What are the Differences between the Abrahamic Faiths?

[Quahom1]

lol, Tis funny so often our compasses point the same way...but there are times when we are polar opposites, oh my if I were in the wheel house and you in the engine room...actually the other way round would probably be more of an issue...as I don't have the training you do...you'd either follow my orders and then bring me up on charges next port, or know where in the code would allow you to relieve me of my position. Me, I'd just mutiny and then end up in the brigg or whatever you've got on board...or overboard.

Still while there are similarities, there does exist a difference between a proof read and a re-write.

It's not my job to run this ship, the whistle I can't blow
It's not my job to say how far this ship's allowed to go,
It's not my job to throttle up, or even ring the bell
but let this damn ship hit the pier, and see who catches hell.

those down below, make the ship go.

edit: the only authorized relieving one of command is for incompetence, or direct violation of the UCMJ, or insanity.

 

[InLove]

ummm...hello
Just for the record, I wasn't proofreading. I was just throwing something out there for consideration.

 

[Quahom1]

ummm...hello
Just for the record, I wasn't proofreading. I was just throwing something out there for consideration.

It's called banter...nothing more InLove...

 

[InLove]

Oh, okay then...banter away.

 

[wil]

ummm...hello
Just for the record, I wasn't proofreading. I was just throwing something out there for consideration.

and the record concurs...

your consideration was valuable and evidence of my need...not that I thought or meant to imply it was your intent.

It's not my job to run this ship, the whistle I can't blow
It's not my job to say how far this ship's allowed to go,
It's not my job to throttle up, or even ring the bell
but let this damn ship hit the pier, and see who catches hell.

those down below, make the ship go.

edit: the only authorized relieving one of command is for incompetence, or direct violation of the UCMJ, or insanity.

I knew that:

a. you knew your place and
b. you knew the rules...

neither of which are attributes/skills which I possess.

..........

I do however believe these little nuances of our discussion are analogous of the creation of various denominations, sects, and religions...even though all are based on some divine input and understanding...much of where our disagreement lies is communication and translation issues which revolve around our societal upbringing, language and experience.

hmmm, the similarities are of a divine influence and the differences human nature??

as the slightest insignicant twist can set off a back problem...the seemingly insignificant posts can have value...

hmmmm, heads off to contemplate...

 

[Saltmeister]

What is the one pillar for Christianity, when you look at the five pillars of Islam? Seems if we were to start with Pillars for Christianity we'd have enough to hold up the Acropolis Roof.

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Establishment of the daily prayers;[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Self-purification through fasting; and[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.[/FONT]

Christ? Well if he's the Cornerstone of Christianity, and therefore something that holds it up . . . we could count that as a pillar.

 

[Quahom1]

Christ? Well if he's the Cornerstone of Christianity, and therefore something that holds it up . . . we could count that as a pillar.

Indeed, without the keystone/cornerstone, the entire structure would collapse.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I wasn't sure what you were suggesting here? Was this Judas the one talked about in the Four Gospels who betrayed Jesus, or is it from other writings?

As salaam aleykum Saltmeister

Am telling you this from memory so may be a bit fuzzy round the edges. A documentary I watched put a timeline to the writing of the Gospels, it suggested they were written over a 30+ year period (ie not all at the same time). It put them in this order, Mark, Luke, Matthew then John. It then looked at the betrayal by Judas and found the following:

Mark – Judas goes to priests who promise him money. At Passover feast Jesus (pbuh) doesn’t identify Judas as the betrayer. Judas says to the soldiers whoever I kiss, take him and lead him away safely (King James bible). Jesus (pbuh) states the scriptures must be fulfilled.
Luke – Satan enters Judas before he goes to priests to betray Jesus(pbuh). Was promised money. Again Jesus doesn’t identify Judas at Passover feast. Judas draws near to kiss Jesus but Jesus says to him betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
Matthew – Judas goes to priests and asks for money to betray Jesus (pbuh), is offered 30 pieces of silver (a huge sum). At Passover Jesus (pbuh) identifies Judas as the betrayer, when Judas asks is it I by saying Thou hast said. Matthew states better if the betrayer had never been born. Now Judas says whoever I kiss, that is him, hold him fast. Then kisses Jesus(pbuh).
John – By the time we get to John Jesus says “I have chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil”. John describes Judas as not caring for the poor and a thief. At Passover Jesus now hands the bread to Judas to identify him as the betrayer.

