Do we (Muslims, Christians and Jews) believe in the same God or not?

[Karimarie]

However, the fact is that the Jews are the people of the "Law". The priest hood consisted of two camps, the Sadusees and the Pharasees, yet the commonality was the law (613 Mizphat). Hence the first was Law.

Just a few corrections here...

The priesthood (ie the Kohanim) is by blood... One can only be born a Kohen. No matter how learned or experienced a Jew may be, if he is not a descendant of Aaron, he is not a Kohen. The Pharisees (and the Rabbis, which they later became) are, for the most part, not Kohanim. There are some Kohanim who are Rabbis, but most of the Rabbis are not.

The 613 mitzvot were a Rabbinical thing... Prior to the Rabbis coming to power, it seems most likely that very few of the commandments (except the ten utterances) were followed by Jews/Israelites outside of the priesthood. Keeping kosher, for example, was something only the priests did. The Pharisees (and Rabbis) taught that based on Exodus 19:6 "and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (JPS), that all Jews should live as if they were Kohanim--That is, they should follow all of the commandments, regardless of if they were priests or not.

Judaism, I'm not sure. In the past I assumed Judaism was highly dogmatic (hence Law). Reading posts in the Judaism forum and the introduction in the Jews for Judaism web site, it seems that Judaism may be more abstract than at first glance (depending on which group you belong to). When I say "abstract" I mean "not concrete." I must admit I haven't quite explored Judaism much. Perhaps I should do that soon . . .

Judaism's beliefs are pretty vague... The Sh'ma is pretty much the creed of Judaism...

Sh'ma Yisrael! Adonai eloheinu, Adonai echad!
"Hear, Israel! The Lord is God, the Lord Alone!"

Aside from belief in a God and that that God is the only God, the actual beliefs of Judaism are pretty vague. What is God, per se? Kabbalists would describe God as the Ein Sof, the Infinite One. Buber described God as the Eternal Thou in his philosophy of dialogue. Spinoza was a pantheist, that God was in all things, that God *is* the universe. Maimonides felt that God was essentially beyond all human comprehension. There's plenty of other Jewish philosophers who have had their own ideas about God too. Judaism never bothered to codify a creed. It may be better or worse for that, it depends on the individual.

As far as law goes... Yes, there is law in Judaism... A lot of law. Jewish law is called halakha "the way". The Torah, the Talmud, the Mishneh Torah, the Shukhah Arukh, etc. all present Jewish law... That said, some aspects of halakha have changed over time. Modern Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism have essentially abolished most of the rules, holding that while following them is traditional and not to be punished, one does not have to follow them if he or she does not wish it. Conservative Judaism follows many of the rules but is more lenient on some. Orthodoxy still does everything.

If you want to learn more about Judaism, Milton Steinberg's book Basic Judaism is a good place to start.

In my view, I don't see how any Christian can claim to not know Judaism. Over 2/3 of the bible by weight is Judaism. I can't think of very many stories in the Old Testament that do not directly involve Faith in God (swt), Faith in a prophet, or simply Faith in each other.

Well, there's a lot more to Judaism than the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)... Yes, it's important, but there's a wealth of other text as well (Talmud, Midrash, Responsa, the law codes, etc.) that greatly expand and elaborate upon the original text.

One may have read one of the major Jewish texts, but full knowledge of Judaism requires something that most Christians (and, for that matter, most Jews) have never done, which is read all of the text.

 

[Quahom1]

Just a few corrections here...

The priesthood (ie the Kohanim) is by blood... One can only be born a Kohen. No matter how learned or experienced a Jew may be, if he is not a descendant of Aaron, he is not a Kohen. The Pharisees (and the Rabbis, which they later became) are, for the most part, not Kohanim. There are some Kohanim who are Rabbis, but most of the Rabbis are not.

The 613 mitzvot were a Rabbinical thing... Prior to the Rabbis coming to power, it seems most likely that very few of the commandments (except the ten utterances) were followed by Jews/Israelites outside of the priesthood. Keeping kosher, for example, was something only the priests did. The Pharisees (and Rabbis) taught that based on Exodus 19:6 "and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (JPS), that all Jews should live as if they were Kohanim--That is, they should follow all of the commandments, regardless of if they were priests or not.



