Indiana church's sign viewed as knock on Allah

[SavageEagle]

Wow, now we have a trend of advice, coming from the same person who said to go to the doctor, but not listen to the advice given by them.

You couldn't be any further from the truth, the history, the facts.

And this from the same guy that says to blindly follow whatever your doctor says. You really want to go there in this thread?

 

[henktermaat]

And this from the same guy that says to blindly follow whatever your doctor says. You really want to go there in this thread?

Gentlemen, the rest of us have no idea what you're talking about - but we love ya both.

 

[jpo117]

That's circular reasoning. You can't assume that two folk are woshiping the same God and then use that as evidence that they are actually worshipping the same God.

I disagree with your interpretation of my statement. I'm stating that the two individuals intend to worship the same God, so they do. It seems that we come back to your assertion that one can only worship that which one knows. You state that an individual worships only that conception of God which the individual carries within her own mind. I state that an individual worships the God upon which the individual intends to direct her worship, regardless of the individual's understanding (or lack thereof) of the God in question.

You seem to be indicating that a person can try to worship God but "miss"--because they have the wrong ideas about God, their worship is actually not directed at the God they intend to worship but at some made up God in their imaginations. I simply disagree, and think that if the Jew and the Muslim both attempt in good faith to worship the God of Abraham then they at least succeed in directing their worship at the same deity. That is all it comes down to.

Sorry but that does not follow. Christians worship a God that is the literal father of Christ or a God that took physical form to become Christ (depending on flavor of Christianity). Muslims worship a God that did not do those things.

To see my perspective, try restating that as "Christians believe God is the literal father of Christ or took physical form to become Christ. Muslims believe God did not do those things."

To play a bit with the Beatles analogy it would be like saying "I'm a fan of John Lennon for writing Octopus's Garden" and someone else saying "I'm a fan of John Lennon for writing Maxwell's Silver Hammer." Since John Lennon didn't write both (in fact, he wrote neither--another possibility that people often neglect in discussions of this kind), even though they use the same name ("John Lennon") for both the author of Octopus's Garden and the author of Maxwell's Silver Hammer they are not talking about the same author since the same author did not write the two songs.

But their admiration is directed toward the same author nonetheless, is it not?

Actually, I think the difference is more fundamental than that. Here's a little thought experiment for you: can you imagine any worship of what someone believes is "one true God" that would not be worship of the "same God" as that of Christians?

If one were to worship a god that were fundamentally incompatible with the God of Christians, I would entertain the thought that they were worshiping a different god. I would certainly not consider myself familiar enough with the nature of God to hazard a guess as to what such a deity might be like. Or, if one consciously set out to not worship the God of Christians--"I worship Thee, oh Rock in my yard, who has done nothing but sit there in Thy heavenly glory, is the only divine thing in all of reality, and who most certainly is NOT the god of Christians"--then I would guess that such worship would not qualify.

 

[versuchstier147]

Henktermaat

I've read through your first set. 38:50-54 and 55:54-56 do in fact make reference to a chaste woman awaiting you in your next life, if allowed into heaven. Further reading defines this woman as your companion, MADE pure. So, those eleven so something guys she was with before you are omitted, so to say.

I'm going to start some coffee before I start on this second set here.

And for the record, I'd like to say - I am not Muslim. I have no affiliation with any religion. This is purely general studies. I can understand everyone's feeling on the subject, what with the current war and recent shootings. That's why I'm taking the time here to defend this religious text, and the vast majority of it's followers. I'm trying my best here, but I'm not an expert. And I can tell by henktermaat's tagline that he is indeed an expert, and means serious f-ing business.

My original post was that God and Allah, were the same.

I HATE Political and Religious arguments... Please, no one take anything here too close to heart. Everyone has their opinions and they're entitled to them.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Wow this thread made it to 15 pages. I thought it would have gotten closed after 5 or so. Looks like everyone is starting to get along....lol

 

[dburkhead]

I disagree with your interpretation of my statement. I'm stating that the two individuals intend to worship the same God, so they do.

One intends to worship a God that came to Earth in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, lived a sinless life, and suffered in Gethsemane and on the Cross for our sins, who then rose on the third day, breaking the chains of death and preparing the way for the resurrection of the dead on the last day.

The other intends to worship a God who did none of those things.

How are these two the "same God"?

It seems that we come back to your assertion that one can only worship that which one knows. You state that an individual worships only that conception of God which the individual carries within her own mind. I state that an individual worships the God upon which the individual intends to direct her worship, regardless of the individual's understanding (or lack thereof) of the God in question.

But the intention is based on the conception. It cannot be otherwise. Worshippers of Ba'al intended to worship the "supreme being" according to their understanding. I don't recall Ezekiel claiming that they were really worshiping the "same God."

You seem to be indicating that a person can try to worship God but "miss"--because they have the wrong ideas about God, their worship is actually not directed at the God they intend to worship but at some made up God in their imaginations.

