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

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Neemai

With respect Blazn, it's okay for you to think like that, but unless you are in possession of some superior spiritual vision in comparison to other people, I don't see why it has to apply to everyone else? Logically I see no problem in communicating with saints via prayer, as long as your devotional focus is towards God as madeinrussia has stated above?

The Catholic church and a large amount of Christian followers around the globe follow this method, so how can we be sure they are wrong in what they are doing?


... Neemai

Neemai, understand that is is my spiritual view based on my deep personal walk with Christ for over 30-sum years and i give it for discussion and contemplation, as we have been having a great discussion hearing both sides, and i have thought about things that have been written here. whether one learns from it or not, we have communicated ideas, and i would like to think others have thought about things too and not simply ignored it because it was what an institution said to think, but especially for christians, what the spirit (if you have invited him into your heart) and what scriptures say (if you ask the spirit to reveal it to you) about the matter. i totally understand that it won't to apply to everyone else nor should anyone force it, and i understand that this is one way some were taught to communicate prayers with God. When one thinks something is right, it is quite normal to want it for everyone else, but yes we are all different and come from different places which in itself is a very beautiful thing.

[LeoSalinas22]

hello russian,

It's kind of offensive to put it " hey, you guys just pray to the dead". Like we can do that to just anyone, like someone off the street.But from a christian perspective, though their body may be dead, their souls are not. We will live eternally with salvation in one way or another.

please understand that i don't mean to be offensive at all. please accept my apologies. but there is a reason why presented the scriptures from Ecclesiastes and Luke on my previous post. please tell me what you think, ok?

We pray to the Saints for their prayers to be with us also, to the Virgin Mary. It's kind of like a helping hand. I don't know how else to explain that to you.

look, i understand you completely. i know exactly what you mean and you only mean well, but let me ask you this, why go to anyone one else when you can go directly to God Himself?

Are you familiar with the statement " We are more alive after we take our last breath than we ever were during life " ?

sorry, i have never heard that one before. is that in the scriptures?

[LeoSalinas22]

hello neemai,

So Jesus's mother is dead in your opinion? No eternal life in Heaven for her untill resurrection day? Not that I'm a Christian, but that seems a strange thought to me. I'm trying to get my head around the different perspectives.

why does it seem strange that we actually die and revert to dust? imho, it is not a matter of perspective but what is actually stated in the scriptures. no where in the scriptures does it say that we continue living after we die. even the mighty Prophets of old are awaiting resurrection from death (with the exception of Elijah, of course. well then again, there is Enoch, as well). God's curse on man is that we die and return to the dust. but then again, this is what i have learned from reading the scriptures and we are all entitled to our thoughts.

With prayer being primarily defined as a form of communication (as opposed to always being worship) if people where "alive" would you still believe in completely avoiding it? Maybe God would appreciate you speaking to His angels or beloved ones??

are you asking if somehow people were still alive after they had died, would i still avoid praying to them? if so the answer is yes. because God has given me everything. not they. i think that God would frown upon us if we would ask things from His angels or long departed ones. they didn't give me "jack". God did. though my mom gave birth to me, God is the One who formed me in her womb. He is the One that gave life to me. all glory should go to Him and no one else. my thoughts. thanks for reading and God be with you.

[LeoSalinas22]

russia 89:

We know these people aren't God, we aren't worshipping them, we show respect to them and pray for their help.

what would you think if i told you that God is like our Husband? that we (man) is His wife. God is very Jealous for His people and doesn't want us to find help through anyone else.

[bob x]

what would you think if i told you that God is like our Husband?

I'd wonder if you had some gender identity issues

[LeoSalinas22]

ha-ha. very funny. it is to laugh. your crazy for saying that, though i do understand what you mean. but no, i loves zee women, thank you very much! but i will say that God is my Husband, and i think that He would have it no other way. would you say that i am gay for God? you betcha! i guess you could say that i am spiritually gay? is that possible? wow, i will have to look into this! thanks bobb-o.

[dauer]

Thus my preference for, as BB puts it, big tits in the sky over big beard in the sky. Would rather suckle than bend over.

[LeoSalinas22]

well, you can look at it that way as well. being nurtured by the Almighty Himself is an awesome thing. no problem here, but as for me, i would rather have God inside me. sucking on His boobs just wouldn't be enough. i want to go all the way. i want to be one with Him. i want to make love with Him. i want to give myself to Him because i am His and no one else's. this, to me, is true love... and i am not ashamed of this.

