What are the Differences between the Abrahamic Faiths?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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).

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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?

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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.")

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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."

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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]

Originally Posted by wil

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

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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.

Excellent post Slameister, thank you. But surely you have to admit that yours is a rare view in Christianity, I believe if I had the same conversation with Faithfulservant I would get very different views?

Perhaps that is why I chose Islam, I looked into my heart and there was G-d, smiling at me and asking me to love Him back as He loves me? I have no problem finding G-d because He found me first, as a child and He has never left me (even when, to my shame, I abandoned Him in my younger years ).

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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

Forgive me, this forum has made me realise how long I have been speaking Arabic, I have to wrack my brains for english words now. My father would go nuts, he paid a fortune for my education.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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."

I like your view of Christianity Saltmeister.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

This idea that I have works for me. Hopefully it's not seen as "warped."

I can only speak personally, but I hope you know by now I never judge people by their beliefs and I think yours are far from warped.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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.

OK am back with the programme now. Oh tell me about it, you should see some of my conversations with Muslim brothers on other threads (whispers - apparently I'm going to hell for my views).

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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.

Oops better tell some of the more traditional Muslims that, because apparently they are in a cult (although quite frankly that sounds about right to me - it is forbidden to use reasoning).

Salaam

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by wil

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!"

as salaam aleykum Wil

Sorry I am in the middle here. I spent years looking into numerous religions (from the sublime to the rediculous literally) to find my place but when I found Islam it was like a light went on inside my heart. I didn't rush into it, in fact the first thing a scholar told me, was not to rush but learn and then decide but I knew right away I had found my place.

Did I misunderstand you Wil about the adoptive parents comment? I think that is a loving, caring and sincere thing to say to an adoptive child

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by 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

What a lovely post InLove. I believe Islam is an excellent example of what you are saying. Just look at the difference of interpretations between the Muslims of different cultures. Their religious laws are even different and all based on the same book.

Salaam

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Oops better tell some of the more traditional Muslims that, because apparently they are in a cult (although quite frankly that sounds about right to me - it is forbidden to use reasoning).

Some people following both of our religions believe it's wrong to rationalise one's beliefs. But what would be a point of believing in something without a reason? I frequently rationalise and justify my beliefs to myself to make sure I understand why I am doing it. I also like to transcend traditions and explore ways of seeing things that I have never been taught before, nor read in a book.

It may not be just me. I am sure, particularly with Western Christians, that there is quite a lot of lateral and divergent thinking going on.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Excellent post Slameister, thank you. But surely you have to admit that yours is a rare view in Christianity, I believe if I had the same conversation with Faithfulservant I would get very different views?

Perhaps that is why I chose Islam, I looked into my heart and there was G-d, smiling at me and asking me to love Him back as He loves me? I have no problem finding G-d because He found me first, as a child and He has never left me (even when, to my shame, I abandoned Him in my younger years ).

After I made my last post to you, I started thinking about what you said about the "middleman" thing. It's something I've worked out for myself. I can explain and justify to myself that it's not supposed to be a "middleman" thing. But I had little idea what that might mean to you. An idea I got was that "prayer" may be seen differently in Christianity compared to Islam.

My impression is that Islam seeks only an "earthly experience" while Christianity seeks to merge a "heavenly experience" with an earthly one.

Christianity and Islam seem to have different goals and agendas with regards to spirituality and seeking an interaction with God. God is often seen as a Mystery, something unknowable and undefinable. The possible break between Islam and Christianity is where Christianity sees the possibility that a person may know God personally and intimately, and not just talk and communicate with Him. God is still undefinable, but He is knowable in a personal sense. Prayer, in general, is an exchange between us and God. "Normal prayer" is a communication and conversation with God, but does not involve personal knowledge of God. I may be wrong here, but I am going to assume for now (for the purpose of exploring the issue) that in Islam, a prayer involves communication with but not personal knowledge of God. (Correct me later if this concept is wrong.)

I think in Christianity, Christians do not simply seek a conversation with God in prayer, but seek to trascend "normal prayer" to know God personally and intimately. But the aim is not just "personal knowledge" but unity with God. Christianity involves the belief that God wants more than just "normal prayer" (ie. just communication). He wants to be connected with us personally and intimately. He wants us to know Him. Unity is achieved by mutual personal knowledge of each other, not just one of the other.