I found it really interesting that as time passes Judas is portrayed from fulfilling the scriptures to being identified by Jesus as a devil. It also makes sense, stories were told verbally then so stories would naturally become exaggerated over time. This is no criticism of Christianity, the same no doubt happened with other religions.

It must be kind of ironic to have that said to you.

I understand that some Christians see me as having betrayed the faith and Jesus (pbuh) so I just let such comments wash over me. I trust that G-d knows what is in my heart.

A Muslim aligns himself/herself to Pillars and uses the Pillars to reach God. Jesus is essentially the equivalent of those things. Of course, a Muslim may say that the Pillars eliminate the need for Christ, but for a Christian, Christ eliminates the need for Pillars. For a Christian Christ is the Pillar.

I see what you are saying but I have to disagree with you because Christians pray to Jesus (pbuh). The Pillars of Islam are Shahadah (declaration of faith), Salah (obligatory prayer), Zakat (almsgiving), Sawm (fasting) and Hajj (pilgrimage). We do not pray to any of the Pillars and do not believe any of the Pillars can intercede on our behalf. One of the main foundations of our faith is that none can intercede on our behalf and none can stand between us and G-d (people have a direct link so to speak).

I think it's a matter of identity. I choose to be Christian because I feel I belong to Christianity, just as a Jew belongs to Judaism.

How would this explain the people, like myself, that convert to another religion? I certainly didn’t convert because I like the mode of dress or wanted a number of my rights taken away and I certainly didn’t want to be seen as an extremist. The identity of being a western convert to Islam is not a pleasant one, from either side of the fence.

I was asking genuine questions because there are so many different thoughts on what a Muslim is. I am curious if we have any fundamentalist Muslim members here.

We have fundamentalists on this site but not to the degree I was discussing (I hope), perhaps I should have referred to them as extremists. Believe me Faithfulservant I understand your confusion, quite frankly it drives me nuts trying to work out who all the groups are and what they believe. I consider myself to be a Moderate Muslim. This is from an article called ‘Who are moderate Muslims’ (the whole article can be read here):

http://www.ijtihad.org/moderatemuslims.htm

For moderate Muslims Ijtihad (independent reasoning) is the preferred method of choice for social and political change and military Jihad the last option. For militant Muslims, military Jihad is the first option and Ijtihad is not an option at all.

For moderate Muslims, Ijtihad is a way of life, which simultaneously allows Islam to reign supreme in the heart and the mind to experience unfettered freedom of thought. A moderate Muslim is therefore one who cherishes freedom of thought while recognizing the existential necessity of faith. She aspires for change, but through the power of mind and not through planting mines.

Today, the relationship between Islam and the rest is getting increasingly worse. Muslim militants are sowing seeds of poison and hatred between Muslims and the rest of humanity by committing egregious acts of violence in the name of Islam.

Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.​

Traditionalists believe in taqlid:

Taqlid literally means "to follow (someone)", "to imitate". In Islamic legal terminology it means to follow a mujtahid in religious laws and commandment as he has derived them. A mujtahid is a person who is an expert of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).

If you look at a thread on the Islam board called Discussing Taqlid you will get a good idea of the difference in thinking between ‘moderates’ and ‘traditionalists’.

Yes extremists do teach their children the most hideous things and that can be said of any faith.

Yes...better choice of word(s). I sooo need a proof reader...

I think you are both right (Wil and InLove), I believe all the Prophets (pbut) would be embarrassed, saddened and really, really angry.

Salaam

 

[InLove]

Hi Muslimwoman

Thank you for your efforts to explain your beliefs and to understand the beliefs of others. I am learning some things from you, and there have been some interesting points raised in this thread.

I feel that you and I have established a bit of a rapport already, so I thought maybe I could offer a word or two that might help build a bit more understanding.

My apologies ahead of time for being so brief. I have an appointment today, so I can't spend as much time as I would like on this post. But I have been wanting to say something for a while now. Perhaps this is a good place to interject these thoughts. Please keep in mind that just as everything you say does not speak for every Muslim, what I say will not speak for every Christian. However, I do believe there are many Christians with whom the following would resonate. So, if I may...