[dauer]

Meh, I'd rather have all distinctions between I and You vanish as She and I merge in the ecstasy of union than get buggered. There's a beautiful hasidic hanhagah that compares shuckling during davennen to making love to the Shechinah or Divine feminine, G!d's indwelling presence in the Jewish tradition.

And there's nothing wrong with being gay for G!d, either, or gay for other people for that matter. Whatever gets you there.

[LeoSalinas22]

you see, dauer, this is where i get really confused. i am the kind of guy that is heavily into the TaNaCh, meaning that i can't find it in myself to look elsewhere besides the scriptures. this divine femine, is this the oral law?. so far i have not read anything that states the possibility that God is a she instead of a He (minus His wisdom which is stated in Mishlei as a she, is this what you meant? but that is His Wisdom and not Himself, if that makes sense...). now i know that God isn't a man, but so far the way i understand this is that He dominates all of His creation, the way that man dominates the earth and so forth. in other words, His being a He makes more sense, to me, because His dominance is evident in His works. hope you know what i mean. and no, i am not gay, though there is something wrong with it, but hey, you are right! whatever gets you there...

[LeoSalinas22]

sorry, guys! this has really gotten waaaaaay off topic. i will leave it to the moderators to decide what to do with this subject so far.

[dauer]

Well in Judaism G!d is neither male nor female, however is described using the language of genders. The tanach uses both masculine and feminine names for G!d, as well as feminine and masculine adjectives. For example rachamim which means compassion is actually related to rechem, womb. Thus it is a wombly compassion. El Shaddai can be translated as G!d of breasts or breasted G!d. The term shechinah is related to mishkan and is a word frequently used in the gemara and targumim. It's a synonym for G!d's kavod. Especially in Jewish mysticism the shechinah came to be related to the Divine feminine or, more specifically, a particular and important element of the Divine feminine which is related to many other things such as Knesset Israel and Shabbat. Shabbat is another feminine, as well as Torah.

In the same way that G!d is not actually a Rock, we would not hold that G!d is actually male or actually female, however the imaginal, expressive properties of that type of language is quite powerful.

The idea of dominance, as it were, is frequently captured in male G!d language where certain elements of the G!dhead are described as more giving, whereas female elements are described as being more receptive. I don't think it is very good to compare G!d to man's domination of the earth. We too frequently rape the land instead of living in harmony with it. There is a Jewish concept of bal tashchit that derives from not chopping down a fruit-bearing tree in wartime, that basically translates to the idea of having a small footprint, and to me that is a much healthier foundation than dominance.

It does not really make sense for you to make an absolute claim that there is something wrong with being gay, unless you are in the habit of elevating biased historical texts to the level of idolatry. If you had said I feel, think or believe there is something wrong with it, or presented unbiased evidence, that would be a stronger case, but there is no objective evidence to support such a thesis, just as there is no evidence to show there is anything wrong with polyamory, polytheism, atheism or blasphemy. Those are only cultural hangups.

It is a curious subject though, homoeroticism and religion, and its relationship to religious prohibitions of homosexuality. I think that it may be a way some of the religious founders discovered to address suppressed homosexual tendencies that were at that time considered taboo although imo that is not likely the origins of a male deity which I would think had more to do with creating G!d in the image of man, which in a patriarchy is going to be male.

[wil]

Originally Posted by dauer

...the origins of a male deity which I would think had more to do with creating G!d in the image of man, which in a patriarchy is going to be male.

Let's see for the past thousands of years in most cultures men have been the priests, the scribes, the authors...and in most households women have allowed men to think they were the king of their castle...

It only stands to reason that when the male priest read what the male scribe wrote about what the male prophet said in a male lead world that G!d would end up male.

And then as Dauer pointed out, while Greek and Latin and Hebrew and Aramaic may have gender specific terms and names....we here in the English speaking world dropped all those and made them gender neutral...um and male being a neutral term to a male dominated world.

But when we look around in nature our creators....those that beget life...they are often female...and that is what created all the goddess tradition early on...after all these females were running around swelling and spitting out babies at a time when men had actually no idea they were even involved in the process...and then when they realized they were...and when they were...ie when they were able to drag a woman away and have their way...the pendulum swung...as it were..

So back on subject yes we Abrahamic folks do believe in Her and She appreciates it!

[dauer]

Yes, actually Mariolatry seems to have evolved in Catholicism alongside the increase in the importance of the shechinah in Judaism.