Judaism's beliefs are pretty vague... The Sh'ma is pretty much the creed of Judaism...

Sh'ma Yisrael! Adonai eloheinu, Adonai echad!
"Hear, Israel! The Lord is God, the Lord Alone!"

Aside from belief in a God and that that God is the only God, the actual beliefs of Judaism are pretty vague. What is God, per se? Kabbalists would describe God as the Ein Sof, the Infinite One. Buber described God as the Eternal Thou in his philosophy of dialogue. Spinoza was a pantheist, that God was in all things, that God *is* the universe. Maimonides felt that God was essentially beyond all human comprehension. There's plenty of other Jewish philosophers who have had their own ideas about God too. Judaism never bothered to codify a creed. It may be better or worse for that, it depends on the individual.

As far as law goes... Yes, there is law in Judaism... A lot of law. Jewish law is called halakha "the way". The Torah, the Talmud, the Mishneh Torah, the Shukhah Arukh, etc. all present Jewish law... That said, some aspects of halakha have changed over time. Modern Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism have essentially abolished most of the rules, holding that while following them is traditional and not to be punished, one does not have to follow them if he or she does not wish it. Conservative Judaism follows many of the rules but is more lenient on some. Orthodoxy still does everything.

If you want to learn more about Judaism, Milton Steinberg's book Basic Judaism is a good place to start.




Well, there's a lot more to Judaism than the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)... Yes, it's important, but there's a wealth of other text as well (Talmud, Midrash, Responsa, the law codes, etc.) that greatly expand and elaborate upon the original text.

One may have read one of the major Jewish texts, but full knowledge of Judaism requires something that most Christians (and, for that matter, most Jews) have never done, which is read all of the text.

No correction. The people didn't put Jesus to death. The Romans did, with the help of the Sanhedrin (priests). The people simply went along. To presume that a Christian or anyone hasn't read all (as to the Jewish faith), would be in error. Actually that was rather, stinging.

v/r

Q

 

[Karimarie]

No correction. The people didn't put Jesus to death. The Romans did, with the help of the Sanhedrin (priests). The people simply went along. To presume that a Christian or anyone hasn't read all (as to the Jewish faith), would be in error. Actually that was rather, stinging.

v/r

Q

The Romans did as the Jews were not at all autonomous at the time and could not have executed anyone even if they wanted to. The Sanhedrin at the time was comprised primarily of Sadducees, though there were as few Pharisees in the organisation. That said, the Jews were also being oppressed under Roman rule. Julius Caesar was an ally to the Jews, but his successors were far less accomodating to the different religion.

It would be incorrect to assume that all Christians are ignorant of Jewish canon, yes, but I think it is a fair assumption that the vast majority of Christians, due to a posessing a different faith, have not seriously endeavoured to study Talmud, Midrash or the various Jewish law codes. Honestly, how many Christians would seriously study the 1000 or so pages of the Mishnah when the text is not even relavent to their faith? It's extraneous. Conversely, most Jews do not seriously endeavour to study the writings of Thomas Aquinas or other Christian philosophers. It's not as if one is right and the other is wrong, just an acknowledgement that generally one does not have a full understanding of a creed other than his own.

 

[Quahom1]

The Romans did as the Jews were not at all autonomous at the time and could not have executed anyone even if they wanted to. The Sanhedrin at the time was comprised primarily of Sadducees, though there were as few Pharisees in the organisation. That said, the Jews were also being oppressed under Roman rule. Julius Caesar was an ally to the Jews, but his successors were far less accomodating to the different religion.

It would be incorrect to assume that all Christians are ignorant of Jewish canon, yes, but I think it is a fair assumption that the vast majority of Christians, due to a posessing a different faith, have not seriously endeavoured to study Talmud, Midrash or the various Jewish law codes. Honestly, how many Christians would seriously study the 1000 or so pages of the Mishnah when the text is not even relavent to their faith? It's extraneous. Conversely, most Jews do not seriously endeavour to study the writings of Thomas Aquinas or other Christian philosophers. It's not as if one is right and the other is wrong, just an acknowledgement that generally one does not have a full understanding of a creed other than his own.

