gone on to die horrible deaths for the sake of a lie. This is what I was getting at.

 

[Jaebius]

In Chapter 9, Volf argues against the notion many Christians have that the God of Islam is not loving.

According to Volf, a casual reading of the Qur’an gives a picture of a world divided in two – those whom God loves and those whom God doesn’t love. The line between the loved and the unloved ones, he states, is drawn depending on their stance toward God and their moral qualities.

However, Volf says, the central issue is this: What happens to those who fail to meet the conditions? Are they unloved? In one sense yes, he answers, but in another sense no.

Volf explains that the Qur'an's sharp division between those whom God loves and those whom God doesn’t love is not the whole story of the Islamic understanding of God’s love. This is because, Volf says, Muslim spiritual masters tend to embrace these two important and interesting convictions...

1. Mercy is the overarching way God relates to creation.

2. Love is an essential attribute of God, inscribed on God’s very self, and not merely a quality of God’s action towards creatures. Volf writes that, according to many spiritual masters' interpretation of the Qur'an, God in his loving mercy seeks to bring back to himself even those who he doesn't love. In this version of Muslim teaching, Volf says, God is then lovingly merciful even to the ungodly.

According to Volf, if sacred books and great teachers of both traditions are our guide, we can say that Christians and Muslims (roughly) agree that...

1. God loves creatures in a compassionate, gift-giving sort of way.

2. God is just.

3. God’s justice is an aspect of God’s love for – or mercy toward – creatures.

4. Human beings are called to love all neighbors as they love themselves.

Volf concludes Chapter 9, "I trust that Muslims are able to join Christians and say: 'Our God would love us no matter what became of us, and we too would work for one another’s good despite old and new tensions, enmities, and wars.' To say this would be to follow in the footsteps of Christ."

 

[Luce NDs]

@Luce NDs

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps I'm not smart or deep enough

Does give one material to ponder about what's beyond us ... right! them soles is up deire ...

 

[revjohn]

Re your second last question: Apparently not, according to the author of 1 John 2:22-23. And if this isn't a clear, easily understandable statement that's not nuanced, I don't know what is.

I agree with you. It is a clear statement with no concern for nuance.

 

[GeoFee]

Hi Geo,

You ask: "Where did you read that?"

"Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable." Matthew 13:34

George

 

[Luce NDs]

Is god beyond us considering the context of a hateful world dedicated to competition in all extremes?

This would support the deus abscondia pretext ... or the gape sense!

Yet there are people that say they know god (everything) even the missing part, or as with incarnate ... "that which appears as isn't"!

If the bucket was extremely "light" on one side would it "list" as unbalanced, or manifest on tilde?

 

[revjohn]

The Church with many members, diversely gifted, animated by one Holy Spirit, united by a common purpose as the age ripens for harvest? I affirm Christ, the anointed of God, as the living cornerstone of this temple made of living stones.

For clarity's sake then, cornerstone and head roughly the same thing just different analogies at play or, something else?

 

[Luce NDs]

In the complex world of a vast idealism of god(s) ... could the simple know much?

Oh vanity of vanities ... or as the witch looks into de dark mire ...

 

[GeoFee]

Hi John,

Christ is metaphorically represented as head of a body and cornerstone of a temple. The gospel seems to indicate that body and temple each and both signify the place where Christ is present as way, truth and life.

This not as doctrinal assertion but as lived experience. As it is written: "Christ in you, the hope of glory." And in another place: ""I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me."

Where salvation and deliverance are reduced to appropriation and promulgation of correct doctrine, justification by faith alone seems to be trumped.

Even so, we are called to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." With this in view, I am grateful for any engagement of diverse perspective in the hope of clarity, conviction and commitment.

George

 

[revjohn]

Christ is metaphorically represented as head of a body and cornerstone of a temple. The gospel seems to indicate that body and temple each and both signify the place where Christ is present as way, truth and life.

Among other things. Within the context of the metaphor something is being said which goes beyond the metaphor. Christ as cornerstone, for example, suggests that we actually can lean on Christ and Christ is equal to the task of carrying what burden we may bring with us as we lean. Christ as head, for example, suggests that their is a wisdom beyond whatever wisdom we (whatever body part we may represent) may bring to the body. A wisdom sufficient to lead that we may want to consider listening to if not submitting to.

This not as doctrinal assertion but as lived experience.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Though practice may show they are not yet integrated into anything remotely resembling a whole.

Where salvation and deliverance are reduced to appropriation and promulgation of correct doctrine, justification by faith alone seems to be trumped.

Fair enough. I expect this is only a concern for those who are more concerned with the grace God grants than it is those who believe they merit a reward.

Even so, we are called to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

Indeed we are. I suspect most of us do the best we can. I'm not entirely sure we get out of God's way and trust God to render a verdict free from our counsel. It may be ultimately more difficult for us to not sit on God's throne and render verdicts on elements we have no business judging.

I don't think that is a doctrinal issue so much as it does appear to be a very human thing. Although my perspective that such is a very human issue reflects doctrine which I find informative.

 

[GeoFee]

Thanks John,

I also find doctrine informative but resist it as proscriptive and normative. Suspect that, like Jacob in his sleepless night, I prefer wrestling with the messengers from God to unquestioning submission to them.

George

 

[revjohn]

I also find doctrine informative but resist it as proscriptive and normative. Suspect that, like Jacob in his sleepless night, I prefer wrestling with the messengers from God to unquestioning submission to them.

When doctrine is used to end conversations it is about control.

When doctrine is the springboard into conversation it is about the depths of grace.

I much prefer diving into pools of thought than being told it is time to get out of the water.

 

[Delightful Life]

When doctrine is used to end conversations it is about control.

When doctrine is the springboard into conversation it is about the depths of grace.

I much prefer diving into pools of thought than being told it is time to get out of the water.

and you've definitely got your deep end diving ticket :3
(as well as caving, fresh & salt water, night & wreck diving)