MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I think all religions are faulty. My personal belief is not one is 100% accurate. I chose Christianity for several reasons , and thats the facts baby' ~
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do the Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God....?
- Thread starter Spirit_Warrior
- Start date
If you read the story of the leader of the Meccan Quraysh, Abu Suffiyan, his wife Hind and son Muawiyya you will find they were extremely violent people who hated MP. They didn't just refuse to accept Islam, they tried to have MP assassinated and murdered several times. They were MP's mortal enemies during most of MPs ministry. For example, they organized an assassination of MP in which they assembled a group of men from all the different tribes to jointly attack MP as he slept, so no single tribe could be blamed. However when the men came to kill MP they found someone else sleeping in the bed. Apparently MP got wind of the plot and escaped, leaving another follower as a decoy. When, Abu Suffiyan found out about MPs escape he was furious and tried to hunt him down. However, MP alluded him as he hid with Abu Bakr in a cave. Abu Suffiyan also organized a siege of Medina to kill MP and his followers known as the battle of the moat or trench. Fortunately for MP a sand storm rescued him that destroyed the Meccan tents and cause them to retreat. Similarly, Abu Suffiyans wife and another Quraysh leader hired a professional Ethiopian assassin to kill MPs Muslim uncle Hamza during a battle. After Hamza was assassinated Hind mutilated the corpse made bracelets with his body parts and chewed his liver. I am excluding the stories of torturing, excommunicating, starving and throwing garbage and stones on Muslims and encouraging children to do the same etc.
Unfortunately for Abu Suffiyan, two years before MP died the Muslims became very powerful and conquered Mecca. The Suffiyans were captured and were expecting to be put to death under Islamic law as the punishment for fighting the prophet is crucifixion.
However, MP demonstrated stunning restraint and showed mercy to Abu Suffiyan, Hind and son, Muawiyya by allowing them to convert with no restrictions on their freedom. They were even given the option to leave the town as polytheists.
In contrast, after MP and the four Rashidun caliphs died, Abu Suffiyan's son Muawiyya became caliph and turned the empire into hereditary monarchy. Muawiyya 's son Yazid became caliph and brutally attacked Medina and Mecca where companions of MP and their children including the children of Rashidun caliph Abu Bakr and Ali (one had accompanied MP when Abu Suffiyan tried to hunt MP the other had slept in MPs bed when Yazids grandfather plotted to kill MP) were brutally and savagely murdered or forced to pay homage to Yazid. The descendants of Abu Suffiyan ruled with an iron fist and murdered political rivals, brutalized Christians and Jews conquered their lands thru war raped and imposed humiliating tax laws. Their record demonstrates that they were unable to express mercy or compassion even after all the mercy and compassion MP had shown them
This is why reasonable Muslims to this day question the amount of freedom Muslim scholars and judges enjoyed when they were writing the Sharia books and passing laws in the courts of the Umayyads who basically hadn't known MP and wanted to create a MP in their own image to justify their inhumanity and cruelty
Last edited:
You can also read 5:27-31 about the two sons of the first man named Adam, one of whom sincerely worshipped Allah
Of course the story of Jonas is also mentioned in the Quran. There is also the story of Job
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Do we all bet on the same team in football ?.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
I assume you are aware that there already were Jewish priests in Egypt who had built a temple in southern Egypt where they performed animal sacrifices and believed YHWH had a wife according to archaeological discoveries and Elephantine papyri
http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/318363
http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/318363
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Perhaps, but the sacrifices at places other than the temple site and worship of female deity would not be seeing eye to eye with the words given to Moses
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Of course I am aware of the term "Henotheism" as it used often to describe my own religion Hinduism. In Hinduism we also worship only one God Brahman, but different Hindus worship Brahman as Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganesha(though rare) and do not deny the other. Hence, it is an obvious henotheistic religion.
But sorry Christianity and especially Islam is not henotheistic. They do not worship other Gods, they consider all other God's false, there is only one God. Hence, why they are described as monotheistic religions.
Listen I know on any standard Religious Studies course this is what is taught. If you had had a multiple choice test and you had to choose which label describes Christianity and Islam and the options were 1)Monotheism 2)Polytheism 3)Pantheism 4)Henotheism and 5)Atheism. 2-5 would be wrong answers.
You have shown me 83% of non-Mormon clergy do not accept Mormons as Christian.
It is both. The meaning of the word itself and how it is used e.g. "Her eyes froze him still" compared to "The peas are frozen" There are conventions in language to how meaning is decyphered. It is not infinitely ambiguous. If I asked you "bring me an orange" and you brought me a tomato, the defect is with your understanding and not the sentence.