The assumption is in error. Christianity is "based" on Jewish canon. Perhaps the average Christian may not know what Mizhvat they are following, but none the less they follow it. That is one of the main reasons that "Christian" identifies with Jewish faith, and not Islam, nor any other faith or belief.

I suppose a Jew could call a Christian something akin to a Sammaritan..."we believe, yet we do not understand what we believe...

Before one passes judgement on "backwater" faiths, I suggest speaking with a "preacher" of such faiths to be in order. In the case of Christianity, I would suggest a sampling of Catholic, Baptist, JW, Pentacostal, Mormon, Orthodox, Anglican, Coptic concepts.

We may not have the rules by number, but we understand the rules of the "game".

We are also a Jew's best ally (at least in America, that is how we are taught)...

(and yes, America is still predominantly Christian...75%).

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Karimarie, and welcome to CR!

Interesting conversation!

 

[Saltmeister]

It seems that separation of church and state has become separation of law and faith. In my view that is a mistake. Law is a matter of Faith.

The law a matter of faith? I'm not sure what you mean there. Explain law. Explain faith.

Why is separation of church and state a mistake? The Church is a community not a political system founded on institutions. The Church is not a State. People can function without a State with governing institutions if they're focused on doing good. The only reason why we needed a State was because of our own selfish desires, moral weakness and lack of self-control. The State was set up to compensate for our weakness, lack of self-control and the fact that we can't trust one another. Political systems and formal protocols are founded on distrust.

Christianity is fundamentally opposed to the idea of a State, or any kind of political system founded on formal protocols. I believe we can function without it if our intentions are always good. It's because of immoral thoughts and desires, dishonesty, conceit, greed, selfishness that we need one. Our minds are impure. We need to be cured of that kind of mind. The Christian faith is about a promise from God of a cure for that kind of mind.

Christianity has unstated pillars too: Baptism, eucharist, tithing, confession, Lord's prayer... do those pillars alone make you a true Christian? No, of course not. Neither are the pillars of Islam guaranteed salvation.

Saltmeister, I'm not sure whether I'm more disturbed with the way you classify Christianity or the way you classify Islam. I'm left concluding you don't know too much about either. I would start with learning what the word Faith really means... it is actually the exact opposite of sentiment or emotions.

Dictionary definitions of faith:
1. Complete confidence or trust
2. Belief in God or the doctrines of a religion
3. A system of religious belief
4. Loyalty or fidelity

My use of the word "faith" revolved around definitions 1 and 4 rather than 2 and 3, even though definitions 2 and 3 concern "religion." I wasn't emphasising the "doctrinal approach" to Christianity, as I don't consider the Christian faith a religion based on structure. Definitions 1 and 4 conceptualise something personal, which is what I think "faith" is about in Christianity. You put your trust in Christianity's Messiah/Christ. The Christ is a concept of something personal. His Spirit, which is also God's Spirit, lives in you.

Baptism, the eucharist, tithing, the Lord's prayer, confession don't define the structure of Christianity. The concept of Christ is the central concept. Everything else is in the background. The baptism, eucharist, tithing, Lord's prayer, etc. are things you do while the indwelt Messiah lives in you. This is probably why many Christians keep talking about Jesus, including the name "Jesus" in every sentence when they're discussing Christianity. You might call them "the Jesus freaks." They talk about "learning about Jesus," "inviting Jesus into your life," "going for a walk with Jesus," even "talking to Jesus" and "pleasing Jesus." That's the Jesus Freak type of Christian.

Not all Christians are the same. There's the liturgical type, which is probably what you mean by baptism, the eucharist, tithing, the Lord's prayer, confession. Death and resurrection of Jesus, his sacrifice. That's liturgy. If you're deep into liturgy, or an ascetic Christian, you might include other things (disciplines) like silence, prayer, fasting, abstinence, etc. (something like that). Not all of them are monks or nuns. Some are married. If you're the mystical type, you'd be interested in the meaning of life, cosmology, angels, mind body and spirit, soul talk, spirituality, etc.