"Partner" is not the proper term. I don't see Christ (or the Holy Spirit) as a partner with G-d. To me, as well as to many Christians, Jesus Christ is seen as the ultimate expression of God's love for humankind, and but one aspect of G-d, (and I honestly have no problem with referring to G-d as "Allah", by the way). I really think that none of us yet knows exactly how the Name of The Source of All Being actually sounds, but I trust that when we all hear it, we will have no doubt Who is speaking!

Also, I do not pray to Jesus. I pray in His Name because I trust it is recognized and loved in G-d.

As far as any minor inconsistencies in the accounts of the four Gospels, I agree that it does pose questions for the reader. But like you said, they began as oral accounts, and so the possibilities for fluctuation in the details are there. However, these minor details do not, in my opinion, change the general essence of the message.

I wish I had more time here, but I have to go prepare for a very full day ahead. I hope you will take my comments for what they are--an attempt to clarify a couple of points and to help. They aren't meant as a criticism of your faith.

Salaam

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Dondi]

Muslimwoman,

Have you ever played a game called "operator"? It's a kids game where you line up in a row and the first person is secretly given a phrase or quote and they are supposed to whisper it to the next person, which in turn is supposed to whisper it to the next person, and so on, until it gets to the last person. Sometimes, you don't catch everything whispered in your ear, so you call out "operator" so that the person telling you can repeat it.

The fun of the game is that usually what started out as a quote ends up disconglobulated into nonsense by the time the last person receives it, much of the information is lost and often it turns out as gibberish. Great for a laugh.

But when you get to the gospels, this is not what you end up with, is it. Instead, in the historic progression of Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, you actually gain information. This phenomenom happens in crime investigation. A detective will take initial interviews from witnesses of the crime and try to construct what has happened. Often times he will go back re-interview the witness and gain important facts that were not gleaned in the first interview. I believe this is what is occurring with the Gospels. More information is being gained in the process of time. Even Luke admits in his opening chapter that there were many accounts floating around by the time he set out to write his gospel, and did not use just Mark as the sole source.

If I recall, the Quran was constructed from bits and pieces, some written on barkwood and parchments, before being compiled, wasn't it?

 

[Saltmeister]

I understand that some Christians see me as having betrayed the faith and Jesus (pbuh) so I just let such comments wash over me. I trust that G-d knows what is in my heart.

Oh no . . . I think you misunderstood what I was saying there. My point was that what was said to you is usually said to people who mix Christianity with other religions. The issue was about being a "true Christian" when one had already let go of their Christian identity. I was saying it was ironic.

I see what you are saying but I have to disagree with you because Christians pray to Jesus (pbuh). The Pillars of Islam are Shahadah (declaration of faith), Salah (obligatory prayer), Zakat (almsgiving), Sawm (fasting) and Hajj (pilgrimage). We do not pray to any of the Pillars and do not believe any of the Pillars can intercede on our behalf.

I think once again that what we are discussing here is meaning.

That wasn't a reference to intercession or prayer to Pillars. Every religion has an essential foundation, one that "holds up" that religion. The Pillars are structures that hold up Islam. Jesus, in Christianity, is often referred to "the Cornerstone." 1 Peter 2:1-8 depicts this Cornerstone as the foundation of a spiritual temple, a stone that holds it together. The Pillars and the Cornerstone could be seen as metaphors depicting what is considered most important in Islam and Christianity. The Pillars are the foundation of Islam and Jesus is the foundation of Christianity.

Without the Cornerstone, the building cannot function as a Temple of God.

But as InLove says, "praying to Jesus" is probably the wrong way of seeing Jesus' role in Christianity. I can't deny that it's prevalent in the cultural environment of many Christian communities, but it's something I personally don't agree with myself. Jesus had his own relationship with God. It's just another example of Christians generating misconceptions about their own faith. But all that comes from the already-existing culture in which a Christian is raised and taught. It has to be unlearnt.

One does not pray to a Cornerstone as it is not living and does not have a mind of its own. Instead, the Cornerstone is part of the building in which we pray. Praying in Jesus' name is like praying in the building that includes the Cornerstone. The Cornerstone identifies God's Temple.

