Abdullah Al Araby
Both Christians and Muslims share belief in a sovereign Deity who is one, heavenly, spiritual, the creator of heaven and earth and the judge of all mankind. Christians call Him "God" and Muslims call Him "Allah". One may thus presume that the attributes of God and Allah are the same. A careful examination of the matter, however, will prove that it is not exactly so.
Muslim activists in the West have been using the tactic of claiming that they worship the same god as the Christians in order to gain legitimacy and acceptance. They have been using the name "God" in place of "Allah" in many translations of the Qur'an.
There is nothing new under the sun! This reminds us of what happened 14 centuries ago. When Mohammed started preaching his new religion in Mecca he was conciliatory and appeasing to Christians. He told them: "We believe in What has been sent down to us and sent down to you, our God is the same as your God." Surah 29:46. Compare this with what happened later, in Medina, after Mohammed gained strength. Allah then tells him to "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day...Nor acknowledge the religion of truth (Islam), (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay Jizya (tribute tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued". Surah 9:29
However, the attributes of "God of Christianity" and "Allah of Islam" are quite different. God of the Bible is loving and personal, Allah, on the other hand, is wrathful and non-personal.
THE GOD OF CHRISTIANITY
Christianity believes in a one triune God, while Islam rejects this concept as blasphemous.
"They do blaspheme who say Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One Allah". Surah 5:73
The reason behind Islam's rejection of the concept of the triune God is a misunderstanding of the real meaning behind it. It seems that Islam's understanding of the Trinity was derived from a Christian heresy which existed in Arabia at the time of Mohammed.
This heresy taught a trinity consisting of God the Father, God the Mother (the Virgin Mary), and God the Son (Jesus). The Qur'an says:
"And behold! God will say: O Jesus the son of Mary didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah? He (Jesus) will say: Glory to thee, never could I say what I had no right (to say)". Surah 5:116
Christians, in fact, believe in one God who has made Himself manifest in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus declared this doctrine when He instructed His disciples, saying:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".Matthew 28:19 & 20
The Father
Islam doesn't know the loving Fatherhood of God. That intimate relationship with God is foreign to Islam and condemned by the Qur'an.
"(Both) the Jews and the Christians say, 'We are sons of Allah and His beloved'. Say: why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, you are but men of the men He has created". Surah 5:18
On the other hand, the concept of God being our heavenly Father is at the core of the Christian faith. Jesus taught His disciples to pray, saying:
"Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..." Matthew 6:9
The relationship between Jesus the Son and God the Father is exhibited on the Cross. We see Jesus addressing God as the Father:
"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke 23:46
The New Testament is full of references to God as the Father of all believers.
"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God... Behold, now are we the sons of God." 1 John 3: 1 & 2
The Son
Islam cannot accept the role of Jesus as the Son of God.
"O People of the book! Commit no excess in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth, Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not 'Trinity': desist! It will be better for you. For Allah is One Allah. Glory be to Him: (Far exalted is He) above having a son." Surah 4:171
Nor does Islam accept the deity of Jesus
"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: who then hath the least power against Allah if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all - everyone that is on earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is in between... For Allah hath power over all things." Surah 5:17
The God of Islam possesses all power over all things, including the power to erase sin if He so desires and when He so desires. This is completely different from the God of Christianity who is just and merciful, and who must work within the plan of salvation, to satisfy both His mercy and justice. The plan cannot be carried out without the sacrifice of Jesus, the Son of God, on the cross, on our behalf, in order to pay the penalty of our transgression.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
The love of God towards sinners is against the spirit of Islam. Islam vehemently rejects the crucifixion of Jesus.
"That they said (in boast). We killed Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary. But they killed him not, nor crucified him." Surah 4:157
The Holy Spirit
Islam looks upon the Holy Spirit as a created spirit the same as an angel. In many instances the Quran uses the name "Holy Spirit" to mean an angel. In the story of the birth of Jesus, the Quran states that God has sent to Mary "His Spirit" (meaning the Angel Gabriel) to announce to her the news that she was chosen to be the mother of Jesus.
"Then We (God) sent to her Our Angel (in the original: Our spirit), and he appeared before her as a man in all respects." Surah 19:17
The Spirit of God (as the Angel Gabriel) was also the one who allegedly carried the message of the Qur'an to Mohammed.
"Say the Holy Spirit (The Angel Gabriel) has brought the revelation from thy Lord in truth." Surah 16:102
Because Muslims do not recognize the Holy Spirit, they cannot accept the Lordship of Jesus.
"No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Corinthians 12:3
And because Muslims don't have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, they don't have the assurance of salvation.
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God, and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." Romans 8:16 & 17
THE "ALLAH" OF ISLAM
In theory Allah in the Qur'an has 99 names or attributes such as: Omniscient, Omnipotent, Sublime, Living, Everlasting, Holy, Light, Creator, Powerful...etc. In reality, however, the Qur'an paints a picture of Allah that in many ways resembles Mohammed's own personality.
Whatever Mohammed wanted, Allah wanted for him. However Mohammed reacted, Allah reacted for him. Aisha, (one of Mohammed's 13 wives) was quoted as saying to Mohammed scornfully:
"O Allah's Apostle, I do not see but that your Lord hurries in pleasing you." Al-Bukhari Vol 7:48
Here are just a few examples: When Abu Lahab criticized Mohammed, telling him. Perish you, Mohammed! Did you invite us here for this? Allah immediately sends down Surah 111 to condemn both Abu Lahab and his wife.
"Perish the hands of the Father of Flane (Abu Lahab). Burnt soon will he be in fire of blazing flame. His wife shall carry the wood as fuel."
When Al Walid Ibn Almoghira and Omaya Ibn Khalaf mocked Mohammed and boasted of their wealth, Allah sends down Surah 104 rebuking them.
"Woe to every (kind of) scandal-monger and backbiter who pileth up wealth and layeth it by, thinking that wealth would make last forever. He will be sure to be thrown into the fire (of the wrath) of Allah kindled (to a blaze)."
When Mohammed fell in love with Zaynab, wife of his adopted son (Zaid), God approved of divorcing her from Zaid and joined her in marriage to Mohammed:
"Then, when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her We joined her in marriage to thee, in order that there might be no difficulty to the believers in marriage to wives of their adopted sons." Surah 33:37
When Mohammed's wives demanded higher allowances out of the booty taken from the massacred Banu Qorayza Jewish tribe, God settled it by telling the wives to either be content with their present allowance or face divorce. (See Surah 33:28 & 29)
When Hafsa caught Mohammed, in her bed, making love to his concubine Mariya, Mohammed tried to please angry Hafsa by promising her that he will stay away from Mariya. At this point Allah intervenes in Mohammed's behalf: -
"O Prophet why holdest thou to be forbidden that which God has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is oft forgiving, most merciful." Surah 66:1
The next time you attend one of those "bridge-building" meetings, where a panel of a Catholic priest, a Protestant minister, a Jewish rabbi and a Muslim imam, hold hands in solidarity declaring that they all worship the same God, remember these differences.
That bridge they are building is a one way bridge, leading only towards Islam.
There is some misleading information presented in this forum. I will try to correct these acording to my own knowledge, just in case you would like to hear the opinions of a muslim Turk:
Crescent is not a religious symbol! Religious symbols are banned in Islam! (anything that even looks like paganism is strictly banned) In fact it is an old Turkish symbol (older than Islam and probably Christianity too) that became a POLITICAL symbol of the unity of Islamic countries through Ottoman Empire that has been the leader of the Islamic world for a few centuries. It is like saying "hamburger is the symbol of western democracy" nonsense. Reference: Jean Paul Roux, "Ancient Religion of Turks and Mongols" or if you are lasy see: http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/6066/ayyildiz.html
- "Moon God story" seems to be manipulation. On the other hand I remember reading about the source of the cross symbol as if it had originated from hinduism. (I dont know if this is true but public subliminal thinking can be very strong. Maybe just another manipulation)
- By the way most of you are Indo-Europeans arent you? It must have been difficult to adopt the idea of a "single almighty God" as the whole Indo-european "story of religion" seems to be about Male and female Gods(godesses) that live as families or tribes, and that do have sexual activities, half gods, sons of gods who are also god or half-god.. Just like Hercules who was son of Zeus.(and whose mother was human) Gods marry humans, and each other.. you know..
- Another Indo-european theme is bipolarity. ie. the fight between good and evil. This is especially evident in Persian religons also in cristian horror films.(and US foreign policy) In these films God and Satan are pictured as collectors. They are almost equal in strength (forgive me I was just trying to explain them). They collect souls just as humans collect stamps or coins. When the last day comes, whoever collects the most will win everything and will become God... wow :) gamble? something that even the Greek poets could not think of..
-These similarities are objectively more interesting than the so called problems you find in Islam.
-Now there are some questions I think you would like to work on:
(I mean if you are serious about persuading Muslims)
1- Why do you call God a father but not a mother? Is God male?
2- Being male means having XY chromosomes (and nothing else, ask a Biologist). does God have XY chromosomes?
3- Who created the chromosomes of God?
4- If God is Christ's father and V. Mary is his mother; is V. Mary God's wife? Why is this never mentioned?