See how many times people were condemned in the Bible for the worship of "false Gods." That's exactly what I'm talking about.

I simply disagree,

Then you disagree with the Bible which does condemn the worship of "false gods." That's okay, IMO, I disagree with the Bible on many things as well. But it's good to be upfront about such things. And it's certainly not a good idea to apply such disagreement when discussing beliefs that are based on the Bible.

and think that if the Jew and the Muslim both attempt in good faith to worship the God of Abraham then they at least succeed in directing their worship at the same deity. That is all it comes down to.

And here you are back to the circular reasoning. They have completely different ideas of what that "God" is. They simply cannot both be right.

To see my perspective, try restating that as "Christians believe God is the literal father of Christ or took physical form to become Christ. Muslims believe God did not do those things."

Exactly: Christians believe in a God that did those things. Muslims believe in a God that did not do those things. Asatru believe in Gods that did entirely different things. Modern Wicca believe in a God and Goddess that did still other things. If you allow the first two to simply be different understanding of the same God then how can you honestly exclude the others? Christians cannot even agree on the one being or three for their Deity. And Christianity has an "adversary" which they don't call a "God" (because that would interfere with the claim of monotheism) but which other religions would.

But their admiration is directed toward the same author nonetheless, is it not?

Nope. The one who wrote "Octopus's Garden" was Ringo. Paul wrote "Maxwell's Silver Garden."

If one were to worship a god that were fundamentally incompatible with the God of Christians, I would entertain the thought that they were worshiping a different god.

That would be Allah as worshiped in Islam.

This whole "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" and the death and resurrection thing is at the absolute core of Christianity. It's every bit as fundamental to the Christian God (possibly even more so) as the whole creator bit.

I would certainly not consider myself familiar enough with the nature of God to hazard a guess as to what such a deity might be like.

That works both ways. If you are not familiar enough to say what might be "fundamentally incompatible," then how can you be familiar enough to say that it is not fundamentally incompatible.

My basis is not whatever characteristics this hypothetical deity might actually possess if it actually does exist, but is based on the actual belief systems. We cannot "examine" this God and say one way or another. We can, however, examine the belief systems.

Or, if one consciously set out to not worship the God of Christians--"I worship Thee, oh Rock in my yard, who has done nothing but sit there in Thy heavenly glory, is the only divine thing in all of reality, and who most certainly is NOT the god of Christians"--then I would guess that such worship would not qualify.

Well, that's a start, now carry that along farther. Take the example of Odin and the Blood Eagle. Somebody could easily take the view that Christ is simply an aspect of Odin (the whole hanging and sacrifice and coming back form that Sacrifice greater than before works well between the two). Would that make worshipers of Odin worshipers of the "same god"?

Or Tezcatlipoca. In Christianity many have ritual cannibalism by proxy (or literal if one accepts the miracle of transubstantiation). Would not people who do that literally be worshiping the same God (after all, the worship of Tezcatlipoca involved the sacrifice of a willing victim and the literal drinking of his blood--other Aztec rituals involved prisoners and the like but I chose this one with care).

What constitutes "incompatible" and is "does nothing" the standard or is "didn't do key things that are attributed to God" sufficient? If the latter, what are the "key things." I draw the key things from the actual belief systems. There are certain things that are fundamental to the definition of the Christian god. Actively rejecting those fundamental things is to actively reject the Christian God. Islam does exactly that.

 

[jpo117]

One intends to worship a God that came to Earth in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, lived a sinless life, and suffered in Gethsemane and on the Cross for our sins, who then rose on the third day, breaking the chains of death and preparing the way for the resurrection of the dead on the last day.

The other intends to worship a God who did none of those things.

No. In my example, both intend to worship the God of Abraham as revealed in the Torah. One extends her understanding of that God to include things that the other does not, and vice versa. You're interpreting that to mean that the Christian decides to believe in the Gospel and therefore worships a God that matches her beliefs, and similarly with the Muslim. I am saying that your interpretation is backwards from my intent.

And here you are back to the circular reasoning. They have completely different ideas of what that "God" is. They simply cannot both be right.

And I have previously said that I feel the object of the act of worship does not depend upon the clarity of the worshiper's understanding of that object. We've established that we fundamentally disagree about this.

Exactly: Christians believe in a God that did those things. Muslims believe in a God that did not do those things.

Again, let's try "Christians believe that God did those things. Muslims believe that God did not do those things." That statement is still accurate, but allows for the possibility that the God in question is the same in both instances.

Nope. The one who wrote "Octopus's Garden" was Ringo. Paul wrote "Maxwell's Silver Garden."

But when they send their fan mail the intent is to send it to John, in spite of their incorrect understanding of the nature of John. And John is the one who gets it (let's not quibble over who's dead and who's not).