(Note: If one reads 1 Peter 2:1-8 one may find that Jesus is referred to as "the Living Stone." But let's not get technical.)

One of the main foundations of our faith is that none can intercede on our behalf and none can stand between us and G-d (people have a direct link so to speak).

I believe the Jesus of Christianity was also a concept of a direct relationship with God. It hasn't always been understood that way. Most people say it's because Jesus was God or because he was part of God. But I believe that side-steps the Jesus' real purpose.

In Jesus' day it was taught that you couldn't be accepted by God if you couldn't follow the rules. These rules were essentially a barrier between us and God. But then Jesus came along. He didn't believe in the rules. He followed them, but accepted people who couldn't live up to the standard. When he died, he was accepted by God. If God could accept a person like that, could he not accept us? When he died, the curtain veiling the Holy of Holies was torn open indicating that a doorway had opened giving us direct access to God. So Jesus was not a barrier between us and God, but one who opened the door.

Praying in Jesus' name does not mean we don't have direct access to God. The relationship between us and Jesus is like a relationship of inheritance. We inherit whatever benefits and promises God bestowed in Jesus.

It's a kind of heritage. Long ago, there were men named Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham was a man who was close to God. Because of that relationship, Abraham's descendants inherited that relationship with God. Isaac and Jacob's descendants received similar benefits. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were the ancestors of God's people. Anyone living today can still be one of God's people if they are one of the "spiritual descendants" of Abraham -- ie. a Jew, one who follows the same religion. They don't have to be blood descendants.

Jesus is the "spiritual ancestor" of Christians, and we invoke Jesus' identity (or Jesus' name) to receive God's promises to Jesus as was done with
Abraham. It was much like what happened with others like, for example, David, but on a larger scale. A person who prays in Jesus' name identifies himself as a "spiritual descendant" of Jesus (so-to-speak).

How would this explain the people, like myself, that convert to another religion? I certainly didn’t convert because I like the mode of dress or wanted a number of my rights taken away and I certainly didn’t want to be seen as an extremist. The identity of being a western convert to Islam is not a pleasant one, from either side of the fence.

Very often, as a follower or adherent of a particular religion, we inherit the "identity" of the rest of the so-called "group." If you assert an "individual identity" as an adherent of a religion it's a request for people not to stereotype or to be prejudiced about your beliefs. It's an assertion and declaration that you have your own personal beliefs even as an adherent to a particular faith and that you will not be judged alongside "the rest of the group" or even as "one not belonging to the group." You do belong to the group, but you do not necessarily think as the rest of the group does. You are spontaneous and have a mind of your own. Your beliefs, thoughts, attitudes and actions are between you and God.

An "individual identity" as an adherent to a particular faith can be used as a defence against both adherents and non-adherents alike when you are judged. You can use your identity as an adherent to defend yourself against other adherents who condemn you for failure to conform. You can also use it to defend yourself against non-adherents who treat you like other adherents (as is stereotyped or prejudiced).

That could apply to all Abrahamic faiths, not just Muslims. Some Jews, Christians and Muslims do, explicitly assert an unique identity, others are simply "mere instruments" of a group mentality.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I feel that you and I have established a bit of a rapport already, so I thought maybe I could offer a word or two that might help build a bit more understanding.

as salaam aleykum InLove

I certainly like to think we have already built some rapport and I take nothing you say as a personal remark on my beliefs or religion. I am always glad to hear your comments they give me a better understanding, so thanks for the time you spend posting.

"Partner" is not the proper term.

Perhaps this is the most obvious misconception of Christianity and quite frankly one I could never get my head around as a Christian, I accept that was a failing on my part. Please try to understand that my religious education was very lacking, my parents do not believe in G-d so my education came from simply reading the bible and other books and trying to make sense of it all by myself. The church I attended as a child was a 'fire and brimstone' one and sunday school was just a series of lectures and finger painting. So I am fully aware my understanding of Christianity is seriously limited.

