• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

"Allah" is the SAME as the Christian "God"

I would have to agree with SoHi's assessment of the situation.

Christians and Muslims both believe in concepts of God which are derived from the OT Jewish vengeful, tribal war god. Their Gods share a common ancestor, so to speak.

But they have fundamentally divergent views on the nature of their version of God.

Was Jesus God in the flesh?

Yay or nay?

A God who has the specific properties of connection with the human race via a man who was Him, or a God who did not make such a connection.

It is here that the legends part ways, that the lines evolve into differing religions.

It's also rather obvious that the OT God is markedly different in characteristics than the NT God, so even saying that Jews and Christians believe in the same God is stretching the concept of God so that any of the statements made about that God by any of the religions are somewhat moot.

They're related storylines, but they branch and evolve into their own renditions. At the core, yes, they're based on the same legends. But to say they remain the same legends is to take them out of context and remove anything the specific religions have to say about the nature of God.

To say they're worshipping the same God is invalidating their claims. Is Jesus the Son of God? Or does God not go around practicing divine insemination on virgins, and filling a human body with his essence?

Fundamentally, that's the core of the Christian teaching and faith, that Jesus was God in the flesh. Which also makes that a strong statement about what Christians believe God to be. And Islam does not accept this, thus their version of God is one who does not do such things, and is fundamentally different.

Still the same "family" of God beliefs, but not the same God, unless you're willing to forgo what each religion believes to be the attributes of that God for the sake of historical connection.
 
Oh, and I'll give some context for my statements too.

I'm not a theist, so I am approaching this concept in terms of what each of the religions feels the attributes of God to be. I'm fully aware that each religion recognizes the influence of the previous religion(s), but they would not have branched off into different religions if they felt the attributes given to God sufficiently explained the concept.

Thus, each of them can be considered as taking a story and saying, "But no, THIS is what God is like."

So they come from the same source, but the end result is God-views which are quite different.
 
and that is just what i pointed out Sohi would say.

but what i am saying is who is the Father of Jesus? you would say God. where did Jesus's line come through? Jacob's whose father is Isacc. who was all of their Father? it was God, the same God. they share the same Father!

the difference now is that most Christain denominations believe that Jesus is God, like you pointed out. by believing that then you create a new version of God. that's fine. in that sense it's a different form of the God concept tat all religions follow.

however, that FACT is, is that they ALL have the same Father .
 
Last edited:
killarava2day said:
Who got into heaven before Christ arrived? And what happened to the souls of the many millions of the earths inhabitants who died without ever even hearing Christ's name?
Click to expand...

most christain churches would tell you that they were saved upon believing that the messiah would come later and they made animal sacrefices accordingly. however, only the jewish sects that held pagan customs made sacrefices. other sects such as the Essenes were trying to break free from their pagan roots and did not make animal sacrefices.
this is a whole other thread though.
 
^^^ (responding to OHM) But to infer that they aren't worshipping the same God now is alogical.

Here's a simple logical argument:

Start with the monotheistic premise that both religions maintain: There is only one God, and there has always been one God.

Now, everybody agrees that in the past, both religions were worshipping the same god, as described in the Old Testament. We'll call that god "God A".

Next -- neither religion argues that it switched gods at any point in its past. The Christians do not say they stopped worshipping God A when Christ came along, only to start worshipping God B. They are still worshipping God A, even after Christ, right?

Similarly, the Muslims never switched gods either. They are still worshipping the same god (God A) that they did in the past.

Now, in the past there was only one God A. And neither religion argues that God A duplicated himself at any point. Ergo, both religions are still worshipping God A -- which is necessarily the same god for both religions, by this logic. QED.

Unless you argue that one of these religions stopped worshipping God A and switched to God B, or that there is (or was) more than one god at some point, any other conclusion is logically impossible.

It's simple logic. If A=B, and A=C, then B=C.

A = God of OT
B = Modern Christian God
C = Modern Muslim God

1. A (God of OT) = B (Modern Christian God)
2. A (God of OT) = C (Modern Muslim God)
3. Therefore B (Modern Christian God) = C (Modern Muslim God)

Now, the two religions may have different ideas about how God A has manifested himself (e.g. whether Christ was a manifestation of God or merely a prophet), but that doesn't make it a different god.