5- Why should you reproduce while you can just create?
6- Is mickey mouse an animation character or "the son of Walt Disney and also an animator himself"? who can stop disney if he grabs the eraser and...
7- A muslim can comfortably say "And God created sexual reproduction so his creatures can evolve better." but your "idealization of God" seems to be the subject of this rule not its creator. Who designed sexual reproduction? Chromosomes? Cell division etc.? if God is also a body that obeys these rules?
8- If God has to obey an ethernal plan who made the plan? Who enforces it? (That would be the real God wouldn't it?)
9- Does God really have a human(oid) body (like pictured in cathedrals)? What color is his skin? His eyes? How do Afro-Americans feel about it? or the Chinese?
10- Does "he" have hair? To protect from what kind of light or rain? Who created light or rain that can harm God? Eyebrows? why does he not just say Water! I order you do not flow into my eyes..??
11- Do Judaist too believe that Jesus is God? If not why speak of "Christian-Judaist faith"? Is Judaist-Christian God the same?
12- In Islam Koran orderes us: "Tell them! -Our God is the same one God".. It also says "You will find the best whole hearthed friendliness in those who say - We are the followers of Isa the Mesiah".. (Christ is just a Greek word for Messiah. Isa is his name) Do you have a new Koran that orders otherwise? Are Jews ordered like this? Was it muslims who crucified Jesus? What was that mental sickness called when you fall in love with your executor? Or is it healthy to adopt a Roman torture instrument as a religous symbol?
-- Come on these problems are on the table.. and you are working on ethical (so called) problems of Islam..
"OUR GOD IS ONE" is not something we invented for our own safety. Nor did we invent it to steal anybodies richness. It is a goal that God gave us explicitly to accomplish and it is for your own good.
It is like saying "You are a good boy. I trust you will act more smartly next time.." and it is not me speaking...
so we believe..
Creation of Isa the Messiah, fatherless was a miracle. Just like that of Adam who was fatherless and motherless. But that does not make him God's son.. Not more than Mickey mouse is Walt Disney's or Microsoft is Bill Gate's "son".. The creator and created are not on the same level of abstraction. This is by definition of creation..
So simple ..
So perfect..
Always expanding..
"God created the skies with his great invisible power; and thus we keep it expanding."
Koran..
yess..
Kisses
Posted by: Smyrnian | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Ron Jon Bovi Jovi
Resposibility is not "absolute". There is such a thing as "degrees of responsibility". So yes, if a person dies in a terrorist attack who would not have died had a program designed to prevent that attack been in place, then the persons resposible for the cessation of that program bear "some" responsibility for that death. Not nearly as much as the cowardly cockroaches that carried out the attack, but some. And if that ever occurs, you may not find it so easy to clear your conscience as you think.
Posted by: stang69884 | Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 05:28 PM
Nader,
Are you telling me that paying Jizya rather than submission is an inference or that the Qur'an does not insist on an invitation to convert to Islam prior to Jihad?Which Qur'an pray tell are you familiar with to call these inferences
Posted by: Alexandra | Tuesday, September 05, 2006 at 01:54 AM
i dont understand why you would waste your time writing this article. just sitting here and reading about how you think that islam's Allah is quote: is wrathful and non-personal. It makes me sick, that people like you, are ignorant enough to see that there is but one God, if any, and that these observations and inferences of things like this: "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day...Nor acknowledge the religion of truth (Islam), (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay Jizya (tribute tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued". Surah 9:29, are faults of mankind. but what do i know?
Posted by: nader | Monday, September 04, 2006 at 05:56 PM
From slowtrain:
Michael: "In order to deal with them, we have to understand them and prevent ourselves from jumping to conclusions too easily."
Michael, I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am. Do I hear a bit of cultural relativism, hence moral relativism in the above statement?
There isn't an ounce of 'relativism' in that statement. Michael is cautioning against misunderstanding Muslim society due to ethnocentrism. "Jumping to conclusions to easily" is a result of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is misunderstanding WHY a culture does the things they do, because your own cultural norms may blind you to reasons for the norms of another culture. It has nothing to do with the morality of those norms. It has everything to do with understanding the reasons, immoral or not. Just cautioning that it's no good to jump to conclusions about a culture not many Americans understand... that is not moral relativism, it's damn good sense.
slowtrain, you don't need to resort to "relativism" to be against the war in Iraq, or Bush's execution of the 'war on terror.' One way is to just compare the number of Americans killed by 9/11 terrorists with the number of Iraqis killed by American bombs and gunfire. Which do you think is the larger? Which event, 9/11 or the invasion and occupation of Iraq, do you think has resulted in greater overall suffering? 3,000 died in 9/11... 30,000+ Iraqis civillians have died so far. I'm sure the number of those killed directly by US bombs or gunfire is much greater than 3,000.
I imagine your argument will be that it's all the Iraqi's fault.
------------------
Alexandra,
The next time you attend one of those "bridge-building" meetings, where a panel of a Catholic priest, a Protestant minister, a Jewish rabbi and a Muslim imam, hold hands in solidarity declaring that they all worship the same God, remember these differences.
That bridge they are building is a one way bridge, leading only towards Islam.
What does this mean? Like one commenter mentioned, usually when Christian or Muslim leaders say 'we worship the same God' they mean we both have a monotheistic faith... I guess that's why a Hindu leader wasn't invited, or a Native American shaman.
You mention bridge-building and solidarity and holding-hands, then you caution us to remember that their's is a different God. To put those elements together in the same sentence makes it appear as if holding hands, bridge building and solidarity are impossible because of that difference. I'm sure you don't believe this.
What about the "one-way bridge," though.
Possibilities that ran through my head :
-That Islam is inherently incapable of standing in solidarity with other religions (even though they have in the past).
-That the imam is not building bridges in good faith (as compared to his counterparts from other faiths).
-That Muslims don't want to understand us, so we shouldn't try to understand them (even though it would still be useful for us to understand and end the current conflict).
OR
-It's another one of those comments designed to manipulate people who don't reason well, kind of like suggesting that opponents of the warrantless NSA program, in the event of a terrorist attack, will be responsible.
Posted by: Ron Jon Bovi Jovi | Tuesday, March 14, 2006 at 03:21 AM
It seems to me that Buddhism is set up as a vehicle to promote spiritual well being cutting through all the nonsense. It seems that a Buddhist does not mind whether one proclaims Christianity or Islam or whatever as the ultimate path, provided that path leads ultimately to the cessation of suffering. The goal is to be kept in mind. A very clearheaded approach.
I guess I'm still mired in the everyday heavy reality of making sure my family survives this next cycle of violence promised to us in no uncertain terms by monotheists who proclaim Allah as their God.
I believe it was a Zen master who said to meditate while carrying a sword. I think being aware of who the enemy is and what they are capable of, is valid meditation for a householder. If we have to defend ourselves lets do it without rancor in our hearts.
Burying one's head in the sand is just another attachment to illusion. All sentient beings may well be filled with love. But a lion will eat you nonetheless, wether there is love and compassion buried 500 lifetimes deeply in his cycle of births and rebirths.
Posted by: Raimondo | Monday, March 13, 2006 at 06:57 PM
I would claim that the statement,
"Rich people are going to hell"
is synonymous with the statement,
"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
Camel: seven foot tall, 1200 lb animal
Needle eye: 1-3 mm across
Kingdom of Heaven: sole alternative to hell
I genuinely don't understand how you are getting around this one. Sure he didn't say it was impossible. But clearly he is saying that the general rule is that rich people are going to hell.
if I told you you were going to Walmart, that would not be the same as saying it would be difficult for you to enter Nieman-Marcus
Is this in a universe where where everyone will either go to WalMart or Nieman-Marcus?
Finally, the disciples' reaction is the disciples' reaction. It may have no relation whatsoever to what Jesus said.
You gotta be kidding me.
By the way when I said you ignored the verses, that didn't come out the way I wanted it to. Sorry. I'm not sure how to explain this without sounding like I'm being rude again.... What I meant was that your response was the accepted one, the conventional answer if you like, which it is good to know of course, but that this conventional answer in my opinion is designed to avoid the radical nature and plain meaning of the "hard" saying.
In the Victorian era there was a popular myth that "explained" this verse as refering to a narrow gateway into Jerusalem that was called "the eye of the needle". Another slighlty watered down myth "explains" the meaning of this statement by saying that a "camel" refers to a thick rope, not the large mammal. These days the conventional answer is to explain it terms of spiritualising the issue away.
Everyone agrees with the disciples that Jesus just couldn't have meant what he said. Everyone is surprised and shocked.
If greed for money is the real problem -- and I don't think that answer is wrong -- then Jesus is saying that if you are rich you WILL have so much greed that you will end up going to hell regardless of how much you think you are saved. That is the logical conclusion of his statement and it is backed by many many other verses that see money as a dangerous thing.
Ok. Perhaps this has run off-topic far enough. My point again was that for my money the main difference between the Koran and the bible are these "hard" sayings, these radical sayings that very few people can take seriously.
Posted by: DavidByron | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 09:47 PM
I forgot one thing. David quoted the disciples question, "Who then can be saved?", but he failed to provide Jesus' answer, "With men this thing is impossible; with God all things are possible." The answer to your question, then, is right in front of you.