At one point I thought I had it, 'the trinity are not different beings and are all part of the same entity'. However, in my church (this is 30 years ago) I was told that I was born sinful and must fall on my knees and pray to Jesus for forgiveness and that G-d would not look upon such a sinner, unless Jesus(pbuh) begged for my forgiveness. Perhaps this is where my difficulties started? I was taught to seperate out Jesus (pbuh) from G-d, again not the fault of Christianity but of my so called teachers.

I do try to explain to fellow Muslims that Christians don't believe Jesus(pbuh) is a G-d alongside Allah, they do not sit side by side on their thrones but I can see why they have difficulty understanding - if I don't understand what hope can they have.

I think one of the difficulties are the statues, the Catholic church have statues of Mary (pbuh) and pray before them, as Christians pray before (note I do not say pray to) statues of Jesus (pbuh). To an outsider this appears to be idol worship, even though you may only view it as intercedence. Think about a mosque (have you ever seen inside one?), nothing is allowed in the way of statues, paintings etc., because this would be viewed as idol worship. I think it is just misconception and lack of understanding perhaps on both sides.

However, these minor details do not, in my opinion, change the general essence of the message.

I apologise if I made it sound that way, I try to be a realist InLove. Many Muslims believe that the hadiths were handed down through 1400 years and have not been tampered with in order to assist in power struggles. I feel that this is quite frankly absurd, of course they have been manipulated. However, as you, I believe that G-d has protected His message, throughout the Abrahamic scriptures - we just have to look for the true message and be realistic and honest about the interference of mankind. I believe we can accept the historical manipulations of all our faiths without losing the message.

I love the message of Christianity and I love Jesus (pbuh) but I chose a path I felt took me closer to G-d (not because the message was different, just because in Islam I feel my prayers can reach G-d directly - how could they reach Him before if I didn't really understand the concept of the Trinity?).

Salaam [/quote]

 

[Muslimwoman]

Have you ever played a game called "operator"?

as salaam aleykum Dondi

I had completely forgotten about that game, we played it in brownies. Thanks for reminding me, what a laugh and an excellent analogy.

Instead, in the historic progression of Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, you actually gain information. This phenomenom happens in crime investigation.

You are absolutely correct and in crime investigation it is vital to take down every detail while it is still fresh in the witnesses mind. Over time small details are forgotten and witnesses want to be helpful so they tend (without any malice or desire to distort) to 'fill in the blanks'. I was not suggesting the Gospels are fibs, only that over time small details change and become exaggerated - and I accept fully this has happened in Islam as well, it is just human nature.

Whereas you feel you gain more over the time span of the Gospels, I personally feel the older ones are more likely to be accurate and Judas, whilst being the betrayer of Jesus(pbuh), may well have been fulfilling the scriptures. I also have difficulty understanding why any Apostle who attended the Passover feast with Jesus (pbuh) could 'forget' that Jesus (pbuh) identified Judas as the betrayer. It is a small detail and in no way detracts from the message of Christianity, as I believe the 'small details' in Islam do not detract from the message but we should accept that those exaggerations and differences exist because of the time span they were written over.

If I recall, the Quran was constructed from bits and pieces, some written on barkwood and parchments, before being compiled, wasn't it?

and animal bones and banana leaves - yes you are absolutely correct.

Salaam

 

[Faithfulservant]

I do try to explain to fellow Muslims that Christians don't believe Jesus(pbuh) is a G-d alongside Allah, they do not sit side by side on their thrones but I can see why they have difficulty understanding - if I don't understand what hope can they have.

You were wrong..

Matthew 19:28 So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.

Acts 2:30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,

Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Hewbrews 8:1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

Hebrews 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God

Revelation 3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

 

[Faithfulservant]

For clarification... you arent born into a Christian family and become a Christian simply because of that..

you have to do something to be a Christian

you have to believe.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Oh no . . . I think you misunderstood what I was saying there.

Oops sorry. Yes it is very ironic and a first for me. Perhaps because I am not a finger pointing "everyone else is going to hell nah, nah, nah, nah, nah" Muslim I am perceived as sitting on the fence? Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Pillars are the foundation of Islam and Jesus is the foundation of Christianity. Without the Cornerstone, the building cannot function as a Temple of God.

Oh I see what you are saying now. Yes ,in that case of course I agree completely. (sorry sometimes I think it is much easier to misunderstand people when it is not a face to face conversation).

