Muslims & Christians: Same God?

[Luce NDs]

Hi Luce...

"London bridge is fallen down, fallen down...".

There was the day of one people and one language. Creation was its context and cooperation was its manifestation. Then the seduction of power. A grand tower designed and built for access to and conquest of the unseen realm where authority is rooted; appropriation of the universal throne which no particular may occupy. Hubris. Nemesis. Unity is fractured. Divisive principle established and promulgated. Understanding and mutuality broken. Persons and peoples scattered. Each trajectory and all trajectories giving rise to the deification of some principality or power as sovereign and binding; the gods of the nations.

Boil me down boys. And boil me down again. Till all that burns is burnt and only I am who I am remains.

George

I have this image of that fellow in a soup caldron in a' free kahn'd empiric ... it all boiles down in the NDs to Dr living's tone


Perhaps just a fermenting wort ...

 

[Geo]

It deserves no more. It's not only a circular argument, it forms the tightest circle possible. Your claim is the bible is an historical account because it says it has 500 eyewitnesses who agree that it's historical.

If you want me to take that seriously, I'm gonna need strong pharmaceuticals and time to find the correct dosage to achieve that level of credulity.

Actually, if you read my post more carefully, you would have realized that wasn't my argument. But I get it, attacking straw men is much easier.

I mentioned the more than 500 eyewitnesses with respect to the event of the resurrection. You can't make a claim like that in public without it getting quickly shut down, unless the actual people you were talking about were actually around.

 

[Geo]

Ha, ha, ha, ... what lame argument.

Plaintiff: "Your Honor, I have 500 eyewitnesses to the event I describe."
Judge: "I see. Are they here today? Do you affidavits from them? What are their names?"
Paintiff: "Well no, but I saw them there. I counted them all. Isn't that enough?"

Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple?

If he makes a claim to a certain church that these folks are still around, it is one that can easily be verified by simply asking them.

 

[Luce NDs]

Complexity is not well assimilated by imputed authority prone to corruption!

Where did that come from? Aesthetic wisdom or that far out stuff ?

 

[Jaebius]

Notes from Volf's Chapter eleven...

How to See Things from the Vantage Point of Others...

1. Register how you see the other and yourself.
2. Step imaginatively outside yourself and into the world of the other.
3. Observe yourself as well as the other with the eyes of the other.
4. Return to yourself and compare the findings.
5. Repeat.

Two Basic Rules for Witness in Word and Deed...

1. Witness to others only if you are prepared to let them witness to you.
2. Witness to others in the way you think others should witness to you.

Ways to Witness to Others in the Way You Think Others Should Witness to You...

1. It is wrong to coerce others to accept faith; the recipients have to be able to receive or reject faith in freedom, rather than be forced to cave in under the pressure of a superior power.
2. It is wrong to bribe or seduce others to embrace faith; the faith has to be offered as valuable and attractive in itself, rather than on account of its “packaging” or the extrinsic rewards associated with it (money or status). (What about Operation Shoebox? - Jae)
3. It is wrong to compare the best practices of one’s own faith with the worst practices of the other faith.

 

[Mendalla]

Ways to Witness to Others in the Way You Think Others Should Witness to You...

1. It is wrong to coerce others to accept faith; the recipients have to be able to receive or reject faith in freedom, rather than be forced to cave in under the pressure of a superior power.
2. It is wrong to bribe or seduce others to embrace faith; the faith has to be offered as valuable and attractive in itself, rather than on account of its “packaging” or the extrinsic rewards associated with it (money or status). (What about Operation Shoebox? - Jae)
3. It is wrong to compare the best practices of one’s own faith with the worst practices of the other faith.

This could be a whole other thread. How to witness without looking like a jerk.

 

[Geo]

No worries.

One of my posts received a "bulls**t" from @chansen not too long ago.
I kid you not.

Yeah, I feel you. It's a wonder that a guy who posts such un-sophisticated statements can garner so many "likes".
@chansen displays the hallmark logically fallacious tactics of a person who doesn't have a response to certain arguments, so he resorts to ridicule and ad hominems. If someone levels an argument against them and he calls it out as false, he must systematically dismantle the argument point by point, since ridiculing and name-calling don't substitute as valid counter-arguments.

In my earlier days here at WC I used to love going toe to toe with others, but now I simply don't have the time or energy for that. There are clearly folks here who are willing to have meaningful discussions without being the forum tough guy that looks down their nose at others, and these are the ones you'll see me engaging with from now on.