Posted by: antimedia | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 09:05 PM
David Bryon writes
I'm not really sure it's worth continuing a conversation in which you ignore what's written, but I'll give it the old college try.First of all, I've not ignored any verses. I've dealt with the few you've actually paraphrased and ignored your arbitrary and unsupported claims about what the Bible supposedly says.
Secondly, Jesus never said the rich were going to hell. He said it was difficult for them to enter heaven. Lest you claim this is a distinction without a difference, if I told you you were going to Walmart, that would not be the same as saying it would be difficult for you to enter Nieman-Marcus. I made the issue very clear. It's a matter of focus. You've ignored that answer completely and then misrepresented what the Bible says. That type of argumentation might earn you points somewhere, but I am not impressed.
Thirdly, don't put words in Jesus' mouth. He never said what you accuse him of. And don't put words in mine either. I never said being rich was only a problem for a minority of rich people. In fact I never expressed any opinion about it at all. I merely dealt with the meaning of the verses you paraphrased.
Finally, the disciples' reaction is the disciples' reaction. It may have no relation whatsoever to what Jesus said. You suffer from the same problem many people do. You assume that their reaction circumscribes the possible meanings of what Jesus said, and you assume twentieth century meanings on first century thought processes.
Posted by: antimedia | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 08:39 PM
I would also like to thank Stefan for his kind last post.
The lamas tell me that, for the people who are purple-crystal-drifty-touchy-feely, it is important to work with them with "skillful means", encouraging them to do all the good they can do, until, through doing it, they grow up to the point that they can make more serious commitments.
I've also seen that process work quite spectacularly over the past thirty years. So I know that there is no reason in the least to be bothered when people self-identify as Buddhists without knowing all that this implies. The Dharma is a very potent solvent, that, given enough time, cuts through any form of gunk.
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 08:33 PM
Well, RL, since He is omniscient I should think that He wouldn't need to ask.
Now if you rephrase the question in terms of why a Buddhist has confidence in the face of death and permit that Buddhist to speak in the terminology of his own point of view, I can be very precise about my preparations both for death and for rebirth.
First of all, part of my specific, daily, Buddhist practice is a series of Four Thoughts which I consciously, carefully, and knowingly confront. The second of those Four Thoughts is the inevitability of death and the uncertainty of the time of death. The third of those Four Thoughts is that absolutely all you take with you at death are the karmic results of your past actions, both in this life and prior lives. There are things that can be done about this, and to face death you must do them.
To purify past actions that have already taken place, I do a specific practice of purification that, without going into details, requires conscious regret of past misdeeds, remorse for their effects, and resolve not to recommit them. Once again I do this daily.
Finally, I renew my commitment daily to the seven basic moral vows which are the core of Right Livelihood in my particular Buddhist lineage. These are among the several hundred vows of Buddhist monastic life appropriate to a layman such as myself. Cleaving to these vows is the basis of avoiding karmicly harmful actions in the present. Most importantly, I renew the Bodhisattva Vow which is to act compassionately toward all living beings and foster their happiness until I personally reach the same Enlightenment as Shakyamuni Buddha.
I have been doing this sort of thing, if not exactly my current sequence of practices, daily, for thirty years. I have seen the personal transformation that occurs from repeatedly thinking and acting this way, and I have every confidence that the karmic results of this will sustain me through both death and rebirth.
If you plant barley, you get barley. If you plant buckwheat, you get buckwheat. The results are not interchangeable.
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 08:14 PM
I have been aware of the Islamic situation all my life. I grew up in the Italian ex-colony of Somalia. The atrocities committed there are well in the annals of history by now. I can attest to the fact that the churches we worshipped in were burned down, purposefully desecrated, and the remains of the Italian bishops unearthed and desecrated. The same type of desecration was brought upon the Italian cemeteries in Somalia, upon order of local Imams. These are symbolic acts that pale in comparison to the human lives that were taken and are still being taken, often in the name of Allah.
We spend the summers in Italy in the Tyrolean region. My wife and I are beginning to notice the increasing amount of Burqua clad women with scores of children trailing behind them. My sister and brother who's children attend local public schools tell me all kinds of stories; ranging from parents demanding that a special class on the Coran be offered to the lawsuits brought up against the schools for displaying a crucifix in public schools. The situation is often tense. Islamic women for example in one incident demanded that they keep their multiple layers of clothing on while swimming at the local pool, an argument ensued between them and the lifeguards.
It seems to us that Islam is gaining ground in a fierce way, everywhere. In every aspect of life. I thought I had left this nonsense behind after we left Somalia having lost property and capital that took three hard working generations to accumulate. Then in my new homeland, where I re started a new my life, Sept 11th happened, and in my hometown of origin nestled in the European Dolomites, once known for its proliferation of monasteries. I see local governments and local churches building Mosques. I see women covered from head to toe in Burquas, and people of Moslem faith gaining increasingly more ground with ludicrous demands, ranging from paid prayer time on the job, to demands for legal polygamy, to being unapologetic about the abuse of every kind that is being heaped upon their women.
I can go on and on. But the central question remains for ordinary people like us. What can we do so that our children will not inherit a world where Islam rules? This whole situation reminds me of Eugene Ionesco's play "Rhinoceros", where people gradually become immune to these lumbering beasts in their midst. Short of sounding hysterical amongst my ordinary friends who have not read Orianna Fallaci, or know nothing about Ayan Hirsi Ali's struggle, how can we educate without being viewed as crazy, racist, and overly dramatic?
Posted by: Raimondo | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 04:46 PM
Possibly you missed that I was replying to someone else who had raised the idea of human sacrifice.
I agree that Christian theology and soteriology seem very odd to persons who have not been raised with them from birth. But that point can be made without being either irrational or insensitive; you were both.
Posted by: DavidByron | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 12:57 PM
DavidByron,
It'll be a while before I have a chance to check back in, so please allow me to say that I think we agree more than we disagree, at least on the question that is the actual subject of the thread. (I have no particular interest in your fulminations about Christians' inability to understand their own Scripture, which seem to me to be pretty much on a par with Baptists' lectures to moderate Muslims on how said Muslims do not properly understand the Koran). I understand you to be saying essentially three things:
1. The respective Gods of Christianity and Islam have a great deal in common when compared to rival conceptions of God such as the Buddhist or the Taoist or the Hindu or the animist or the atheist. With this I fully agree.
2. Muslims would say that Christians worship the same God they do but do so ineffectively because they have a lot of their facts wrong. I agree that this is what my Muslim friends seem to think, and indeed I return to them precisely the compliment. Furthermore Muslims who have converted to Christianity say that they worshipped the same (objectively speaking) God all along but did so ineffectively because they had a lot of their facts wrong. So if you want to say that the same God is objectively speaking behind both Christianity and Islam, I have no particular quarrel with that.
3. You argue that Christians conceptualize God as intensely personal and that Muslims do not. I'd say my agreement with that could not be more clear -- though my confidence in that opinion is limited by the fact that I have much less confidence in my understanding of Islam than you seem to have in yours. I would express this conviction by saying that, subjectively speaking, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God, in much the same way that Ken Starr and Jesse Jackson could tell each other, "You don't know the Bill Clinton I know." Whether you would choose to express it that way or not is of course a matter of personal preference.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 12:54 PM
Mr. Marshall,
I guess that I was intuiting that as a Buddhist you are proud that you don’t just swallow what is told to you but, instead, use your rational capacities to test and retest doctrines and beliefs; in contrast to other religions. I may have misread you (and if so I apologize) but I am so used to Christianity being disregarded by those who see it as the religion of “sheep” who are discouraged from applying reason to doctrine. Those that have this impression of Christian intellectual history are way off base. I may have projected this on your statement mistakenly and I, of course, would hope that you would follow ideas that you thought to be true. I must admit, that most of the “Buddhists” I have heard from or known are either the popular “Hollywood” style, the new-age hodgepodge folks, those that use it as a form of worshiping themselves, or those that see it as a version of atheism that still has a pleasant “spiritual” ambiance to it. I understand that these versions are mockeries to Buddhists who are deeply serious but they make up the majority of my experience. I am glad you are here to gives us a more serious view.
Posted by: Stefan | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 12:46 PM
DavidByron,
If the question is, "Do Buddhists and Christians both believe in the same God?" then your objection that a personal view of God is a "Christian" view (more precisely, a monotheistic view) would be valid. But then if that were the question Alexandra had posed, I wouldn't have rephrased it in the way I did. Since both Christianity and Islam think of God as a person (whether Islam admits it or not, their God is conceptualized as a person insofar as He takes action, such as bestowing mercy, and has preferences, such as for Islam over Christianity), the question of whether they worship "the same God" is precisely a question of whether they think of Him as the same kind of person. Besides, it's Alexandra's question and she is herself a Christian. Are you actually complaining that I am rephrasing a question posed by a Christian in a manner that comes naturally only to Christians?
I don't think I'll respond a second time to your whole paragraph about how Muslims think that anybody who is talking about God is by definition talking about the same God. In that sense it is of course by definition true that Muslims and Christians worship the same God; but then things that are true by definition are only infrequently worth the time and trouble of saying. I already made a careful distinction between the objectively real person (whether God or Socrates) with whom two people interact, and the distinct images of that person they construct in their minds and communicate to others. If you didn't pay any attention to it the first time you probably wouldn't pay any attention if I said it again so why bother?