I could go on. You could explore all of that but not capture the essence of Christianity. Sooner or later you'd have to come to a conclusion of what it's really about. You could read the whole Bible, get involved in debates, study its prophecies (Daniel, Revelation, predicting Jesus' coming), look for contradictions, examine the history and scientific evidence . . . but not come to terms with its purpose. What is it about Christianity that matters most?

I've explored most of the stuff I've listed above in Christianity, so it gives me a bird's-eye view of the religion. I think it all comes down to something personal. That's why I classified it as the "sentimental" type.

Christianity may be seen to have "pillars," but if these pillars don't guarantee that God will accept you into His Kingdom then they can't be called pillars. Christianity doesn't revolve around pillars the way Islam does. There must, however, be something in the Christian faith that holds it all together. I would prefer to say that the pillar is the Messiah/Christ. Pillars support buildings. In Islam the Five Pillars are what hold up Islam. They are the foundation of Islam. In Christianity there is only one pillar: Christ. He's the capstone, cornerstone, the foundation stone. Everything else in Christianity holds together because of him.

In my view, I don't see how any Christian can claim to not know Judaism. Over 2/3 of the bible by weight is Judaism. I can't think of very many stories in the Old Testament that do not directly involve Faith in God (swt), Faith in a prophet, or simply Faith in each other.

I am quite familiar with many of the stories in the Old Testament/Torah, but it seems there's a bit more to the Jewish faith than at first glance.

I think there's more to Judaism than just the Old Testament. Just a few hours ago I looked up an entry in the Wikipedia on the oral traditions. I happened to find an article on a so-called "Oral Torah." It seems the written Torah is not the only thing Jews rely on. The article says that the "Oral Torah" explains certain passages in the written Torah that can't be explained except by something that hadn't been written down at the time -- something either part of the culture or that was assumed knowledge.

Very enlightening! I'd been wondering about oral traditions for some time. I finally decided to find out. What makes an oral tradition? I was prompted to look it up while reading about Wicca which also has a kind of oral tradition.

Cyberpi, perhaps you could tell me about your background. The idea that the separation of church and state was a mistake is a view commonly harboured by Muslims. Moreover, "church" is not an ideology, religion or political system. It's a community. I am sure church is usually used to denote an institution or establishment, especially in the media. That's only because when someone says "Church of .... said this" they mean it's the view of that community of Christians. In Christian spirituality, the church is a "nexus of believers." In addition, Christians don't normally regard baptism, eucharist, tithing, confession, etc. as "pillars." While there are arguments over these things (as if they're more important than Christ), Christ is a central concept for most.

 

[Karimarie]

The assumption is in error. Christianity is "based" on Jewish canon.

Christianity is "based" on the Tanakh, but that's only part of Jewish canon (in terms of the volume of text, actually a very small part). There is so much more to Judaism then that which is something most Christians (indeed, yourself included, it seems) are unaware of or unfamiliar with.

Have you personally given concerted effort to study the Talmud? The Midrash? Responsa?

Perhaps the average Christian may not know what Mizhvat they are following, but none the less they follow it. That is one of the main reasons that "Christian" identifies with Jewish faith, and not Islam, nor any other faith or belief.

Not all Christians follow all of the mitzvot (indeed, according to Christian scripture, almost all of them may be safely ignored) nor do they need to. From the Jewish view, salvation for gentiles hinges on them acknowledging the covenant of Noach and following the Seven Noachide Laws.

I suppose a Jew could call a Christian something akin to a Sammaritan..."we believe, yet we do not understand what we believe...

The Samaritans were, during the Second Temple era, a very strange group in terms of Jewish law. Many Samaritans were Jews according to Jewish law, but many were not Jews and it was hard if not impossible to tell which was which. The Jews avoided them because it was unknown if they were Jews or Gentiles. Christians, though not a "people" in the sense that Jews are, are essentially the same in that regard. There are many Christians that are Jews but also many more who are not.