 

[Luce NDs]

Notes from Volf's Chapter eleven...

How to See Things from the Vantage Point of Others...

1. Register how you see the other and yourself. Have rapport ?
2. Step imaginatively outside yourself and into the world of the other. Exclusion Prin. gone wrong?
3. Observe yourself as well as the other with the eyes of the other. Uncertainty Prin. as we doubt OBI's!
4. Return to yourself and compare the findings. Rebound effect or just normal bounce like Cana?
5. Repeat. Re iteration of myth as a story of BS? Redundant syntax!

Two Basic Rules for Witness in Word and Deed...

1. Witness to others only if you are prepared to let them witness to you. Everything affects everything else and thus God learns! Sometimes golden if God learns not to be a brute ....
2. Witness to others in the way you think others should witness to you. Sophia's Choice ...

Ways to Witness to Others in the Way You Think Others Should Witness to You...

1. It is wrong to coerce others to accept faith; the recipients have to be able to receive or reject faith in freedom, rather than be forced to cave in under the pressure of a superior power. If not presenting myth as iteration, do reiteration of story ... people really go for BS! Thus general illiteracy down here!
2. It is wrong to bribe or seduce others to embrace faith; the faith has to be offered as valuable and attractive in itself, rather than on account of its “packaging” or the extrinsic rewards associated with it (money or status). (What about Operation Shoebox? - Jae) Does imposing fear of hell as the only place of light around the fire ... fall into the class of terrorism?
3. It is wrong to compare the best practices of one’s own faith with the worst practices of the other faith.

Might be good to combine them in a complex composition ... approximated by the bible without knowing commentary as most commentary is done by winners ... thus the Mishnah! It can go on and on like mental process about wee painful foolishness!

 

[Luce NDs]

Yeah, I feel you. It's a wonder that a guy who posts such un-sophisticated statements can garner so many "likes".
@chansen displays the hallmark logically fallacious tactics of a person who doesn't have a response to certain arguments, so he resorts to ridicule and ad hominems. If someone levels an argument against them and he calls it out as false, he must systematically dismantle the argument point by point, since ridiculing and name-calling don't substitute as valid counter-arguments.

In my earlier days here at WC I used to love going toe to toe with others, but now I simply don't have the time or energy for that. There are clearly folks here who are willing to have meaningful discussions without being the forum tough guy that looks down their nose at others, and these are the ones you'll see me engaging with from now on.

Still you have to wonder how his attitude is affected by the case of everything affecting everything ... or God blowing ID self away because if ITs deficient IT? Makes me bleu ... and sort of suffering eco-gnomic vertigos ...

 

[paradox3]

Yeah, I feel you. It's a wonder that a guy who posts such un-sophisticated statements can garner so many "likes".
@chansen displays the hallmark logically fallacious tactics of a person who doesn't have a response to certain arguments, so he resorts to ridicule and ad hominems. If someone levels an argument against them and he calls it out as false, he must systematically dismantle the argument point by point, since ridiculing and name-calling don't substitute as valid counter-arguments.

In my earlier days here at WC I used to love going toe to toe with others, but now I simply don't have the time or energy for that. There are clearly folks here who are willing to have meaningful discussions without being the forum tough guy that looks down their nose at others, and these are the ones you'll see me engaging with from now on.

Hi Geo,

I didn't find "bulls**t" to be much of a response . . .

 

[BetteTheRed]

I personally like doers more than talkers. I happen to know that chansen is more the former, as a personality, than the latter.

Brevity is a very under-rated talent, especially among the religiously inclined.

And, I'm sorry, but among my more orthodox friends, if you haven't woken up and smelled the coffee about the basic unbelievability of your beliefs, then you haven't been thinking as hard as maybe you might. Textbook apologetics just won't get you very far.

 

[Geo]

@BetteTheRed

Ain't that the truth. Some folks find apologetics helps give them the intellectual permission to believe or not. It can also be used to assess various belief systems. However, it alone can never lead anyone to come to the "truth". Only those who have eyes to see and eyes to hear can. Which is sort of why all this talk is pointless anyway

 

[chansen]

Actually, if you read my post more carefully, you would have realized that wasn't my argument. But I get it, attacking straw men is much easier.

I mentioned the more than 500 eyewitnesses with respect to the event of the resurrection. You can't make a claim like that in public without it getting quickly shut down, unless the actual people you were talking about were actually around.

Too bad the cell phone footage wasn't uploaded to JewTube.