I do, though, agree with, "Nobody is saying christianity and Islam are theologically equivalent. But they are monotheistic and some say that counts for a lot." Indeed that is precisely the purpose of my second and fourth points in my original comment.
In the meantime, insofar as you speak accurately on Muslims' behalf (though given the inaccuracy of what you have to say about Christianity I hope you won't be too offended if I lack faith in your opinions about Islam), you are very much reinforcing my fundamental point, which is that the Christian God expects and longs for and facilities an intimate and self-revealing personal relationship with the Christian, which kind of relationship with God appears to be largely unthinkable to Muslims.
I apologize, by the way, for the tone of my earlier comment on human sacrifice. My teenaged son just broke the screen of his mother's laptop computer, which he didn't have permission to be using in the first place, and I should have had the sense to know better than to post comments given the foul mood I was in at the time. YOU didn't have anything to do with the broken computer and I shouldn't have taken it out on you. My tone was entirely inappropriate, and I will try to be more civil in the future. If you want to flame me back you have every right to.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Joseph,
if you died tonight, and God asked you,
"Why should I allow you into My presence (My heaven) ?"
how would you answer this most important question ?
Posted by: RL | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 12:31 PM
DavidByron,
Well human sacrifice (the crucifiction) is the heart of christian theology...It is in all senses a human sacrifice to an angry God.
I think the reaction to your human sacrifice comment has been more extreme than you expected simply because the comment was a particularly shallow, unthinking and (unintentionally, I think) offensive comment, made with no apparent concern whatsoever for the validity of the connotations you could not fail to bring in by the use of the term. It is false to say that "human sacrifice...is the heart of christian theology" in any sense in which the phrase "human sacrifice" is meaningfully used.
I say this despite the fact that I agree that Christian theology and soteriology seem very odd to persons who have not been raised with them from birth. But that point can be made without being either irrational or insensitive; you were both.
At the very least, if you're going to toss off a comment like that, you should deal with the following basic facts surrounding human sacrifice and the Christian God:
- The God of Scripture hates human sacrifice more than just about anything, as even the most casual excursion through the books of Kings, Chronicles and the Prophets would tell you. The only episode in which He appeared even temporarily to require human sacrifice was in the case of Abraham and Isaac, in which case He didn't allow the sacrifice to be consummated. If you can see no distinction between human sacrifice as the term is always applied in normal human conversation (which God finds abhorrent in the extreme), and the Passion (in which God reconciled Himself to man), then you have as little business discussing Christianity as I have discussing Islam. (As you perceive from my own previous comment on this thread, that doesn't mean I don't think you should publicly air your opinions as long as you don't object to having the sillier ones publicly corrected.) But if you do perceive the distinction, then it is hard to escape the impression that your comment was disingenuous and consciously meant to cause offense.
- Those who killed Jesus absolutely did not do so as a "human sacrifice to an angry God;" they were completely unaware of the ramifications of their actions and getting rid of Jesus was hardly a "sacrifice" from their perspective. There was nothing religious about their action except insofar as they considered themselves to be punishing a blasphemer; nor did they consider Jesus a scapegoat since they considered themselves to be executing him as punishment for his own detestable behavior. Insofar as it was a sacrifice, the sacrifice was entirely on God's own part, making it radically different from any other event in human history that could be called "human sacrifice." In particular, the term "human sacrifice" is elsewhere always used to mean that human beings kill another human being as a deliberate act of appeasement to the gods. That is the only sense in which the term "human sacrifice" can be used responsibly in a deliberately inflammatory sentence such as "human sacrifice is at the heart of Christian theology," especially as an explicit response to another person's comment about human sacrifice as it exists or has existed as a deliberate practice in non-Christian cultures. But that sense of the term "human sacrifice" is manifestly inappropriate in this context. "It is in all senses a human sacrifice to an angry God"? Nonsense.
In short, your snappy little comeback to the person who was arguing that cultural tolerance should not extend to the toleration of human sacrifice, could be relevant only in the case of those cultures who practice a form of human sacrifice in which the sacrificial victims are thought to have committed crimes worthy of execution, in which the executioners are not aware of any religious significance in their actions, in which the victim actually is both innocent and divine, and in which the victim and God cooperate in according to the act an expiatory significance of which all other participants are utterly unaware. Would you care to name for us an example of such a culture?Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 12:13 PM
When we ask whether two people believe in "the same God," what we mean is, "If they each describe God to you, would you recognize Him as the same person in each description?"
No that's a very christian view because christianity claims this sort of personal knowledge of God - even though in practise it's very rare for a christian to be able to answer a question like, "So, tell me. What sort of person is God? Again christianity is radical but too racidal for christians. Again the muslim view is that God is totally holy and you don't know anything about God except a few scraps that God has seen fit to reveal through the prophet's books (including the book of Esu - Jesus' gospel). The muslim point of view is simple: there is no God but God So if you have some people talking about God they are talking about the one God --- there is no other by definition. Christians then, in the muslim view, try to worship God but get it all wrong. That is different from worshiping something other than God (like Mary for example). Muslims are saying anyone can choose to recognise God exists and claim to worship him - even if they have no knowledge of how to do it properly. And that is also a view found in the bible and perhaps you know the verse by Saint Paul I mean there. Nobody is saying christianity and Islam are theologically equivalent. But they are monotheistic and some say that counts for a lot.
Antimedia: your intepretation of the beatitude is the usual one to water down it's meaning. Here's the verse I was refering to.
Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
The "poor in spirit" verse appears in Matthew. Luke's version is more cutting and therefore it is ignored by christians. This how bible exegesis works; christians have to work out clever ways to ignore what the bible plainly says.
Let me take an example you probably agree with. Jesus talks a lot about hell. Not nearly as much as he does about money but still quite a bit. Some say that hell doesn't exist because it's hard to reconcile it with a God of love. They interpret the verses about hell as a metaphor and then ignore them. But if it is a metaphor then what's it a metaphor of? The result is to ignore something important.
Now money is probably the biggest single issue in the whole bible (if you include attitudes towards the poor) other than the commandment to worship God.
Now when Jesus said that rich people are going to hell how did his disciples react? Did they nod and say, "He only means people who are greedy and tied to their money"? No.
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
And this story is in all three synoptic gospels with the same reaction noted each time. Now you've done a fine job of taking all those verses about money and ignoring them all. Well done. But as with the person who claims that hell is just a metaphor you haven't really explained the issue here. If being rich is only a problem to a minority of wealthy people why does Jesus say that they are almost all going to go to hell?
Jesus never says almost all gay people are going to hell. He never says almost all abortionists are going to hell. He doesn't have this problem with theives or prostitutes or murderers. Even divorcees ("I hate divorce!") don't get told they are hellbound.
America is the wealthiest country in the world filled with very wealthy christians who are being told that God wants them to be rich. But Jesus says almost all those people are going to hell.
Posted by: DavidByron | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 12:11 PM
I think people are having a little trouble understanding what the question is about. So I'd like to talk about that a bit before giving my answer to the question.
There's a semantic issue that's in the way that we can clear up immediately. When we ask whether two people believe in "the same God," what we mean is, "If they each describe God to you, would you recognize Him as the same person in each description?" And that's a fuzzy-logic sort of question.
Let me give you first an example from ancient literature that nobody is emotionally invested in. We classicists, and even most people who aren't classicists, think we know who Socrates was -- what his personality was like, etc. But that's because of Plato. What we know is Plato's Socrates. It's a bit of a shock to read Xenephon's reminiscenses of Socrates -- because Socrates seems like a different person somehow. I mean, you can tell that there was a real Socrates that they both knew, but Xenephon's Socrates is still different from Plato's.
This is actually one of the things that makes me blush for the folks who try to convince themselves that the gospels are late inventions full of myths -- Jesus is exactly the same person in all four. You can tell that each evangelist has different interests and picks different stories, and you can tell that John knew Jesus much more intimately than Mark. Yet the Jesus of John (written, some scholars would once have had us believe, by committee late in the second century) is unquestionably the same person -- the same unique mix of tenderness and irascibility and biting wit and unexpected obliqueness and deftness in repartee -- as the Jesus of naive, childish Mark.
Now, it seems to me that in this sense the God of Islam is not the same person as the God of Christianity, in the same sense that (but to a greater degree than) the Socrates of Xenephon is Socrates of Plato...you can tell that they have a lot in common and there may be one individual behind them to whom they are both reacting, but the personality Muslims have in mind isn't the same personality as that which Christians have in mind. I don't know that I'm prepared to argue this rigorously (I would need a MUCH deeper understanding of Islam, and really this is the sort of thing the Guest or eteraz should be addressing rather than I), but here are my reactions off the top of my head. eteraz in particular should feel free to correct my misunderstandings of Islam.
1. Muslim converts to Christianity very often say that they have the strong sense that they have worshipped God all along but that they never really knew Him until their conversion.