Christians generally understand what they believe. That does not mean, however, that they would by default understand Judaism. The vast majority of Christians would think that they understand Judaism, yes. But given that they are only given a small part of the Jewish story and receive such from the Christian perspective, they generally do not have as great of an understanding as they may think that they do.

Before one passes judgement on "backwater" faiths, I suggest speaking with a "preacher" of such faiths to be in order. In the case of Christianity, I would suggest a sampling of Catholic, Baptist, JW, Pentacostal, Mormon, Orthodox, Anglican, Coptic concepts.

I was raised Roman Catholic. I have a fairly decent understanding of Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity. I admit my understanding of JWs and LDS is rather limited, though.

 

[Quahom1]

Christianity is "based" on the Tanakh, but that's only part of Jewish canon (in terms of the volume of text, actually a very small part). There is so much more to Judaism then that which is something most Christians (indeed, yourself included, it seems) are unaware of or unfamiliar with.

Have you personally given concerted effort to study the Talmud? The Midrash? Responsa?

Yes.

 

[Karimarie]

Yes.

Then you are one of very few. The Christians who do so is quite a small group. The number of Jews who do so is also quite small, for that matter.

 

[Quahom1]

Then you are one of very few. The Christians who do so is quite a small group. The number of Jews who do so is also quite small, for that matter.

You have Dauer and Bannanbrain to thank for that...

 

[Zaakir]

Does The Qur'an Say how Jesus was conceived? Just wondering.

you asked about Jesus and his conception...can i ask you...Adam had no mother or father...so is god his mum and dad?

 

[cyberpi]

So for the record:
By stating 2/3 of bible is Judaism I did NOT mean to imply any of the following:
a) 2/3 of bible = 100% of Judaism
b) 100% of bible = Judaism
c) 0% of bible = Judaism
d) 1/3 of bible = 100% of Christianity
e) 100% of bible = Christianity
f) bible = 100% of Christianity
g) 100% of bible = Islam
h) 0% of bible = Islam
i) bible = 100% of Islam

I consider none of those to be true. I was trying to remind primarily Christians that the overwhelming majority of the bible is common to both Judaism and Christianity... no Christian can claim ignorance of Judaism because 2/3 of the majority of the bible comes from Judaism.

The same is true with followers of the Qur'an: Per the Qur'an the prophets in the bible, the majority of which pre-date Christ (pbuh), are considered all EQUAL to the messenger Muhammud (pbuh). In fact the Qur'an commands people to state this fact with others... among other things, and whether the people submit and do this or not. In fact, similar to how Christ (pbuh) said that he came to confirm everything that was written... SO does the Qur'an. The side note is that most followers of the Qur'an believe the bible has been corrupted... and the Qur'an has not. Many followers of the Qur'an also prefer to call themselves Muslim at the exclusion of others, even though every prophet and their followers that pre-date the messenger Muhammud (pbuh) are also called Muslim (one who submits to Allah (swt)). Again, that is per the Qur'an.

I realize of course my viewpoints are never in favor with people who prefer to call themselves Jew, Christian, or Muslim to the exclusion of others. I prefer to show commonalities while seeking answers for the differences rather than showing the differences to ignore the overwhelming commonality. Afterall, to answer the title of this thread... I believe there is only one God (swt).

 

[cyberpi]

Separation of Church and State: Why is it not called for what it really is? I think thats the problem there. I am all for separation of individual and group because that is the way it is... people are individually wrapped and responsible for their own actions.

Make no mistake: A Church is a group of people. A State is a group of people. The two overlap with common individuals. The groups are not separated and never will be. I am opposed to any group of people enforcing their beliefs on an individual or another group of people whether by censorship or oppression. The oppressor and the censor could equally be ANY group of people. What is oppression? Unjust law formed and enforced without agreement... without Faith in each other.