To analogize, we can have different viewpoints about whether George Bush is intelligent or stupid, but we all have to agree that he's the President.

And SoHi, I think it's extremely relevant that the Arab Christians call God by the name "Allah". They certainly recognize that their Allah is the same Allah that the Muslims worship, correct? I mean, you've talked about this with Arab Christians, right?
 
Last edited:
^^ yes, i understand it that way too. i'm trying to say that it is different manformed concepts that they all are seperated by, not God. He is the God of all the paths.
 
Heh. The philosophical issues raised in this thread could occupy a roomful of theologians for years, methinks.

The important thing to keep in mind IMO is that the word 'Allah' is just the Arabic (and Farsi) translation of 'God.'

You could argue forever about whether Moslems, Jews, Christians, Mormons 1) all refer to the same entity by 'God' and just differ on what he's said and done, or 2) are all talking about different entities, and each believe their entity exists whilw the others' do not. But aside from some interesting philosophy of language issues (eg are statements (1) and (2) logically equivalent?), what does it matter?
 
Must agree with Zorn. Hate when that happens. ;)

But, I will still respond to MA's argument, I think it really depends on how you reference God. I acknowledged the lineage you're basing your argument on, and even that the "newer" versions acknowledge that the "older" versions are what they are built on.

But the end product is a God in each religion which is unique, based on the attributes that religion gives that God.

And I'm not that interested in historical reference, I'm more concerned with the current state of the evolution of the ideas, and I feel they have branched enough to describe deities with different or varying attributes, and you cannot call them the same unless you're willing to discard the attributes each religion adds to the concept that the others do not.

And the raw fact is, the deity the Christians believe in is quite different than the one the Muslims believe in, and both are different from the one the Jews believe in, even though all will acknowledge they're talking about the same thing.

So the argument isn't A=B=C, as this formula is not taking the various attributes each religion adds to the basic foundation.

It's more like (YHVH * A) != (YHVH * B) != (YHVH *C) ...

And yet, I understand the point you're trying to get across, and I agree with your motives for doing so. But I don't agree with the argument, because I think they may be derived from the same source, but they ultimately are not the same.
 
Or, I'll use a few analogies.

Let's talk software, or operating systems. Windows 3.x, 98, and XP, for instance. They're all versions of windows, they all share elements, they're built from the same ideas. But they're not the same program! Same category, same brand. But vastly different products with very different capacities!

Or let's talk drugs. Psilocybin and DMT, for instance (toss in a tryptamine of choice for the 3-way comparison). Both tryptamines and similar in structure, both mind-altering drugs. Sane family, Vastly different drugs with vastly different effects!

Just as with the monotheistic religions, they're from the same root, but YHVH v1.0 is drastically different from YHVH v2.0 and YHVH v3.0, in practically all elements worth discussing, such as the nature or personality of the deity, the ultimate goals and demands of the deity, the methods and procedures of the deity, and the effects that belief in the deity have upon the believers.

They're the same category, same brand. But they ain't the same product.
 
^^^ But I don't think you're taking seriously the beliefs of the religions themselves. You're looking at their view of God as an abstraction, or a defined religious principal. You're not taking the view of God as Being seriously.

To analogize further: In their view, God is much more analogous to a person than to a software product. And while I as a person may change over time, I am still Mahan Atma.
 
Well, like I said, I'm not a theist.

But, in a sense, I'm taking them more seriously than you are. I take it that what they say about the attributes of their deity define that deity for them, or at least what that deity means for them. I take it that a Christian believes God is a trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and also has a version of YHVH you could call "God Lite" (compared to the more vengeful OT descriptions). And Allah is even more variant in its effects.

Thus... different deities. Same type, common lineage, variant particular.

Or, let's drag out that tired hag, memetics, on this one.

If the meme was fundamentally the same for the three religions, why are the phenotypic effects of the belief in the deity so drastically different in each of the religions?
 
And there's another problem with your person analogy: there's only one copy of you running around at any given time! No "old you" who would be undeniably different from the "current you" and the "future you," all getting together to kick back a few beers and trying not to kill each other.

But let's ride this pony for a minute.