2. Both Islam and Biblical Christianity agree -- indeed, even DavidByron agrees -- that the God of their particular religion takes sin infinitely more seriously than moderns do. In this they are on the same side against the sort of modern atheist or casually buffet-table-religious American who is so far from finding promiscuity objectionable that he thinks celibacy is prima facie evidence of psychological pathology. The God of the Old Testament considers ubiquitous promiscuity a severe enough evil to justify genocide; Hollywood considers it the very essence of normality. Thus to a whatever-floats-your-boat, casually concupiscent, I’m-OK-you’re-OK modern, Islam and Biblical Christianity both seem to worship the same (detestable) God.
3. The God of Islam and the God of Biblical Christianity have very different characters indeed when it comes to methods of conversion. I can do no better than to quote John Locke (whose Letter Concerning Toleration should be read by every person in the Western world) at some length:
Now this passage could draw the assent of Biblical Christians from any age, for the very good reason that it is perfectly consonant with the teachings and practice of Christ and His Apostles (though not, admittedly, of certain later adherents of the nominally Christian cause). But I challenge anyone to rewrite that same passage substituting "Mohammed" every time you see "Jesus" and "the Koran" every time you see "the New Testament," without turning the whole thing into a farce.4. Now, despite the rather radical difference in the methods of conversion espoused by the two Gods, still both Islam and Christianity insist that God is a very particular God, and that He has created an actual and concrete world, that the people in it are real and distinct individuals who will forever retain their individuality, that a real heaven and a real hell await each human being after their one and only go-round on this earth, and that the eternal destination of choice for each person is determined both by action and belief while in this life. They agree that He has extremely firm opinions about what sort of behavior is evil and what sort of behavior is virtuous (that is, that standards of moral behavior are both objective and eternal, rather than subjective and culturally determined or even outright illusory), and that He does not react at all well to evil behavior. And they think He expects them as a fundamental religious duty to actively try to convert other people to the true faith rather than callously allowing those others to go to hell in their ignorance -- the ends they agree on, though the means can differ as do night and day. In this I would expect that they certainly would seem alike from a Buddhist perspective, in the sense that the Buddhist thinks they’ve got all of that wrong.
4. It seems to me that Islam, however, completely misses the most important element of God’s personality. Islam often refers to God as merciful; but if I may put it this way without offending Muslim friends, the God of Islam seems to have a personality very similar to Mohammed’s (who I sincerely hope rests in peace), while the personality of the God of Christianity is (in very literal fact) the personality of Jesus – and Jesus and Mohammed had very different personalities, as I think anybody who has read both the Koran and the New Testament will agree. What Islam lacks is any sense of grace in the Christian sense.
The role grace plays in Christian thought may be well expressed, I think, by saying simply that God is head-over-heels in love with us, and that He passionately desires intimacy with us deeper than we can imagine, tenderer than the most gentle love of a father cradling a newborn daughter in his arms, more faithful than the most unyielding love of a husband who refuses to give up on a serially unfaithful wife, more passionate than the love of a thousand Romeos for a thousand Juliets, more playful than a four-year-old surrounded by forty puppies. The casual, noncontemplative American grossly underestimates both God’s holiness and His grace, having no real conception of what either term actually means, nor of how desperately bad sin itself is. My Muslim friends (not a huge sample, of course, but at least reasonably varied) are very clear on God’s holiness, and they trust explicitly (much, I might add, to the surprise of the average Baptist) in God’s mercy to overlook their sins. But I have yet to hear a Muslim friend talk about God in terms that even hint that intimacy with God is so much as thinkable, much less desirable and attainable.
I’ll close with a rather trivial observation that I think illustrates my final point clearly. My Muslim friends are absolutely horrified when they hear me tell a joke that involves Jesus (and therefore I don’t tell those jokes in their presence). The very idea that one could talk irreverently about one of God’s prophets – much less about God himself – appalls them. The ordinary, everyday Christian conversation with God, in which one thanks Him and complains to Him and gets pissed off at Him and teases Him and cracks jokes with Him, even to the point of cracking jokes at His expense (deliciously ironic since one knows that the real joke is of course on oneself all along)...you see what I’m trying to get at? The Christian God is playful and teasing and humorous and just generally affectionate -- though still unimaginably holy and awe-ful. He wants us to call him “Daddy,” and he wants us to be as at ease in His presence as my eight-year-old Sally is with me. He desires that for us even though He is unthinkable holy and we are constantly outraging that holiness. (The better you come to know Him the more impossibly extreme you realize are all His seemingly contradictory characteristics -- holiness, tenderness, playfulness, awe-fulness, refusal to compromise, willingness to go to any lengths necessary.) I have no sense at all that Islam would consider my typical conversations with God to be anything but outrageously irreverent and even blasphemous.
And that is because Muslims do not, so far as I can tell, worship the same God that I worship.
Correct as necessary, my dear eteraz.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 10:25 AM
You are proud that Buddhists apply “every test of natural reason available to any doctrine”. That is good, so do Christians. They have since the beginning.
Well, Stefan, if by "pride" you mean firm confidence in Buddhist point of view, all I can say is: What did you expect? If I had no positive confidence in Buddhism, with definite reasons for it, I wouldn't be a Buddhist. I presume the Christians here have equal confidence in Christianity.
Now I know it may be a little startling and unusual to encounter someone with a different religious point of view who has confidence in it and is willing to talk about it. Despite many claims to the contrary, America is not a "Christian nation"--there are simply too many people in this country who are atheist, agnostic, or religiously indifferent for it to be so. But I think it can be fairly said that, in America, Christianity is basically the default religion. What this means is the religious dialog here is largely between the secular and the Christian.
Secular people seldom have the confidence in their views that Christians do--it is hardly possible to believe in the unreality of God, the non-divinity of Christ, and the absence of a Holy Spirit with nearly the same strength and solidity as you can believe in reality and presence of all of these.
So when you encounter someone with such positive confidence in a totally different religious belief, their remarks may seem a little strong flavored. But they are really no more strong flavored than your own.
Now if my last comment is still a little sharp, even for someone with confidence, I would point out that I am refuting, by example, the tired and tiresome stereotype of us kited out once again by AVI: another myth of Westerners with eastern fascinations.
Not all of us are ex-hippies searching for a religion of peace and love and understanding that will let you do anything you want. Buddhists come in all shapes, sizes, and types of people--not just the drifty and fuzzy-brained ones, though we have our fair share of these, too.
It also has a tradition of morality, discipline, and rigorous intellect which Christians are perhaps less aware of than they should be. And this has been honed by hundreds of years of very direct dialog and debate as strong flavored as anything Christians have to offer.
In truth, Buddhism is not about "making nice". It is about "getting real". And getting real is not just smoothing over all differences in point of view and pretending they are not there. I have an explicit obligation to encourage all that is good in anyone's religion and I wouldn't be part of this dialog if I didn't. I always encourage any Christian to be the very best Christian they can be.
But I also have an explicit obligation when I join this dialog to make quite clear the real character of Buddhism as a genuine religious alternative and not just an exotic way to evade the serious questions of life.
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 09:53 AM
Stefan, you are exactly right; money is neutral. It is the love of money that "is a root of all kinds of evil."
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10
"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it."
1 Timothy 6:6-7
1 Timothy 6:3-10
(concerning greed, the love of money, & true contentment)
Biblegateway.com
Posted by: RL | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 08:47 AM
The only difference between Islam & Christianity are the non-Christians named Kant, Hegel and Voltaire.
Posted by: eteraz | Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 01:10 AM
Just to add another point to AM’s point on Christians and money. As author Rodney Stark notes, St. Augustine taught “that wickedness was not inherent in commerce but that, as with any occupation, it was up to the individual to live righteously.” The same could be said for riches. Wealth is not evil in itself because money is not a moral actor. Wealth can be used for great good or great evil; what you do with it is the key.
Posted by: Stefan | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 11:49 PM
Michael writes:
"If you wanted to make Christianity look like a violent and agressive faith, you could pick that story, pull it all out of context and say "see it's a violent faith".
Then you go to the New Testament "turn the other cheek", 'put down that sword' (when they tried to arrest Jesus) and an entire other picture exists."
Michael, are you suggesting that Alexandra “pulled” the verses of the Koran she quoted out of context, perhaps intentionally or are you suggesting that she did so out of ignorance? If it’s the latter, how did you know, considering that you “have never read the Koran” or are you just being presumptuous? If it is the former, that would be contrary to reason, because it would be lying and bearing false witness for Jesus’ sake or to please Jesus? That would be absurd and unthinkable, for a Christian to lie or bear false witness to promote Jesus Christ.
The Bible has two sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Koran also has two sections, the proper and the Hadith. The Old Testament dwells on laws and the consequences for breaking those laws, the New Testament dwells on the recognition that man has failed and cannot fully keep those laws. It is like owing someone and being unable to pay the debt, and the creditor knowing that you cannot pay, makes the provision to take care of the debt. “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” (Rom 6:14) Matthew 5 abundantly makes clear the connection between the old and new testaments and eliminates any confusion any one may have in comparing the Old Testament with the Koran.
“I have never read the Koran. I know it is a false faith in my book (it does not recognize Jesus as Lord), but that does not automatically mean it preaches violence andsoforth. To really know about it you should study the Koran, see in what context things are being said, andsoforth.”