My basis is not whatever characteristics this hypothetical deity might actually possess if it actually does exist, but is based on the actual belief systems. We cannot "examine" this God and say one way or another. We can, however, examine the belief systems.

Finally! This is the problem (not your problem, the problem). I am approaching the question from the hypothetical standpoint that the deity in question does exist and worship is in some way an act that involves communion between both worshiper and worshiped. Your whole argument relies on the idea of worship as a subjective experience based wholly on the conceptions of the worshiper. My whole argument relies on the idea of worship as an objective experience that can be examined, if only on an abstract basis. Each of our arguments is faulty using the other's
suppositions. Again, we're simply approaching the problem from opposite ends.

::glances at the clock:: Is it time to send it to the judges yet?

 

[henktermaat]

Henktermaat

I've read through your first set. 38:50-54 and 55:54-56 do in fact make reference to a chaste woman awaiting you in your next life, if allowed into heaven. Further reading defines this woman as your companion, MADE pure. So, those eleven so something guys she was with before you are omitted, so to say.

I'm going to start some coffee before I start on this second set here.

And for the record, I'd like to say - I am not Muslim. I have no affiliation with any religion. This is purely general studies. I can understand everyone's feeling on the subject, what with the current war and recent shootings. That's why I'm taking the time here to defend this religious text, and the vast majority of it's followers. I'm trying my best here, but I'm not an expert. And I can tell by henktermaat's tagline that he is indeed an expert, and means serious f-ing business.

My original post was that God and Allah, were the same.

I HATE Political and Religious arguments... Please, no one take anything here too close to heart. Everyone has their opinions and they're entitled to them.

I was hoping you could keep emotions and attempts to subvert the INGO foul language filter out of this. What's with the attitude?

I am no expert, and my tagline says nothing of the sort, and I never said anything of the sort- suggesting you are trying to read something into it something that isn't there. What else are you reading into, I can't help but wonder - can we trust you not to read your desired point into your bedside Koran?

I never said Muslims are supposed to kill infidels or get 77 virgins in paradise. No, I only hear muslims say that stuff. No one asked you to defend them.

I am, however, a logical being, and Allah = God just doesn't fly.

I think this thread is great, we've all managed to stay really civil, and I would ask you to do the same, if you can.

Cheers. I have no hard feelings for you or anyone else in this thread.

 

[dburkhead]

No. In my example, both intend to worship the God of Abraham as revealed in the Torah. One extends her understanding of that God to include things that the other does not, and vice versa. You're interpreting that to mean that the Christian decides to believe in the Gospel and therefore worships a God that matches her beliefs, and similarly with the Muslim. I am saying that your interpretation is backwards from my intent.

The problem is they both mean different things by "God of Abraham." In one case they mean a "God of Abraham that came to Earth as Jesus and...." and in the other they mean a "God of Abraham" who did none of those things.

And I have previously said that I feel the object of the act of worship does not depend upon the clarity of the worshiper's understanding of that object. We've established that we fundamentally disagree about this.

Again, let's try "Christians believe that God did those things. Muslims believe that God did not do those things." That statement is still accurate, but allows for the possibility that the God in question is the same in both instances.

The Statement "Christians believe in a God who did all of those things. Muslims believe in a God that did not do all of those things." is still accurate and the God that did all of those things is not the same God as one who did not do all of those things.

But when they send their fan mail the intent is to send it to John, in spite of their incorrect understanding of the nature of John. And John is the one who gets it (let's not quibble over who's dead and who's not).

And this is what makes your argument circular. You are assuming the consequent. Circular reasoning. A logical fallacy.

You are assuming that God gets the "fan mail," that he accepts the "credit" for things He did or did not do as "worship" and then using that as "evidence" that all of these folk then worship the same God.

Finally! This is the problem (not your problem, the problem). I am approaching the question from the hypothetical standpoint that the deity in question does exist and worship is in some way an act that involves communion between both worshiper and worshiped. Your whole argument relies on the idea of worship as a subjective experience based wholly on the conceptions of the worshiper. My whole argument relies on the idea of worship as an objective experience that can be examined, if only on an abstract basis. Each of our arguments is faulty using the other's
suppositions. Again, we're simply approaching the problem from opposite ends.

And that is what makes your argument circular. You are assuming that there is one god "accepting" this worship and then using that assumption as the basis to argue that these people and those people worship the same god. It's not supported in the belief system of either group. You just declare it.

You can "prove" anything if you just declare that it's true and, so far as I can see, that's all you're doing here.

You see, the problem is that unless you can produce this "God", question him, and get answers from him that both of us can agree were given by said God, then it is not an "objective experience that can be examined." And "objective experience that can be examined" and "on an abstract basis" are, themselves, mutually contradictory.

::glances at the clock:: Is it time to send it to the judges yet?

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

IBTL - "Cocaine is a hell of a drug."