In Islam, God makes His intentions known through the Quran. Something heavenly has been brought down into an earthly realm. In Christianity there is no Quran, so Christians seek to "rise up into heaven" to connect with God. What happens here is a merging of the earthly and heavenly, both in Islam and in Christianity. In Islam, personal knowledge of God probably wouldn't be necessary as He makes His intentions known in the Quran. In Christianity, the idea may be that Christians can acquire knowledge of the same things by connecting with God personally and intimately. Before Jesus, there were special people who acquired personal knowledge of God -- David, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jeremiah, etc. . . . They were people who, by trascending "normal prayer," discovered God. Where Jesus fits into Christianity, is that he was one of those people, but came to show everyone else how to do it, so that everyone could receive the benefits of connecting personally and intimately with God.

This is just a theory that I've come up with as a result of our discussions. I believe it might (no guarantees, no warranty) help us understand that our differences in beliefs have a lot to do with differences in our concept of prayer and connectedness with God. The validity of this theory will depend on whether I've accurately captured the Christian and Islamic concepts of prayer and connectedness with God. I'll have to wait for your response to find out . . .

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Some people following both of our religions believe it's wrong to rationalise one's beliefs. But what would be a point of believing in something without a reason?

I didn't know that about Christianity, we live and learn. Couldn't agree more, I simply don't believe in blind following, G-d wanted me to find Him and I couldn't have done that without reasoning.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

After I made my last post to you, I started thinking about what you said about the "middleman" thing. It's something I've worked out for myself.

Perhaps it will help me if you can explain to me what it means to you to say "in the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost"? This is where we get the idea from that you place partners with G-d.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

My impression is that Islam seeks only an "earthly experience" while Christianity seeks to merge a "heavenly experience" with an earthly one.

When I pray I am actually in the presence of Allah, to worship Him and thank Him and humbly request that He shows me the right path. The only way I can describe it is that I aim for my soul to go to heaven and prostrate before the Creator. This is why we ensure absolute cleanliness, I wear my best clothes which I reserve for prayer and I humble myself in prayer.

Perhaps this is where we differ? As a Christian I was taught that G-d is my ultimate Father and He is very loving. As a Christian I had, what I feel, was quite an arrogant relationship with G-d. Whereas, in Islam I am very aware that I am a humble servant of Allah.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

God is often seen as a Mystery, something unknowable and undefinable. The possible break between Islam and Christianity is where Christianity sees the possibility that a person may know God personally and intimately, and not just talk and communicate with Him.

Wow okay that is a really big difference. For us prayer is about worshipping G-d, supplication to Him not building a personal relationship with Him.

How on earth can you know G-d intimately? He's not our mate, He is the ultimate Master and Lord of everything. G-d is unknowable, He is beyond human perception and forgive me I am not trying to be rude but it seems rather disrespectful to suggest you can have a personal relationship with G-d.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

God is still undefinable, but He is knowable in a personal sense. Prayer, in general, is an exchange between us and God. "Normal prayer" is a communication and conversation with God, but does not involve personal knowledge of God.

Sorry I am a bit lost for words, my brain is fusing a little. Are you just talking about the connection you feel with G-d during prayer?

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I may be wrong here, but I am going to assume for now (for the purpose of exploring the issue) that in Islam, a prayer involves communication with but not personal knowledge of God.

I don't really understand what you mean by personal knowledge. We are mere humans and we cannot know anything of G-d. Our hearts can know that G-d exists and our hearts can glimpse a sense of Him but when you say "knowledge" it suggests an understanding and that is simply not possible.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I may be wrong here, but I am going to assume for now (for the purpose of exploring the issue) that in Islam, a prayer involves communication with but not personal knowledge of God.

When we pray we say subhana Rabbiyal-'a la, which means Praise be to my Supreme Lord. This is how I see my prayer, it gives me great joy to humble myself and supplicate to Allah but I will tell you honestly, the only time I look up when I pray is when I first call Allahu Akbar at the beginning of my prayers, this I feel calls me to the presence of G-d and from that moment on I would be too afraid to look up.

The fard salat (5 daily prayers) are for us to supplicate, to Allah, to thank Him and worship Him. We make Du'a, which means to call on G-d. Du'a can be for worship or for asking (eg requesting Allah to lift an illness from you). You would understand this best I think as personal prayer. Du'a can be made on someone else's behalf.

According to some scholars, before Du'a Muslims may pray upon the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) but I personally do not do this as it is based on a hadith where the Prophet says "praise G-d with the praise He is worthy of, then pray upon me". As the Quran is filled with verses that state G-d is the only thing worthy of praise I find it hard to believe the Prophet would suggest we pray upon anything but Allah (just my personal view though - but I thought one Christians may find interesting all things considered It basically has the same attitude as I hear from Christians here, that you are invoking the name of Jesus (pbuh) because G-d loves him, so Muslims invoke the name of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) because G-d loves him, as He loves all the Prophets. It doesn't get us past the son of G-d issue but may make for more interesting conversations between Christians and Muslims?).