I did not really see a massive contradiction here. I could just be taken to mean God knows exactly what you are thinking at a given time. What you are thinking now and what you will be thinking after undergoing a gruelling test could be totally different. Also, here the passages are not contradictions, because they are by two different authors in two two different contexts.
No, of course we historically know that Judaism like Hinduism began as a polytheistic religion in its early stages. Monotheistic religions do not just magically appear. Religion go through stages of development. They initially began as animist or Shamanic they are often described, where tribes worshipped nature and thought there was a God for every natural elements water, sea, air, wind, sun, moon, stars, volcanos. These then morph into polytheistic religions where tribes form that worship one deity more than the other i.e., certain deities become more prominent. As tribes compete with one another for supremacy, certain deities become more powerful. This is the henotheistic stage. If one tribes gains supremacy then monotheism emerges.
Judaism followed the same stages of growth. Initially there were many Gods, but the gods of other non YAHWH tribes were wiped out, to leave YAWH as the only the God and the Jewish tribe as the only tribe --- all the other tribes have been wiped out or disappeared. Islam also followed they same stages. The pre-Islamic Arabs had many gods, but the Gods of the non-Allah tribes were wiped out, to leave Allah as the only God and the Muslims as the only tribe -- all the other pagan tribes were wiped out. This is also why the Abrahamic religions are mainly religions about power and control.
Hinduism followed a very different growth, but somewhat similar, albeit a bit more peaceful and democratic. It began with several nature gods Indra, Agni, Mitra, Varuna, Bhaga, Aryaman, Rudras, Ushas, Saraswati etc and each tribe worshipped a different nature God. Then over time, as the tribes held assemblies(sabhas) together they started to merge these Gods into a single one(Ekam Sat) and the concept of Brahman involved. The underpinning of this is a philosophical understanding which is like the philosophical version of "Origin of species" All these varieties and kinds of gods must have had a single ancestral God. However, because Hinduism came to a monotheistic like understanding through philosophical and democratic means, the tribes that worshipped other Gods did not get wiped out. Rather they inherited the understanding that there was only ONE but the many gods were just expressions from that, the disagreement between tribes was who that original ONE was i.e., who was the most supreme. Over time Shiva and Vishnu became the most supreme. Hence, Hinduism never went absolutely monotheistic, it remained henotheistic and remains so to this day.
Last edited:
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
^^ This.
Christianity is the out-liar in Abrahamic religions, because of the concept of the holy trinity. However, Christianity for the last 2000 years or so has never understood the trinity to be many gods. They have either understand it to be one god in three persons, sort of like the Hindu one god and infinite manifestations, or they have rejected the trinity altogether. Mormonism is a very late Neo-Christian group, only sprang up in the last 100 years or so, hence it is also called today the "The Church of the latter day saints" They have have interpreted the holy trinity in a radically different way by interpreting the trinity to be three separate Gods. God, Jesus and Mother. This is no longer monotheism.
It has gone even beyond it has also inverted the doctrine that is at the foundation of Christian thought:Satan's false promise to Adan and Eve that they can become Gods like God which became the original sin doctrine of Christianity. Mormonism teaches that God was once a man, that became God, and that man today can become God also just as God did.
They have inverted another core doctrine and that is in corporeality of God. God in Christianity and Jewish theology is a spirit not a flesh and bones man. In Mormon doctrine God is corporeal, a flesh and bones man like you and me, just more exalted. He also is not omniscient or omnipotent, but the Christian and Jewish God is.
Hence, Mormonism simply does not fit in the Christian tradition. It should be excluded.
I just wanted to point out that several tribes such as the Kenites in northern Arabia and Jews of Elephantine in southern Egypt had begun mixing the worship of local pagan deities with the worship of the Jewish deity in away that involved a temple and animal sacrifices. So the idea that Quraysh could have done it too shouldn't surprise us.
Last edited:
As far as sacrifices at another temple are concerned, Onias had a temple in Leontopolis Egypt that was accepted by the Jews where they made offerings and ministered to non Jews to fulfill Isaiah 19
Last edited:
@J2hapydna - I'd encourage you to try using the multi-quote feature which is available on RF. You can use the '+ Quote' button to 'collect' quotes, then insert them all into one message, where you can edit and reply before submitting.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
I'm late to jump in on this but thought I would respond to the OP. My personal opinion is that no one worships the same god, because everyone's mental construct of their god is different. Of course, some may be more similar than others. In answer to your second proposition, I do not believe Christianity and Islam are "sects" of Judaism, but perhaps could be described as "children" of Judaism.
Limo
Active Member
Islam is not a Judaic sect nor a child of Judaism.
I agree to some extent with the first part.
