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

[Zaakir]

Originally Posted by JJM

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]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by flowperson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Spirituality and the "one True God" can be seen in many different ways. Many hold the view that "all paths ultimately lead to God." Many others hold the view that "all paths aspire to lead to God," but we are led astray by other divine beings. Some religions have a concept of angels or angelic beings that are invisible and have the power to influence people's thoughts without being easily detected. We could well call them the archons, the spiritual rulers of the universe, of which the Most High God is one of them.

Within this archon theory, some of these archons work for God, while other archons, whether they themselves know it or not, are leading people away from God, distracting them from God. Because each religion is just another flavour of spirituality, a religion could also be seen as the voice of an archon, a signature of that archon's personality. The multitude of religions in today's world could well be the work of archons distracting us from a personal bond with God.

Does God really have a religion? Or is every religion just an archon distracting us from God?

It's also possible that there is no path leading to God. Heaven and Paradise is just a place for people with a personal understanding of God. God "intervenes" and lifts us up to heaven. We don't have wings of our own and can't fly up into heaven by our own power!!!!

As with the "Trinity," I think that concept is largely understood and perhaps misused. Because it's not a definition of God, we're not dividing God into three parts. The Trinity has to do with observation and discernment. We're observing God, not defining Him. When we observe our environment, we assign words to classify what our senses perceive: taste, touch, sight, smell, sound. They all come from the environment, but the environment is conveyed to us in different modes of perception. We're not defining our environment, we're classifying our observation of it. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just words we use to classify what we can observe. They are words highlighting observable aspects of God's work on earth and depict the form that they take in both physical and spiritual existence. The Trinity is not a definition, it's an observation, depiction and representation.

That's perhaps why you won't find "Trinity" in the New Testament. It's not "essential" in Christianity. It's more like an "instrument of understanding" and "instrument of faith." It is still possible to understand Christianity with or without it.

[~:MOK:~]

As with the "Trinity," I think that concept is largely understood and perhaps misused. Because it's not a definition of God, we're not dividing God into three parts. The Trinity has to do with observation and discernment. We're observing God, not defining Him.

Hey guys! I'm new here and came across this awesome conversation so I thought I'd take part!

I want to agree, and disagree with it as well. I believe in its own right a division as well as a classification. There is no doubt that the human Jesus as God, the "spirit" of God and the "father" that is God is by every means a division of a wholy and ultimately indivisible God, I do believe it is a man-made "classification". I don't mean that negatively. I believe, and you'll likely agree that it is natural to classify everything we know into seperate categories, but to say that classifying God into three classified "sub-headings" is not a division is clearly incorrect/ (p.s. I'm a Muslim, might give you something to work with).

Also on the topic of this thread. Pope Jean Paul II attested to the fact Christians and Muslims (and ofcourse Jews) believe in the same God. You can find there article at (.abc.net.au/religion/pope/legacy.htm), don't forget the www! The quote is toward the bottom of the article.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

It's also possible that there is no path leading to God. Heaven and Paradise is just a place for people with a personal understanding of God.

Who wrote the religion you are leading people with? I think it is clearly misguided and misplaced here. I hope nobody is misguided into thinking it is Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

[Jeannot]

It doesn't matter where you start but in what direction you're going. Religions are not the goal, but only signposts. There are many paths.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

It doesn't matter where you start but in what direction you're going. Religions are not the goal, but only signposts. There are many paths.

All roads lead to Rome, all paths lead us home...eh?