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I may be wrong here, but I am going to assume for now (for the purpose of exploring the issue) that in Islam, a prayer involves communication with but not personal knowledge of God.

I simply seek, through prayer, to supplicate and for G-d to know me. It is not a question of conversation, it is worshiping our Supreme Lord, our Creator and to whom we must answer for our sins.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I think in Christianity, Christians do not simply seek a conversation with God in prayer, but seek to trascend "normal prayer" to know God personally and intimately. But the aim is not just "personal knowledge" but unity with God.

I am actually speachless. Seriously it took me 5 minutes before I could start typing again. We are talking about G-d, you cannot achieve unity with Him. You must serve and obey Him, you must spend your life working to try to please Him and pray so that He will recognise you. Sorry I have this awful image now of a group of Christians down the local having a beer and a chat about creation with G-d

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Christianity involves the belief that God wants more than just "normal prayer" (ie. just communication). He wants to be connected with us personally and intimately. He wants us to know Him. Unity is achieved by mutual personal knowledge of each other, not just one of the other.

What we may know of G-d is built into us, we are born with that knowledge. What do you know of G-d, what have you learned of G-d through prayer? Sorry that is not meant to be rude but perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

In Islam, personal knowledge of God probably wouldn't be necessary as He makes His intentions known in the Quran. In Christianity, the idea may be that Christians can acquire knowledge of the same things by connecting with God personally and intimately.

OMG are you suggesting G-d speaks to Christians through prayer???? Will the whole Chrisitan world become Prophets? I swear I am not trying to misunderstand you but my brain is freaking at the moment. G-d also makes his intentions very clear in the OT or have Christians moved away from that now?

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Before Jesus, there were special people who acquired personal knowledge of God -- David, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jeremiah, etc. . . . They were people who, by trascending "normal prayer," discovered God. Where Jesus fits into Christianity, is that he was one of those people, but came to show everyone else how to do it, so that everyone could receive the benefits of connecting personally and intimately with God.

Sorry I am reading this as I answer each bit and it keeps getting worse. The names you mention are all Prophets (pbut) of G-d, He spoke to each of them either through angels or directly. We cannot achieve that through prayer. Prophets were chosen by G-d, are you saying all Christians have been chosen by G-d for this special task, to recieve the word of G-d? Please tell me I am having a completely blonde moment and totally misunderstanding you.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

This is just a theory that I've come up with as a result of our discussions. I believe it might (no guarantees, no warranty) help us understand that our differences in beliefs have a lot to do with differences in our concept of prayer and connectedness with God. The validity of this theory will depend on whether I've accurately captured the Christian and Islamic concepts of prayer and connectedness with God. I'll have to wait for your response to find out . . .

I think to answer that we would have to ask other Christians and Muslims if they perceive prayer the same way we do but if they do then you are right, we see prayer in a very different way. I am certainly shocked by your views of prayers and have this great urge to go and throw myself on the floor before G-d and show him how humble I feel before Him. I realise I am making myself sound silly but really I am so shocked, I view our role before G-d as one of supplicants, servants and we must work hard to make ourselves worthy of Him even looking upon us.

I would be interested in hearing from other Christians and Muslims and Jews to see how they view prayer.

Salaam

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I didn't know that about Christianity, we live and learn. Couldn't agree more, I simply don't believe in blind following, G-d wanted me to find Him and I couldn't have done that without reasoning.

Um, Saltmeister, has a point that is not the same point as the majority of Christianity. Please bare that in mind.

Christianity is not a reasonable faith. Never has been, never will be. Those that claim such, are in error. I would spare you the preconception of such error.

Christianity is a strange faith indeed. People come to it, expecting immediate change in their lives, only to find that doesn't always happen. But for those who stick with it, the miracle of the faith is pronounced.

Why? Because to the faithful, not much changes (inside), but to the outside world, changes abound about that "Christian". (sorry, I forcing you to get back into english diction )

The irony is that the world sees the "change" in a man/woman who accept Christianity, before the person themself sees change!

There is no logic or rationalization to this phenomenon.

With all due respect to Salt's position, his is not the fundamental Christian base perspective. (and I'm not talking about fundamentalists of the faith either, just the core concept).

Here is a thought to consider:

If, there were such a people as "Vulcans" (Star Trek), they would immediately gravitate towards the rationalism of Islam (not Christianity, nor Buhdaism, Hindusim, or any other "feeling" faith).