It may appear today that Islam is this way... it is not. Well, some people and governments are but the Qur'an clearly states to let people worship their idols and do NOT disrupt them so that you do not drive the people away from God (swt), UNLESS they disrupt your worship. Present the truth as you know it and then it is their decision. That doesn't just apply to the Qur'an... it applies to everything in life including measured science. To pull another example from the Qur'an, the prophet Abraham (pbuh) did NOT kill his father just because he manufactured idols for people to worship... but he did choose to leave him. Yes, I know Surat 9 for example is more offensive. There are verses that indicate anyone who picks and chooses from the Qur'an is in the wrong... so if a person has a hard time placing context you should remind them of that.

Christianity is the same (I believe): Don't attack your enemy just because he plants weeds (lies) in your garden, and don't censor the weeds. One might argue to go plant your seed in the other's garden... but a seed that bears fruit not for you, but for the other. Planting a truth for someone might be love but it is not faith... I consider that placing faith in each other is when both agree what a good deed is and then do it.

While the mislabel of separation of church and state is disconcerting, I think it is the common definition of the word Faith today that misguides people. Law and Faith are inseparable. Law is nothing but an agreement between people or with God (swt)... it simply conveys a truth or is used to enforce a truth... which is a symmetry or a desired symmetry between people.

 

[Saltmeister]

I consider none of those to be true. I was trying to remind primarily Christians that the overwhelming majority of the bible is common to both Judaism and Christianity... no Christian can claim ignorance of Judaism because 2/3 of the majority of the bible comes from Judaism.

There's a possibility that not even the religions of Judaism, Christianity or Islam can be summed up in any Text. In other words, the Tanakh is only a "window" into Judaism, the Bible is a window into Christianity and the Quran is just a window into Islam.

It could be that a religion is much greater than its Text. The Text is only a starting point in understanding a religion but never defines it completely. Defining a religion completely in any language would require an infinite number of words, paragraphs and pages. That's perhaps why many religions have a concept of angels and demons. The Text itself is not the religion. The religion really comes from something divine that can't be defined completely -- perhaps a transcendent being. The Text is more like a sample that we use to "taste" a religion. The actual religion itself doesn't come from the Text, but comes from a divine, transcendent being. The Text is what leads us to this divine being.

Gnosticism had the concept of "archons." The archons were the invisible spiritual rulers of the cosmos, manipulating and influencing world events by putting thoughts in people's heads. Human beings were aware, to a certain extent, of their influence. This idea of "archons" is similar to the notion of angels and demons in Judaism and Christianity. They could even be seen as equivalent.

One possible theory could be that the world's religions comes from these archons. Alignment and devotion to a Text is really supposed to be alignment and devotion to the archons that introduced and wrote the Text. God Himself is an archon, the Spirit that created the other archons. The Text leads us to this archon because it is the archon expressing himself. When we devote ourselves to the Text written by that archon, we establish an intimate and personal bond with the archon's personality.

Each religion could be thought of as a spiritual kingdom, or a spiritual dominion. The archon that introduced that religion is the spiritual ruler and spiritual leader of that dominion/kingdom. People who follow a particular religion are bound to a particular archon and are subjects in his spiritual kingdom.

Is Judaism summed up in 2/3 of the Bible, Christianity the whole Bible and Islam the whole Quran? Maybe not. It's possible that the religion itself is much bigger than the Text. The religion itself doesn't come from the Text, but an archon.

We could see it this way: 2/3 of the Bible leads us to the archon of Judaism, the whole Bible to the archon of Christianity, and the whole Quran to the archon of Islam.

 

[Saltmeister]

Separation of Church and State: Why is it not called for what it really is? I think thats the problem there. I am all for separation of individual and group because that is the way it is... people are individually wrapped and responsible for their own actions.

Make no mistake: A Church is a group of people. A State is a group of people. The two overlap with common individuals. The groups are not separated and never will be. I am opposed to any group of people enforcing their beliefs on an individual or another group of people whether by censorship or oppression. The oppressor and the censor could equally be ANY group of people. What is oppression? Unjust law formed and enforced without agreement... without Faith in each other.

The Church is a community and collective of people aligned with a common purpose. Between the individuals of that community there are personal and informal relationships. The State, however, is a structural framework that organises people into formal and impersonal relationships, but also toward a common purpose.