Of course you can make that sort of claim. Your argument infers that every claim involving a gathering of people in a holy text is 100% true because someone would call the author on it if false. Muslims will be encouraged to hear that. Here, the claim is even written decades later, but that hardly has the opportunity to make things worse for you, because of how far you've stuck your neck out on this one.

How deep of a refutation are you expecting for a claim like this one? I don't need to convince you - I just need to confirm to the average reader that the doubts springing into their own heads are shared and reasonable. I don't need to wear out a keyboard if you're going to insist that a claim of 500 eyewitness accounts is somehow self-corroborating. I probably don't even need to reply.



Edit: Turns out, JewTube is really a thing.

 

[Luce NDs]

Jew Tube in a cave where the 'ero sof daw'ID were buried as his lyre was in generating ballads for Saul ... a much overblown thing as fitting the definition of story compared to myth ... few know the difference is virtue eL!

 

[Jihad Mohammad Hyjazie]

For the most part I am a fan of Volf. I do not share his universalist bent though I greatly admire his articulation around reconciliation, memory and forgiveness.

At present I hesitate to affirm Volf's statement. I simply do not know enough about Islam to say, with any confidence that the God articulated, primarily in the Greek Scriptures of the New Testament, is or isn't the same as the God articulated in the Qur'an. At the same time I am mindful that there are not many observant Jews who would say that the God articulated in the Greek Scriptures of the New Testament is the same as the God articulated in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament.

It stands to reason, I believe, that if the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity are the same God then the God of Judaism would be the same as the God of Islam.

One would think that if it actually is the same God at play there would be better relations between all of these children of God.

Historically we have seen great periods of peace between these three Monotheistic traditions so current tensions are probably not the most informative with respect to how all of us actually have gotten along.

For the Christian world the notion of Jesus as God the Son is still very much a big deal. It doesn't fly in Judaism nor does it appear to smell good to Islam.

At any rate I have instruction as to how I should treat the stranger at my door and that instruction appears to slip unnoticed by many of my Christian brothers and sisters. I expect the same is true in Judaism and Islam. Maybe one day we will all get on the same page and affirm that we are looking at the same thing. I expect Jesus to be a significant stumbling block enroute.

RevJohn, you make a lot of beautiful points. But before moving forward, I would like to wish you and the 'online' congregation a happy Easter! I pray that it would be a blessed time of reflection, introspection and commitment to self-improvement and growth anchored in firm trust in God.

I just want to share the Quranic perspective on the subject of God between the three religions which is captured in the following verses:

"Say, ‘We have faith in God and what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus were given, and that which the prophets were given from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them and to Him do we submit.’" [2:136]

"Say, ‘O People of the Book! Come to a common word between us and you: that we will worship no one but God, that we will not ascribe any partner to Him, and that some of us will not take some others as lords besides God.’" [3:64]

 

[Luce NDs]

If what Christians call is eternal ... a differing way of expressing the eternal in Islam as Allah ... can there be several versions of infinity or just something devised by isolate men? These could be separate attributes in a greater soul? Sort of like bubbles in time or just meditative old ƒ(arts) ... a timeless function?

 

[Seeler]

Welcome Jihad - thank you for sharing this.
It is the first time I have actually read these two quotations, but they reflect what I have been told about your religion. I too believe in One God - and that is the same God as was revealed to Abraham . . . Moses and the prophets.

 

[Jihad Mohammad Hyjazie]

عبارتنا شتى و حسنك واحد - و كل الى ذاك الجمال يشير
Our expressions vary, but Your Beauty is One,
And all to that Supreme Beauty refer.

Some call this reality God, some call it Allah (Arabic), some call it Khuda (Persian), but all these other expressions refer to the same reality. Even within the same religion (Islam) we have various ways of referring to Him: God (Allah), Rahman (all-Merciful), Rahim (Merciful), Ghaffar (Oft-Forgiving), Khaliq (Creator)...

-Lessons on Islamic Beliefs (M. A. Shomali) P.22.

 

[Waterfall]

Just wondered if you saw my comment on the Gospel of Barnabas? Was reading about it and trying to figure out if this book holds any validity for Islam?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

 

[Delightful Life]

Holy Shiite Muslim, Geo!!! How's married life??? You have enough free time now from wrasslin bears and fighting fires? Still lookin as handsome as ever I see

In my earlier days here at WC I used to love going toe to toe with others, but now I simply don't have the time or energy for that.

*chuckle* Slowing down in yer old age? ;3

I'm glad you haven't lost your sense of humour -- so vitally important -- you share that trait with your dad