However, I doubt they would hold such faith for long. Why?, no one practices the faith in the pureness of the originator's intent. (do as I say, not as I do...) Islam, currently is a stark example of such.

No, I do not blame the religion, or the "faith". It's people that muck things up.

Let's consider the facts. By all rights "I" should consider being a Muslim. I want peace, and am willing to take up the sword to ensure that peace (as a last resort). I believe in the "five pillars" as good, sound, and rational decrees. This is the message of Muhhamad.

It is not what the followers of Islam in the middle east (to a significant extent), are following.

Christianity for me, is the Sammaritan who picks up and cares for the beaten and lowly one. There is no rationalisation for such behaviour. Or is there?

In "Robin Hood", the "Christian" saved the life of the "Moor", who took upon himself the burden of watching over the Christian. But in the end, the "Muslim Moor" saved the lives of countless others, by getting them to accept "jihad" in the truest sence...defense of one's home. The "Christian" Hood, may have been brilliant in tactical ways, and passionate about his faith and his people, but the "Moor" expressed that passion (after taking it into his own soul), in such a way that the people, responded.

I think there is great need for Islam in the world. But not at the expense of any other faith.

You can't kill in the name of Christ, nor in the name of Muhhamad...it's plain wrong...

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Um, Saltmeister, has a point that is not the same point as the majority of Christianity. Please bare that in mind.

Hi Quahom

Thanks, I am aware that Salt has a non-mainstream view but I like the fact that he will explore ideas, even if we get to the conclusion and say well that was rubbish and don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Christianity is not a reasonable faith. Never has been, never will be. Those that claim such, are in error. I would spare you the preconception of such error.

That was certainly my experience as a Christian and one reason I found I could not remain so. My mind likes to, in it's own little way, explore the possibilities, make it's own conclusions and find G-d in it's own way, not have an image of G-d thrust upon me (with the premise "you are an ignorant peasant and cannot understand" - and yes I get that from some Muslims as well).

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Why? Because to the faithful, not much changes (inside), but to the outside world, changes abound about that "Christian". (sorry, I forcing you to get back into english diction )

hee hee, how can anyone say "I forcing you" then refer to my english diction? Ha, ha, ha. Actually it is wierd speaking my own language again, amazing how much you forget. When I speak to Arabs that speak english I tend to do so in the same way you would speak to a child, so I have been without adult conversation in english for some years now.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The irony is that the world sees the "change" in a man/woman who accept Christianity, before the person themself sees change! There is no logic or rationalization to this phenomenon.

Interesting perspective and not one I have considered before. To be honest, when I look back, people saw the changes in me as a Muslim long before I internally felt comfortable or confident in those changes.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

However, I doubt they would hold such faith for long. Why?, no one practices the faith in the pureness of the originator's intent. (do as I say, not as I do...) Islam, currently is a stark example of such.

The Closing of the Gates does have rather a lot to answer for. I wouldn't agree that no-one practices this but certainly a majority have followed the scholars down the path of 'follow, don't think'.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No, I do not blame the religion, or the "faith". It's people that muck things up.

Absolutely correct and one of the most frustrating things about converting to Islam. When you first sit in the west and learn about Islam, you do see the pure faith. However, after conversion reality (ie human interference) does strike and you see how far Muslims have moved from the pure faith. People here keep ridiculing me because I have rose coloured glasses and I disassociate Islam from acts of human cruelty but that is because I look to the pure faith, not follow the teachings of lunatics with political agenda's.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

It is not what the followers of Islam in the middle east (to a significant extent), are following.

Correct again, but why should that stop anyone converting? I converted to follow Islam not to follow silly cruel men with warped political agendas. Just because I call myself a Muslim does not mean I have to follow these daft people or want to kill anyone. Some Christians have themselves literally crucified at Easter, does that mean people should steer clear of Christianity?

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Christianity for me, is the Sammaritan who picks up and cares for the beaten and lowly one. There is no rationalisation for such behaviour. Or is there?

So if that is the pureness of Christianity then why are there so many rich Christians while people are starving in the world? Why does the Vatican have billions while followers of their religion eat from rubbish tips? Because the acts of men invariably do not follow the pure sense of G-ds word, in any religion.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

In "Robin Hood", the "Christian" saved the life of the "Moor", who took upon himself the burden of watching over the Christian.

Oh my Lord, has the reputation of Islam really become so bad that people can't find a decent Muslim other than a fictional character? I realise you were not being critical, it just saddens me that people always refer to this fiction. I do understand what you are saying, the character was drawn from the pure path of Islam and if all Muslims actually lived this way the world would be a better place.