The way I see it is that you can organise the Church any way you like, and it will still be the same Church, as long as the people in the Church maintain and retain the same personal and informal relationships with each other. It's the emotions and personal feelings that people in the community have toward each other that count.

For the State, it's a different story. Organisation matters. If you change the structure and organisation of the State, it is not the same State!!! That's because the State runs on formal and impersonal relationships. If the formal and impersonal relationships are not retained, you no longer have the same State. Personal and informal relationships don't matter. You are not supposed to allow emotions to influence the way you run the State. The State runs on organisational machinery.

The State is a machine. The Church is a plant. If the State is damaged, it needs to be fixed. You have to understand how the machinery and mechanics of the State work together to know how it can be brought back to its full functionality. If the Church is damaged, it needs to heal. It is a living entity that you plant, grow and nurture.

The reason why State and Church should be different is because they run on a different foundation. The State is a machine (an artifact); the Church is a living entity (an organism).

 

[Jeannot]

"Christ came along and the message was "Faith". Do you believe...was the question. If so, then you are saved. No works required. Just believe. Hence the second is Faith."
___________

I believe that was Paul, not Jesus.

 

[Jeannot]

I would have to agree mostly with jeannot here.

Mystics are the individuals who are most adept at piercing the veil where the reality of spirit and of our mundane existence are at a "thin" intersection. Mystics are born with this, they do not learn it. And yet they have been jealously disrespected and even persecuted for their abilities. To call them shamans in the ancient pagan tradition would be not too far from the truth. They commune with the universe of spirits on behalf of the community to bring new meaning to the profane world of humans.

These abilities in certain people are systemic in their presence in all belief systems, including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I have learned more about G-d by reading the writings and musings of such individuals than I have ever learned in a church pew. I believe that our major shortcoming as believers, whatever faith we profess, is to not pay more attention to what these individuals say/have said to us in their sincerity.

flow....

I of course agree.

I've quoted it before, and I'll probably quote it again, but for me Teilhard's observation "Everything that rises must converge" sums up the mystical path. It's one that draws people of various faiths together, as we see in the career of Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk.

That is, paradoxically, starting from differing seemingly contradictory beliefs, mysticism has a uniting tendency. Why? Becaue all mystics aim at the same goal, untion with God. As Kierkegaard said, Purity of heart is to will one thing. And Jesus said, One thing alone matters.

Those who kill one another because of differing beliefs, I believe, are moving away from God. To hate or kill another because of belief is to lose one's way, to stray from the path.

In Islam, there is much to admire. Islam means "submission," and that in a sense is what is required of all of us. "not my will but Thine be done." And in Islam, caring for the poor is a duty. And Muslims pray five times a day--much like the medieval divine hours, in which people said a short prayer as the church bells rang out every three hours.

But of course many Muslims do not live up to the ideals of Islam. Neither do Christians for that matter. Some Christians say that Allah is not God, or not the same God as that of Christians. Such statements seem to me to reveal a profound misunderstanding of the religious quest. Of course it's the same God--only by a different name. Judaism for example has many names for God, including El or Eli, a variation of Allah.

 

[mansio]

If the Christian triune God is the same as Allah what about the different verses in the Quran that denounce the Trinity as polytheism ?

The name El/Elohim from the Bible is not a variation of the name Allah but both are variations of a common Semitic name for God.

 

[Jeannot]

If the Christian triune God is the same as Allah what about the different verses in the Quran that denounce the Trinity as polytheism ?

The name El/Elohim from the Bible is not a variation of the name Allah but both are variations of a common Semitic name for God.

It's still the same God, with some differences as to his nature. Whether Trinity (Xtian) or one (Jews and Muslims), our duty to draw closer to him remains the same.

Yes, but the names are connected. Same God. I think the primary is not getting the creed right, but getting your life right.

 

[mansio]

I don't understand how it can be the same God when yourself you acknowledged that there are "some" differences. I would not talk of "some" differences but of a big difference. As far as I know the Trinity in the Christian version of God is not "some difference".
A religion is a right creed with a right life. Not just a right life.