[LeoSalinas22]

dauer,

Well in Judaism G!d is neither male nor female, however is described using the language of genders. The tanach uses both masculine and feminine names for G!d, as well as feminine and masculine adjectives. For example rachamim which means compassion is actually related to rechem, womb. Thus it is a wombly compassion.

*sighs* it is times like this that i wish God had given me the ability to know the hebrew language. in this case, dauer, you have the upper hand on this subject, because you know the language and i don't. but this doesn't explain why all the english translated texts translated by the jewish, refer to God as He. if what you say is true, how come this isn't stated in their translations? point me to a particular english translated tanach that was translated by the jewish that states what you are saying about the divine feminine, then your response i will take at face value.

El Shaddai can be translated as G!d of breasts or breasted G!d.

i thought El Shaddai translated into God Almighty?

The term shechinah is related to mishkan and is a word frequently used in the gemara and targumim. It's a synonym for G!d's kavod. Especially in Jewish mysticism the shechinah came to be related to the Divine feminine or, more specifically, a particular and important element of the Divine feminine which is related to many other things such as Knesset Israel and Shabbat. Shabbat is another feminine, as well as Torah.

look, please don't think i am being rude, but the words highlighted in red, i don't understand. remember, i am not hebrew so i don't know the language. i understand that you may be hardpressed for time, but if you are going to explain these things to me or to whomever is reading this post, it would be wise to explain their meaning in english since that is this sights main language. if you are short on time, please state so, so that i can know that is the reason why you didn't explain these words in english. sorry that i am not as smart as you...

In the same way that G!d is not actually a Rock, we would not hold that G!d is actually male or actually female, however the imaginal, expressive properties of that type of language is quite powerful.

this makes alot of sense, but at the same time it doesn't to me, because for some reason, i tend to see a rock more masculine than feminine. men are more "chiseled" and hard and resistant to physical punishment. like a rock. but women are more beautiful, graceful, sensitive. very fragile. not very much like a rock, no? more in tune with something like wisdom. very graceful and beautiful.

The idea of dominance, as it were, is frequently captured in male G!d language where certain elements of the G!dhead are described as more giving, whereas female elements are described as being more receptive.

very true! God has to be masculine. He doesn't receive anything from us because everything we have is His. only He gives to us and we receive. thanks for that. i learned something with this statement.

I don't think it is very good to compare G!d to man's domination of the earth. We too frequently rape the land instead of living in harmony with it.

why is it not good to compare? true that we are ruining the earth, but it still doesn't mean that God didn't give it to us to dominate it. regardless of how man treats God's gift, we still dominate the earth. after all, i am only understanding what it states in the hebrew scriptures.

There is a Jewish concept of bal tashchit that derives from not chopping down a fruit-bearing tree in wartime, that basically translates to the idea of having a small footprint, and to me that is a much healthier foundation than dominance.

to me, truth is more healthier.

It does not really make sense for you to make an absolute claim that there is something wrong with being gay, unless you are in the habit of elevating biased historical texts to the level of idolatry. If you had said I feel, think or believe there is something wrong with it, or presented unbiased evidence, that would be a stronger case, but there is no objective evidence to support such a thesis, just as there is no evidence to show there is anything wrong with polyamory, polytheism, atheism or blasphemy. Those are only cultural hangups.

you see, dauer, that is where you and i differintiate, you look at this world's culteral hangups when i do the opposite. i look at God's works. though i love the hebrew scriptures, i didn't need for them to tell me that God gave man an anus for exit only purposes. i knew this since i first started to do number 2 in the toilet. way before i had knowledge of God. i will not say that i feel or that i think, because i know by seeing God's works, that we are not supposed to be having sex with the same sex. why else would there be all these beautiful women? or vice versa for the ladies! imho, the texts are not biased but truthful. they are there for our own good. so lets just drop this subject because the truth is that you can't change my way of thinking or i you, right?

It is a curious subject though, homoeroticism and religion, and its relationship to religious prohibitions of homosexuality. I think that it may be a way some of the religious founders discovered to address suppressed homosexual tendencies that were at that time considered taboo although imo that is not likely the origins of a male deity which I would think had more to do with creating G!d in the image of man, which in a patriarchy is going to be male.

curious subject indeed! but still doesn't have secure footing causing it to slip and fall and bearing no weight on the matter of God's commandments. God's works are all i see.