It has to be unlearnt.

This is one of my issues with some of the Islamic concepts, some things need to be unlearnt and how do you go about it when dealing with faith? People assume you are critising or trying to tempt them away from the true path.

I believe the Jesus of Christianity was also a concept of a direct relationship with God. It hasn't always been understood that way. Most people say it's because Jesus was God or because he was part of God. But I believe that side-steps the Jesus' real purpose.

Of course I agree (well I would wouldn't I ) becaue I believe Jesus (pbuh) was a bringer of G-ds message but still only a human (sorry if that offends anyone). What I don't understand is why Jesus (pbuh) can be seen as a 'direct' relationship with G-d, why the middle man (please the forgive the term but I can't think of a better one)? G-d tells us in all the scriptures He is Most Merciful, Most Compassionate, Most Forgiving and of course our Creator, so why can't we have a direct relationship without requiring intercedence?

When he died, the curtain veiling the Holy of Holies was torn open indicating that a doorway had opened giving us direct access to God. So Jesus was not a barrier between us and God, but one who opened the door.

Forgive my ignorance of the Jewish scriptures but what do they say about our relationship with G-d? Is an intermediary required? (oh that's a better word than middleman ). Oh good explanation, thank you.

Praying in Jesus' name does not mean we don't have direct access to God. The relationship between us and Jesus is like a relationship of inheritance. We inherit whatever benefits and promises God bestowed in Jesus.and we invoke Jesus' identity (or Jesus' name) to receive God's promises to Jesus as was done with Abraham.

I swear to G-d I am not trying to be an idiot on this subject - it is just coming naturally I do get what you are saying and by the way it is a terrific explantion but I just don't 'get it'. The thing I really miss about Christianity is the message that G-d is our Loving Father and this is the one thing that will always remain in my heart. Excuse the analogy but if I want to love my human father and want to please him I don't go to my brother and say "tell Dad I love him" and I also don't go to my Dad and say "you love my brother so please love me too". G-d tells us he loves us and as any father he is angry when we are naughty and pleased when we are good but he doesn't need anyone to tell Him who we are He knows us and therefore our heritage better than we know ourselves.

You do belong to the group, but you do not necessarily think as the rest of the group does. You are spontaneous and have a mind of your own. Your beliefs, thoughts, attitudes and actions are between you and God. You can also use it to defend yourself against non-adherents who treat you like other adherents (as is stereotyped or prejudiced).

See you have lost me again, sorry. You accept that your beliefs, thoughts, attitudes and actions are between you and G-d, so why the need to invoke any other name? I am not trying to insult or belittle the wonderful work and sacrifices Jesus (pbuh) made for mankind. This really is, in my humble view, the crux of the matter, is it not disrespectful to G-d to invoke any other name but His? Shouldn't our every thought in prayer just be about G-d?

I am not just talking about Jesus (pbuh) but also Mary (pbuh). How can people refer to her as the mother of G-d? To me it seems very disrespectful to G-d to suggest a human woman could be G-d's mother.

I am also not just talking about Christians. Muslims can stone me in the street if they want but I do not invoke the name of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in my prayers. I love him and respect him but my prayers are for G-d alone.

That could apply to all Abrahamic faiths, not just Muslims. Some Jews, Christians and Muslims do, explicitly assert an unique identity, others are simply "mere instruments" of a group mentality.

You get no argument from me there.

Salaam

 

[Saltmeister]

Of course I agree (well I would wouldn't I ) becaue I believe Jesus (pbuh) was a bringer of G-ds message but still only a human (sorry if that offends anyone). What I don't understand is why Jesus (pbuh) can be seen as a 'direct' relationship with G-d, why the middle man (please the forgive the term but I can't think of a better one)? G-d tells us in all the scriptures He is Most Merciful, Most Compassionate, Most Forgiving and of course our Creator, so why can't we have a direct relationship without requiring intercedence?

Forgive my ignorance of the Jewish scriptures but what do they say about our relationship with G-d? Is an intermediary required? (oh that's a better word than middleman ). Oh good explanation, thank you.