I may not have read the entire Koran, but I have a very close friend who is an ex-Muslim and who was to succeed his father as an Imam, instead he became a Christian and now a Pastor. If anyone has complete knowledge of the Koran and the Bible, it would him. I have learned much about the Koran from him, as well as from text, and I can tell you the verses Alexandra cited were not “pulled” out of context. Moreover, every Christian understands that it is a disservice to Christ, at one’s own peril to be malicious for the sake of Jesus Christ. God requires sacrifice offered on clean hands, hence Christ does not approve conducts done in his name that is not Christ-like. That is why the more a Christian becomes like Jesus Christ, the more he abhors violence, the more he seeks justice and adheres to truth, but the more a Muslim becomes like Mohammed the more he embraces violence.
Posted by: slowtrain | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 07:45 PM
David, I'm glad you responded.
You left off "in spirit". The greek word for "poor" is "ptokos", which means "one who crouches" or "beggar". So, if you are a begger in spirit, you are blessed. Has absolutely nothing to do with money, but with hunger for the word.Because he has money? No. Because his money is a hindrance to his spirit, because it dominates his thinking. There are two things to note here. It doesn't say it's impossible for him to enter heaven, only harder. Secondly it doesn't say "give up your money or you won't get into heaven."Spoken to whom? To a specific man whose problem was, he couldn't give up the dominance money had on his mind, just as Abram was asked to "give up" his son. God is all about focus. What dominates your thoughts? What drives you? If it isn't love of Him, then your priorities are off, and you will suffer - not because God punishes you, but because the most abundant life you can possibly lead is one dedicated to God, not yourself. All else is vanity.Because their size was what mattered to him.Please do. They toil not, neither do they reap, yet your Father in heaven has arrayed them with glory and beauty and given them a full and meaningful life. There's a lesson in there somewhere, I'm sure.Because Jehovah-Jirah - God provides. You don't need money in advance if God provides for you. (One of the things He can provide for you is money, btw.)Yes, indeed. Has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with position in the natural realm vis-a-vis the spiritual realm. Many will be surprised to find that their greatness on earth was nothing in God's eyes. Many more will be suprised to find that their simple life on earth was lofty in God's eyes.No man can serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other or tend to the one and neglect the other. Note that it does not say You cannot have money and serve God.Your approach to understanding the Bible is very much sense-oriented. Therefore you miss much of the meaning of what the Bible says. It's an all too common problem.
You also wrote
Not hard at all. Again, it speaks of two worlds. You can only live in one. To the natural man, the things of God are foolishness, for he cannot discern them. What seems completely counterintutive to man truly is "the way". Once you learn to obey God and not your own mind, much clarity is received and difficult sayings become easy.Posted by: antimedia | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 07:29 PM
David,
I didn’t mean to imply that you were attacking the Bible but that you saw it as being no different than all the mythologies and the religions that surrounded them. I just asserted that you were wrong. Collegially, of course!! :-)
Posted by: Stefan | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 01:46 PM
I am surprised about the reaction to the comment about the crucifiction.
As for David Byron’s assertion that the crucifixion is a repeat of the typical “scapegoat” sacrifice, which echoes the sacrificial killings used to "re-order" society in countless mythologies...that is totally backwards.
I didn't say that this relationship proves the bible is rubbish. I simply said that the crucifiction is a human sacrifice. Well? It is isn't it? Now you are assuming that I am attacking the bible over this because frankly you find the topic embarassing. Or think I do. It's embarassing to have your religion full of the trappings of some primitive sheep herding culture from the middle east thousands of years ago.
Yeah. What was God thinking?
It's almost as if he was trying to embarass the academics and the powerful.
God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are
This is another hard teaching.
Posted by: DavidByron | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Thanks for the support Alexandra. Actually when I cam here one of the things I found odd was that for such a popular site in terms of readers and links you have relatively few commentators. Well if I have encoraged a few people to speak up that's good.
But I really wasn't trying to attack christianity here. In a sense quite the contrary. The difference between the Koran and the bible in my view is that the Koran reads just like it was written by some guy. The ideas in it are common sense on the whole. Well, "I could have written that" is my feeling. The bible has some stuff in it which is much more radical or "hard".
The problem is christians on the whole ignore those parts.
The business about money for example. Michael gives the standard interpretation here. It's an interpretation that waters down the hard teaching -- which is that Jesus quite literally told people to get rid of their money.
But it's not just one verse. Money is a theme throughout the bible. And it doesn't apply only to some but to everyone. Now my impression is that in America with the "prosperity gospel" you have a huge heresy that stands Jesus teaching on its head, but everyone has to figure out how to ignore these teachings somehow.
All I'm saying is --if you do that you might as well be reading the Koran instead of the bible in my opinion. Because I could have written the bible if it was going to be stuff that seems common sense. Stuff that is easy and doesn't challenge you.
Jesus on money (off the top of my head):
Blessed are the poor.
It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Sell all you have and follow me.
[The parable of the man who built larger barns.]
Consider the lilies in the field....
Instructing the disciples when he sent them out: do not take money with you
The least among you shall be the greatest
You cannot serve money and God.
Posted by: DavidByron | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 12:18 PM
Mr. Marshall,
I think it is important to be able to separate the teaching of a religion from those that sometimes act in its name. That some Christians have acted aggressively in the past is not a condemnation of Christianity. Islam does teach a very aggressive stance towards non-Muslims so it is apparently part of the religion’s core understanding of how to engage the world. That is not so with Christianity. As I stated above it has never been Church doctrine to force or pressure conversion. It is all about free will.
You are proud that Buddhists apply “every test of natural reason available to any doctrine”. That is good, so do Christians. They have since the beginning.
Posted by: Stefan | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 12:14 PM
hey Joseph,
what did you think about those non-judgemental, peace-loving, and "tolerant" taliban followers of the koran's "prophet", who blew-up and totally destroyed the biggest statues of booda on earth ?
one of these non-judgemental, peace-loving, and "tolerant" taliban soldiers is attending Yale with a full-scholarship, and Yale sponsored student visa; and to remember that Harvard and Yale were originally founded as Christian Seminary Schools to educate and train Ministers of The Gospel message of the Lord Jesus Christ. i wonder what Jonathan Edwards, Timothy Dwight, and William Lyon Phelps would think about this total disaster in the world of American "academia" ?
onthefencefilms.com
dangerousprofessors.com
Posted by: RL | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 12:13 PM
This is another fine post by Alexandra and another interesting thread. AM’s post was very good.
One major distinction that arises between Islam and Christianity, when their two conceptions of God are extrapolated into human self-understanding, is the different value that is given to the individual human being. Allah is a deeply impersonal and “cold” god. The individual Muslim seems of very little value in comparison to the vast otherness and superiority that is a constantly expressed in Islamic verse and teaching. It would be absolutely inconceivable for Allah to “diminish” himself so drastically as to be incarnated in a slovenly human form much less to be mocked, spat on, and crucified. The God of the Bible, however, is so deeply in love with his creation that He humbled himself in order to restore the human race to the greatness which He had intended for us; the greatness that we have thrown away in the attempt to be our own gods. Christ died not for the human race as a mass, faceless concept but for the human race as made up of precious and beloved individual people. This level of tenderness shown to such seemingly incorrigible and insignificant creatures by the most supremely powerful entity, the creator of time, space, matter, and life itself, is brain shattering. This difference is fundamental and far reaching as seen in the structures of Islamic culture and the Christian West. It is this great value placed upon the single man and woman that has nurtured freedom, tolerance (not the vapid secular variety), and the view that all humans are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. When you have two lines that set out from the same point, but that are headed in different directions (even if they differ by a few degrees), you will find that the farther out you draw them the more expansive the gulf between them becomes.
Mr. Marshall says that Christians desire conversion as much as Muslims do but they are generally “more polite” about it. Know why? If you compare the two religions again it is clear that Allah wishes only obedience and submission and God wishes His love to be returned and multiplied. The way to do this is to follow God’s will (of course) but it has a completely different dynamic than Islamic obedience and the implications are tremendous. That Christian conversion should be forced has never been official teaching of the church (not that some folks have been overzealous in the past) because it was clearly understood that to love and obey God is a choice made by a rational, independent, and free creature which can never be coerced. Love can only be given freely. Raw obedience, on the other hand, can be achieved by the sword.
As for David Byron’s assertion that the crucifixion is a repeat of the typical “scapegoat” sacrifice, which echoes the sacrificial killings used to "re-order" society in countless mythologies...that is totally backwards. Please read this wonderful article: “Are the Gospels Mythical?” from First Things http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/girard.html
Assistant Village Idiot was wondering why some people seem to “need so badly for Christianity to not be true”. I think CS Lewis had the answer: “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” Those who rail against Christianity all understand this at some level and so the stakes are high.
Posted by: Stefan | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Joseph, yes, Buddhists have such an excellent record of historical tolerance... another myth of Westerners with eastern fascinations.
Well, I'm quite certain Buddhism has had nothing equivalent to the Thirty Years War or to the Albigensian Crusade. And I certainly would be very attentive if you could show me some equivalent historical examples.