If it's a person, the emergence of a new religion is akin to making a clone of that person, and then raising it in a different enviromnent.

Then, there's the nature/nurture question... would you call them the same person after years of development in different cultures, even though they share genetics?
 
OperatesHeavyMachinery said:
If the meme was fundamentally the same for the three religions, why are the phenotypic effects of the belief in the deity so drastically different in each of the religions?
Click to expand...

Because a meme often evolves into a memeplex, or self-supporting set of ideas, which after thousands of years of evolution, may end up barely resembling that original meme at all. While the three memeplexes may look entirely different, and replicate through the use of different evolved 'tricks', at their core still lies the original meme, the simple mechanism from which it all started.

Your software analogy is good. When discussing meme/gene coevolution I would often use software/hardware evolution as an example, showing how each one pushes and pulls the other, forcing them to adapt. In this case we're talking about how the religions evolved from the same core idea, but branched into two completely different versions, the same as operating systems do. While Windows XP and OS X are two completely different OS's, if you trace their evolution back, you're going to end up at the same point, maybe at something like Charles Babbage's punchcard.
 
Last edited:
OperatesHeavyMachinery said:
And there's another problem with your person analogy: there's only one copy of you running around at any given time! No "old you" who would be undeniably different from the "current you" and the "future you," all getting together to kick back a few beers and trying not to kill each other.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly why my person analogy holds up so well -- Both religions assert that there is only one God. There are no copies or clones running around at any given time, nor have there ever been.

If you allow for the existence of multiple gods, then it is you who is not taking their religious beliefs seriously.

Again, neither religion argues that it is worshipping a different God now than they did thousands of years ago. Your argument can't make sense without ignoring that fundamental religious tenet.
 
Mahan Atma said:
Both religions assert that there is only one God.
Click to expand...

How well would these religions replicate WITHOUT this assertion? The problem is you're actually assuming that this attribute is true, that there IS a god, and that it is the ONLY one. When in actuality this is just one of the evolved tricks that these religions have adapted because it works so well at ensuring its longevity. You're falling prey to this "Your God is the one true God!" meme, you must look at the big picture. When you analyze the most successful religions, you should expect to find one of these core memes at its root. This goes back to the point that OHM made above, that while there are going to be many different attributes among these religions, enough to make them look completely different, at their core are going to be almost identical button pushing mechanisms.
 
Last edited:
Well, i think that when the Jews trace back the Old Testament to pagan stories then that asserts that somewhere in paganism lies the real God.
So then you look into their stories and you find that you can go all the way back to Adam and Eve's story which was originally pagan origins. So then if we are standing in the Garden of Eden then we have the foundation of 4 religions...or actually the basis for almost all of them right there. And yet one God.

~~ also which btw, the pagan stories (as we've been told many times before) all evolve around a Christ that is exactly like Jesus.(has Jesus like names,preforms the same miracles as Jesus, from a virgin birth like Jesus, rises from the dead like Jesus...)i don't see this as a "meme", again i see this as everyone having their own way to God. different Christ for different times. Sons of God.
 
Last edited:
Stasis said:
How well would these religions replicate WITHOUT this assertion? The problem is you're actually assuming that this attribute is true, that there IS a god, and that it is the ONLY one. When in actuality this is just one of the evolved tricks that these religions have adapted because it works so well at ensuring its longevity. You're falling prey to this "Your God is the one true God!" meme, you must look at the big picture. When you analyze the most successful religions, you should expect to find one of these core memes at its root.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you aren't taking the religions' beliefs in God seriously. Religion is not just a set of memes.

I suggest that the only context in which my original question makes sense is if you take the core religious beliefs seriously. If you come from the standpoint that there is not really any God (as many people here are) then their God is just an abstraction, and of course they don't "worship the same God" in that sense because the two religions have a different set of abstractions.

But then nobody would be "worshipping the same God", because we all have a slightly different conception of God, even people within a particular sect.
 
Mahan Atma said:
I suggest that the only context in which my original question makes sense is if you take the core religious beliefs seriously.
Click to expand...

Well if we take the core religious beliefs of all the religions seriously, then we're going to have to accept on faith that there exists many gods, and that each one claims to be the only one. So we end up believing in many gods, and believing that each one is the true one. Quite a conundrum isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top