The tearing open of the curtain veiling the Holy of Holies in the Temple was a sign that God had been opened up for direct access. Only a sign, not the opening up itself. The opening up was spiritual not physical.

There seems to be a recurring issue that Jesus is somehow acting as "middleman" or "intercessor." I see him more as leader, guide and escort. Was Mohammed not a leader and guide? Jesus is leading, guiding and escorting me to God. I could just as well go and see God myself but I don't know how to find Him. I need someone with intimate knowledge of the terrain to give me directions and advice.

David, for example, had direct contact with God. Jesus wasn't around then. But not all of us have been as intimate with God as David. We don't know where to begin!!! There was also Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, the list goes on. Then there was Jesus. Jesus was like David, Abraham, Isaac and all those who came before him, but this guy came so that the rest of us could find God.

(Note: I think the word you were meaning to say was "intercession.")

Excuse the analogy but if I want to love my human father and want to please him I don't go to my brother and say "tell Dad I love him" and I also don't go to my Dad and say "you love my brother so please love me too". G-d tells us he loves us and as any father he is angry when we are naughty and pleased when we are good but he doesn't need anyone to tell Him who we are He knows us and therefore our heritage better than we know ourselves.

"Descendant" is more of a term I use in comparison to people descended from Abraham, as well as those following the same religions as his descendants. It's a bit of a metaphor, as well as an analogy.

There is, actually a difference between Abraham and Jesus in that, "Abraham's descendants" were not necessary like Abraham, nor did they necessarily live for the same purpose or have the same attitude to life. Some were descendants because they were related to him by blood.

"Spiritual descendants" of Jesus (Christians), I would say are supposed have the same beliefs, same attitude and live for the same purposes as Jesus did. Jesus, in particular, didn't believe people should be judged by rules, so ideally we wouldn't judge people by rules either. Jesus connected with people and made an effort to get to know them better so he could make himself valuable to them as a person. We could do that too. If we do some or all of these things, we might qualify as one of his "spiritual descendants." I don't believe there are any essential rules, or even a standard to which we must adhere. It's a matter of living with the same beliefs, attitudes and purpose as Jesus. It's the devotion and dedication to the cause that makes us Christian.

God accepted Jesus because of his beliefs and his attitude to life, not because of his achievements. It was his devotion and dedication that mattered. When we live with the same attitude, we are then, essentially like Jesus, and God can accept us for the same reasons as he accepted Jesus. God rewards people who make an effort at doing good, so obviously He used Jesus as an example. It's a lot like what Jesus says in Matthew 12:50 that, "whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, sister and mother." This is where a "descendant" could be seen as synonymous with "brother" or "sister."

This might be a really, really bizarre way of seeing things, but I see Christianity as a loosely interwoven "cloud" of concepts where there is no single way of understanding things. If one has enough background knowledge, it may be possible for a person to use these concepts to come up with a way of explaining things in Christianity without producing an idea that's "warped." This idea that I have works for me. Hopefully it's not seen as "warped."

See you have lost me again, sorry. You accept that your beliefs, thoughts, attitudes and actions are between you and G-d, so why the need to invoke any other name? I am not trying to insult or belittle the wonderful work and sacrifices Jesus (pbuh) made for mankind. This really is, in my humble view, the crux of the matter, is it not disrespectful to G-d to invoke any other name but His? Shouldn't our every thought in prayer just be about G-d?

Sorry for the confusion. That was more about politics/ideology than theology. The above paragraphs were about theology. The last section was about politics and ideology. I was talking about what a Jew, Christian or Muslim's identity might mean in society. A Jew, Christian or Muslim might, from time to time, need to defend themselves against other adherents of the same religion and justify his/her beliefs and not be condemned for failure to conform. (If you scroll back up this aspect of the discussion might make a bit more sense . . .)

This is what distinguishes religions from cults. In a normal, healthy religion, people have an individual identity that they can defend, despite failure to conform. A cult is where conformity is mandatory and the individual's identity is disregarded. Devotion and dedication isn't enough. You must fit yourself into the same pattern somehow.

That was why I was saying it was sometimes good to choose to be Jewish, Christian or Muslim because you want to be one, not because other people were making you do it. A matter of spontaneity.