By equivalent I do not mean mere violence on the part of people or rulers who happen to be in Buddhist countries, I mean the deliberate and wholesale attempt, through violence, to totally extirpate an opposing religious point of view. As a matter of plain historical fact, I don't think you will find very many of these undertaken by Buddhists.
And the Buddha himself was quite explicit about the non-evangelical character of Buddhism, that if someone is interested in being Buddhist you tell them what you know, but you don't go out of your way to make converts. My teachers preserve and teach exactly this position.
There are very specific reasons for this. You will only become a Buddhist in any given life if you have the past karmic accumulation to do so. Not everyone has this, so trying to turn people into Buddhists by force is not only wrong, it is futile.
The seeds of forced conversions are the accumulation of aggression toward other points of view. Now, in nine cases out of ten, such aggression is justified by the people who hold it because it is in "self-defence", but I for one cast a skeptical eye on any such justifications. After all, you will find them as liberally scattered throughout the Muslim world as you will find them here.
There is, of a certainty, a tremendous amount of aggression toward Islam in America in the name of "self-defense" at the moment. There is also a fair amount of aggression among at least some Christians here toward the views of their secular neighbors.
When I say "seeds" I mean precisely this: the seed of an action is an attitude in your mind. Belief in the existence of such aggressive attitudes, and not just in the Muslim world, is perfectly justified by observation and "natural reason" and requires no "faith" as far as I can see. There is nothing to say that a seed must grow into a plant, but there is no reason to deny that it can grow into a plant.
As to the Four Noble Truths being leaps of faith, all I can tell you is that my teachers consistently encourage us to constantly "contemplate the Dharma", which does not mean merely to reread it and tell yourself how right it is.
Contemplating the Dharma means systematically applying every test of natural reason available to any doctrine contained in it. And, in fact, there is a whole history of Buddhist dialectics, developed largely in debate with Hindus, which does precisely this, and in quite exhaustive detail.
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 10:45 AM
gringoman, right on. Islam doesn't even teach that the Lord Jesus Christ is, "The Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world" (as John the Baptizer so clearly teaches us in the Holy Scriptures).
muslims don't even believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on the Holy Cross of Calvary, as a completely- sufficient and perfect work of atonement for the all of the sins (past, present, & future) of His people. but they (muslims) do believe that their illiterate, pedophilic, violent, woman-hating, and false "prophet" flew into "paradise" on a donkey; talk about a leap of faith. go figure.
Romans 8:9
Posted by: RL | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 10:37 AM
To put it real simple: nobody can say Allah & God are the same. They are not. Why not? The Islam does not recognize Jesus as Lord - God. Jesus is God. Islam says He's not: 1 + 1 = 2. It is that simple.
Michael Galien,
I submit that using Jesus in this context might satisfy many Christians, but is quite easy for muslims to dismiss---certainly far easier than the thesis (see my Comment earlier in this thread)that Allah is the old Arab moon god, which in fact was worshipped by Mohammed's own family by that very name. The problem with telling a muslim that Allah is not the Biblical God due to Jesus' divinity is simple. Islam considers Jesus a man, a prophet, but not a God. He will think of you as a blasphemer or heretic or ignoramus for thinking otherwise, and trying to foist your blasphemy on him. You could go back and forth with him all day with his belief and your belief. To what end? Looking at the historical and archaelogical facts of Allah as the old moon god, in fact the very source of the crescent moon symbol, is an entirely different dialogue. It takes a break from the realm of belief and faith. It takes a break from the question of whether your belief is truer than his belief, or vice versa. It explores this matter from a radically different perspective. It examines the realm of historical fact. Otherwise, the dialogue tends to reduce to, 'Mine is better than yours because I say so.'
Posted by: gringoman | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 09:56 AM
Joseph, yes, Buddhists have such an excellent record of historical tolerance... another myth of Westerners with eastern fascinations. And the seeds of forced conversions in America -- that is simply silly. Apparently you do believe some things on faith.
Much of your post is quite good, however, making some intelligent distinctions. I would challenge the false dichotomy of natural reason versus faith, though. The Christian teaching uses both. The Trinitarian doctrine provides a good example of that. The early Church did not have that doctrine clearly before them. It was new, it was counterintuitive, and there was much running off the rails trying to understand and express the nature of God. Non-trinitarians such as Jehovah's Witnesses, make much of the fact that the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible. There was exploratory reasoning intertwined with the articles of the faith: "If God this...then God must also...and God must not be..."
The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism are similarly leaps of faith based on observation and natural reasoning.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 09:53 AM
Well, Alexandra, I must say this is one of the best posts I've ever seen from you. Keep up the good work.
It seems to me that we could profit by stepping beyond the cherry-picking of both the Bible and the Koran for a moment and profitably look at the logic here. It seems to me that the assertion that Muslims believe in a "different god" is fallicous on the face of it.
God with a capital "g", if He exists at all, must necessarily be the same Person for everybody, the "creator of the universe" ect. ect. That is what God with a capital "g" means, by definition.
Such quarrels as you highlight are about the nature of God and not two different Gods. There cannot be "two different Gods". Therefore, from Christian vantage point, the Muslim view is a heresy, a wrong view about God's nature.
Now, from my small understanding of the theology of the matter, Christians hold the belief in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the mediation of the Holy Spirit as a matter of "Divine faith", a different order of "knowledge" than "natural reason." Thus the Catholic Encyclopedia":
That such Divine faith is necessary, follows from the fact of Divine revelation. For revelation means that the Supreme Truth has spoken to man and revealed to him truths which are not in themselves evident to the human mind. We must, then, either reject revelation altogether, or accept it by faith; that is, we must submit our intellect to truths which we cannot understand, but which come to us on Divine authority.
Now it seems to me self-evident that the Muslim world makes a similar claim to the Divine Authority of the revelation to the Prophet. The content of the claim may be different, but the claim itself is essentially the same.
It also seems to me to be quite clear, as a mere Buddhist, that anybody's claim to Divine Authority, steps into a region of "knowledge" to which I have no access. We Buddhists start from what the theologians call "natural reason" and believe nothing which cannot eventually be tested by "natural reason", though it may not be evident at the moment.
It also seems to me to be quite clear that Christians have as much of an imperative to turn everybody into Christians as Muslims do to turn everybody into Muslims:
And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
Gospel of Matthew 28:18-20
Now, you might say, as Siggy essentially does, that Christians are politer about it and do not try to force conversions at the point of a sword or a gun. But I think any fair reading of history will show that this has not always been the case.
And I think any fair reading of the theology involved does not bar Christians from returning to the wild and wooly ways of their past and starting to violently force conversions again.
I further think that at least the seeds of such a thing are certainly manifest among at least the more exotic of the outlying members of the Christian community in America.
So as a Buddhist, I am always willing to join in the Tolerance Roundtable. But also, as a Buddhist, I think that there is more than one "one-way bridge" involved when I do. And I certainly treat all one-way bridges with wariness even though with friendliness.
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 08:46 AM
"Biblical Christianity provides a unified answer for the whole of life." Francis Schaeffer
"True Spirituality consists in living moment to moment by the grace of Jesus Christ." Francis Schaeffer
"You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does Not belong to Christ." Romans 8:9
"For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Romans 14:17
"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." Amen. 2 Corinthians 13:14
totaltruthbook.com
discoveryseries.com/spirit.html
caedmonscall.com
(One of the results of being filled with the Holy Spirit of Christ is singing, Ephesians 5:17-21)
: )
Posted by: RL | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 07:43 AM
Well said Alexandra.
To put it real simple: nobody can say Allah & God are the same. They are not. Why not? The Islam does not recognize Jesus as Lord - God. Jesus is God. Islam says He's not: 1 + 1 = 2. It is that simple.
My point about 'we should learn more about it, before jumping to conclusions' is, in my opinion, quite clear as well. Just taking some verses of the Koran and judging the entire Muslim population on them (as in whether or not they will favor violence), is not the right way of handling things in my opinion.
For instance: In the first Books of the Old Testament God told the Jews to kill their enemies: wipe out the entire population: including women and children.
If you wanted to make Christianity look like a violent and agressive faith, you could pick that story, pull it all out of context and say "see it's a violent faith".
Then you go to the New Testament "turn the other cheek", 'put down that sword' (when they tried to arrest Jesus) and an entire other picture exists.
I have never read the Koran. I know it is a false faith in my book (it does not recognize Jesus as Lord), but that does not automatically mean it preaches violence andsoforth. To really know about it you should study the Koran, see in what context things are being said, andsoforth.
"throwing away money" - David is probably talking about the story where Jesus told the rich young man to give away all of his money (in order to get to the Kingdom of God).
What's David's mistake? He took it all out of context. It is not about throwing your money away, it is about being non-dependant of money - relying on God, instead of on your money.
That is what Jesus tried to teach that young man - do not worship anything of this world, always put God first - He will supply.
Once again; goes to show how one is able to paint a picture completely out of line with the truth by taking verses and pulling them out of their context.
I hope I explained myself a little bit better.
Posted by: Michael Galien | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 04:44 AM
I have to come to David Byron's defense.
Instead of admonishing David for his controversial and of course provocative comments we should thank him for two reasons:
1) David encourages us to put in words what we hold dear and upon which our certainty in faith is based. Of course there are many things we know and are familiar with, but there are always new and refreshing ways of expressing them, especially in a limited format of a blog. And for me therein lies the beauty of a thread like this.
2) We should not forget that there are many more who are drawn to David's reasoning. But they may not have the courage to come out with their doubts and questions in this open forum--mind you, in most other places, David would have been banned already or shouted down, and I am glad that this does not happen here, and that everyone remains civil. Think of those thousands who I see on my sitemeter, who desperately need to hear your explanations and thoughts, to strengthen their faith. Apart from answering David, you speak to them too, and judging by the e-mails I receive they thoroughly enjoy and appreciate the debate.
Posted by: Alexandra | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 02:58 AM
DavidByron, you're all over the map, trying to to cast doubt on Christianity in a hundred places, but never waiting for the reasoning on any one.
There are many thousands of websites, many thousands of authors, and many thousands of churches where each of these accusations and misinterpretations of yours could be dealt with, if you cared to listen. That you decided to just leap in and tip over the furniture suggests that listening is a problem.
Why you need so badly for Christianity to not be true I have no idea.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 12:25 AM
"David Byron, you have some really bizarre beliefs about the Bible, and they are not based upon the book itself."
Of course, he does. He is an atheist, highly ignorant of the scripture. And the only thing more dangerous than ignorance is ignorance in action.
David Byron writes:
“It is related to the other human sacrifices going back to the earlier times. Abraham is told to sacrifice his only son and is told at the last moment that "God has provided a sacrifice" (ie Jesus) so he doesn't need to. The scapegoat was sacrificed after the Israelis metaphorically placed their since on it. Lambs were also sacrificed for sins. Anything with blood in it. The blood was important just as the blood of Christ is what saves christians. The Israelis would put blood from their living sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins on themselves. That's what you do figuratively with the blood of christ -- god's human sacrifice.”
David does not know the difference between the test of obedience to which he refers (a test that never involved human sacrifice) and actual human sacrifice. Nor does he know the difference between animal sacrifice and human sacrifice. Or does he? David’s comments are just as “reasonable” as the notion that summer is the same as Sahara desert.
It is clear that he is one of those who engage pranks disguised as discussion and take great delight in the perception that they put Christians to task and rile them without them knowing. The best response to such is to ignore them.
Posted by: slowtrain | Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 12:02 AM
Is Allah the same deity as the Christian God? Alexandra points to a crucial question which politically correct society will shy away from. There is archaeological evidence that Allah, in fact, is the old moon god worshipped by Arabs long before Mohammed.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm/
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/islam.htm
The theology (and archaeology) is of elementary importance. Islam, to convert Jews and Christians (and to lord it over the whole planet) has to be able to say that Allah is the very same God of the Bible, not one of the gods of the old pagan Arabs. A moon god might do fine as a special deity, a favorite among the old gods of the desert, reconditioned with Hebrew and Old Testament sentiments, Mohammed grafting on to it shoots of Abraham and also, as Hillaire Belloc showed, simplifying the rituals and clergy of the Christian Church. But Islam absolutely must deny and dispute the evidence that Allah, in historical and archaelogical fact, is the direct descendant of the old moon god. Otherwise, how could Allah really be the "one and only" Supreme Deity of Monotheism, that Mohammed appropriated from the Jews and Christians ? Could even a charismatic warlord and his converts conquer the world with an old tribal god from the pagan desert, a god who was, after all, only one among many?
Posted by: gringoman | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 10:45 PM
David Byron, you have some really bizarre beliefs about the Bible, and they are not based upon the book itself. To whit
Chapter and verse please. (This should be fun.)Another example
This is beyond even bizaare. The Bible teaches that man separated himself from God by choice and therefore brought death upon himself (spiritual, not physical.) The only way he can be redeemed (made alive again) is by good behavior (in the Old Testament) and by faith (call it trust, belief, whatever you want) in God and belief in the truth that his son was raised from the dead.So it wasn't by sacrifice that man was redeemed but by the resurrection. You seem to have missed two thirds of the New Testament.
Then there's this.
Uh, no. Read what you just wrote. Abraham thought that the sacrifice God wanted was his (Abram's) only son. God straightened him out when he got there.God is not stupid. He deals with us on a level that we can understand. In the OT, blood sacrifices were the norm. Human sacrifice was common. The assumptions that men would make were obvious to God. (He is, after all, omniscient.) God knew exactly what Abram would think, if he told him to offer his son for a burnt offering. He obviously didn't intend for Abram to kill his son, else why would he provide a ram? But he was testing him, to see how much trust he (Abram) had in God.
The Hebrew of the verse uses two forms of the same word - alah, olah - alah him for an olah - offer him for a burnt offering. Without working too hard, you should see a play on words here. (Think burn him for a burning or play him for a player.)
If you study burnt offerings in the Bible, you'll discover that people are never burnt literally, yet they are referred to as burnt offerings to the Lord. Obviously it must mean something, but it can't mean literally burning, else everyone simply ignored God's clear instructions.
The Bible also refers to a sweet odor of sacrifice. None of these are literal, but refer to sacrificing in the sense we moderns understand giving of oneself (or sacrificing for the cause, if you will.) Abram was tested by God, to see if he was willing to offer his only son as a sacrifice to God, not literally as a burnt offering, but figuratively, in the sense of dedicating his life to God rather than to Abram and his family (as was the custom in those days.) If Abram had that much faith in God, then God would reward him.
God knew all along what Abram would do, so why bother to test him? Because Abram needed to know how far he (Abram) was willing to go for God!
If you think of God as acting like a human (full of deceipt and self-interest), you will get much of the Bible wrong, as you have. What God says, he means. What God promises, he delivers. What we understand him to mean is often dead wrong.
Get it now?
Posted by: antimedia | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 09:50 PM
A sura is more like a chapter or a very short book when compared to the bible (the size of suras varies a lot). They have names (in the original) and are divided into verses (not in the original). There are more suras than books in the bible, but the Koran is smaller altogether.
Posted by: DavidByron | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 08:23 PM
The Christian perspective on God may be summed up in the fact that Jesus prayed, and taught us to pray, to the Father as "Abba," which is rightly translated "Daddy." This in no way contradicts the axiom that "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," but it does go to show that all hinges on what Catholic theology has historically called the Incarnation. Nowhere in the Koran will you find a verse (surah?) to match the metaphysical audacity of John 3:16. Deny the divinity of Jesus, and you can't be said to worship the same God that Christians do-- hence the important distinctions between so-called "Abrahamic" faiths.
Hillaire Belloc was one of those who famously held that Muslim theology owed more to Christian heresy that Mohammed was perhaps prepared to admit. Francis de Sales also wrote expertly on the subject-- his books are still in print.
Posted by: Patrick O'Hannigan | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 07:28 PM
The crucifiction is a human sacrifice of Jesus (who is fully man in christian theology). That's why Jesus is called "the lamb of god". He's the sacrificial lamb. The scapegoat.
It is related to the other human sacrifices going back to the earlier times. Abraham is told to sacrifice his only son and is told at the last moment that "God has provided a sacrifice" (ie Jesus) so he doesn't need to. The scapegoat was sacrificed after the Israelis metaphorically placed their since on it. Lambs were also sacrificed for sins. Anything with blood in it. The blood was important just as the blood of Christ is what saves christians. The Israelis would put blood from their living sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins on themselves. That's what you do figuratively with the blood of christ -- god's human sacrifice.
Get it now?
Posted by: DavidByron | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 06:32 PM
"Well human sacrifice (the crucifiction) is the heart of christian theology. Just be mindful of that the next time you think someone else's religion is odd."
If you are referring to the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, it only betrays your ignorance. God died for the sake of man not the other way around. God’s power spans both the realm (or dimension) of life and death, that is why God chose to pay the price on behalf of man; HE could do so without loosing HIS essence or losing any man. “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” (John 10:18)
Posted by: slowtrain | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 06:24 PM
"Chomsky calls it the most genocidal book written - something like that."– DavidByron
Noam Chomsky. *sigh* The idiot's favorite pseudo-intellectual communist. HAve you ever actually read either the Bible OR Noam Chomsky? I'd suggest that capitol punishment by means of forced reading of Chomsky would be highly effective, but ruled cruel and unsusual puniushment.
Try citing someone who's not both a communist and liar. Chomsky is both, IMO. I gave up trying to find anything either sensible or honest from his blather more than 30 years ago. IOW, pull the other one.
Posted by: David | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 06:06 PM
His later disingenuous pronouncements of a filial relation to Judaism and Christianity are belied by both his words and deeds which have formed the basis for brutality through the ages by all those who sought to honestly emulate the Butcher of Medina's sanction of the brutal slaying of over 700 Jewish men who would not agree to worship his false god exactly as he decreed
Riiiiight. Have you ever read the bible? Chomsky calls it the most genocidal book written - something like that. Probably an accurate description. During the period the jews were entering the promised land the instructions from God are to enact a particularly horrific series of genocides --- men, women, children and even animals were all to be burned alive. No quater given, no treaties, no offers to convert. Compared to that what you describe sounds merciful and lenient.
Posted by: DavidByron | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 05:56 PM