 

[wil]

That was why I was saying it was sometimes good to choose to be Jewish, Christian or Muslim because you want to be one, not because other people were making you do it. A matter of spontaneity.

I'm agreeing here, with everything accept the spontanaity thing...now in one case some divine/born again/enlightenment may make you deside spontaneously to committ yourself to x, y or z...but I really think that the exploration of the other concepts and then coming to a decision based on extended inner contemplation or conversations with G-d as it were is the valid basis to choose to change from whatever your upbringing was...or your current religious status is....

Does remind me of the Parent that told their adopted child how they loved them as much as their biological children...."You must remember, we chose you!"

 

[Saltmeister]

I'm agreeing here, with everything accept the spontanaity thing...now in one case some divine/born again/enlightenment may make you deside spontaneously to committ yourself to x, y or z...but I really think that the exploration of the other concepts and then coming to a decision based on extended inner contemplation or conversations with G-d as it were is the valid basis to choose to change from whatever your upbringing was...or your current religious status is....

Does remind me of the Parent that told their adopted child how they loved them as much as their biological children...."You must remember, we chose you!"

Well, I'm not saying you'd never convert to another religion. If you're not happy with the one you had been raised under, or if you had never believed in anything, you might attach yourself to something different.

In seems though, that people have this idea that they have to choose the "most truthful" or "most enlightened" religion or path -- ie. the best religion, or the most truthful/enlightened attitude. If you wanted the most truthful/enlightened religion/path, you might say one religion was more truthful/enlightened or more elegant and beautiful in meaning than another. If you pursued the most truthful/enlightened attitude, you might be inclined to say "all paths lead to God" or "God is in everything."

That I wouldn't dispute. There may indeed be religions and paths that are better than others. You could rank them all in order of truthfulness, enlightenment and elegance in meaning: X < Y < Z < A < B < C. Maybe it's true that "all paths lead to God" or "God is in everything."

But the question is, does it necessarily mean you choose a religion on that basis? What is being discussed here is one's way of choosing religions.

What if you instead chose a religion that was most compatible with your identity as a person? In other words, you choose a religion because there is a sense of belonging to that religion. You choose what has most sentimental value.

Beauty is also in the eyes of the beholder, not necessarily in the item/object itself. The same item/object may have different value to different people. Precious to some, abhorrent to others. Religion could be treated as one such item/object.

Choosing a religion doesn't have to be a matter of which is better. It may be a question of the one to which you feel you most belong. Also, choosing a path doesn't necessarily mean you are shooting down the "all paths lead to God" idea. You may have beliefs for yourself but not beliefs for others. Choosing a path doesn't mean you believe others have to do the same.

Best for you, not necessarily best for others.

Identity is particularly important in the Abrahamic faiths. In the Abrahamic faiths we'll almost always treat others as having some kind of identity. The question is, does that person/individual treat himself/herself and others as having an individual identity?

When we talk to a Catholic, JW, Baptist, Pentecostal, Evangelical or Mormon, do we see the Roman Catholic Church, Watch Tower Society, Baptist Church, Pentecostal Church, Evangelical Church or Church of Jesus Christ of LDS; or do we see the Catholic, JW, Baptist, Pentecostal, Evangelical or Mormon?

Some choose not to have an identity. Ok with me. Might be a problem with others . . . Adherents of the Abrahamic faiths don't always like people who have an uncertain or unknown identity. Is he/she Michael, Barbara, James Bond or Indiana Jones? We often like it when that person/individual is one of those characters but not all of them at the same time. We like to tag and label people. We expect everyone to have a tag and label. If they don't display one, we give them one (ie. criticise, pass judgment).

Identity . . . a contentious issue in the Abrahamic faiths.

Just some thoughts . . .

 

[InLove]

I think that the problems we have agreeing on what Scripture says or means often arise from variations in our cultural backgrounds. Not just things like where we come from and where we have been, but also from where we are now. It also seems to me that they frequently stem from deeply rooted differences--even nuances--in our perception of language. What our minds associate with certain verbal triggers. The pictures in our heads, or even perhaps on our hearts.

But what is on our hearts is what Scripture points to, and I think if we look to that, we can more often understand one another, and better. I have every confidence that this is on G-d's heart as well.

InPeace,
InLove