Actually, there is only one Creator for this universe, This Creator deserves to be worshiped as well as his creations follow Creator's Law.
From this sense, If the religion dis-attributed the Creator, then they missed him and worshiped something else.
For example. Allah said in Quran that the most significant insult is to pertain that He has a son.
I can say with full trust that Christian god is not Islamic Allah by any mean.
For Judaism, we share the basic/most of attributes but Allah told us in Quran that they've described him with some false attributes (poverty, tied hands ). I don't know if these was said in Madina Jewish community only, or some Jewish sects at that time or still exist.
But in general we share most belief (I can't say full as I'm not fully aware of Judaism belief)
We Muslims believe that the Creator/Allah/Almighty is the god of all prophets Adam, Nooh, Ibrahim, Isaac, Yaqoob, Yousoof and his brothers, Mosa, and Isa Almaseeh (not Jesus-Christ).
This is a must. I wouldn't be considered a Muslim, If I don't believe in all true prophets and books.
Regards
Koldo
Outstanding Member
You certainly didn't sound like someone that knew anything about 'henotheism'. But it makes no difference.
Traditionally, Christianity is regarded as Monotheistic. But reality is fairly more complicated than that.
If all the other gods in Hinduism actually represent the very same God ( Brahman ), then that's the same as the trinity concept in Christianity. Wouldn't that mean that Hinduism is monotheistic ? Or perhaps that Christianity is not monotheistic ?
I said Protestant clergy. And so what ?
But "orange" might mean something different than what it means at this day and age.
Here is a list with examples: 20 words that once meant something very different
By this reasoning, what you would be thinking as an apostle might be something completely different than what you are thinking right now. Which would completely undermine the passage in Acts 1:24-25.
It is not so simple. Let me quote Dei Verbum to provide an example:
"Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text)."
Christians take divine inspiration quite seriously.
As far as I can tell, initially the term Jew strictly referred to a patrilineal tribal identity. The 12 tribe community was known as Israelite. One had to have patrilineal descent to become an Israelite. So for example, being the son of the Israelitish woman and Egyptian man didn't make one an Israelite or Danite. Otherwise, please show me the earliest clear use of the word Jew / Jewish to describe someone from another tribe in the Bible.
As far as I can tell, it was after the northern kingdom perished and the tribe of Judah was promised it will not (perish) that the term Jew/ Jewish began to refer to members of a nation (without regard to patrilineal descent). Then gradually from there it began to refer to a religion to which one could convert. Prior to that one's tribal identity was one's religious identity.
Perhaps this is why you are also confusing the Quraysh as a member of the Ishmaelite nation with a tribe that has to have an Ishmaelite patrilineal descent.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Some may want to read this:
Although the Israelites were divided into Twelve Tribes, the Jews (being one offshoot of the Israelites, another being the Samaritans) are traditionally said to descend mostly from the Israelite tribes of Judah (from where the Jews derive their ethnonym) and Benjamin, and partially from the tribe of Levi, who had together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah, and the remnants of the northern Kingdom of Israel who migrated to the Kingdom of Judah and assimilated after the 720s BCE, when the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire. -- Jews - Wikipedia
Just a reminder that words, including names, often evolve over time.
Although the Israelites were divided into Twelve Tribes, the Jews (being one offshoot of the Israelites, another being the Samaritans) are traditionally said to descend mostly from the Israelite tribes of Judah (from where the Jews derive their ethnonym) and Benjamin, and partially from the tribe of Levi, who had together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah, and the remnants of the northern Kingdom of Israel who migrated to the Kingdom of Judah and assimilated after the 720s BCE, when the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire. -- Jews - Wikipedia
Just a reminder that words, including names, often evolve over time.
rosends
Well-Known Member
The term Jew developed from Yehudi, meaning of the kingdom of Judah which had people from at least 2 and a half tribes. Thus Mordechai, one of the heroes of the festival of Purim is called, textually "Ish yehudi" and also "ish yemini" -- a Yehudi from the tribe of Benjamin. Can you show where, before that, the term Jew was used, and where the term "Israelitish" was used to refer to the faith or the national identity?
I did say, we don't see the term Yehudi being used to describe someone who isn't a member of that tribe before the northern kingdom was destroyed. Mordechai was after the northern kingdom was destroyed. Even then Mordechai wasn't a non Israelite.
Im sorry if I made it seem that an Israelite identity was a religious identity. I dont think ancients understood the concept of a religious identity outside a hereditary tribal id.
I have agreed that after the destruction of the northern kingdom, the term Yehudi was used to refer to more than just members of the tribe of Judah. However even in the case of Mordechai he is an Israelite who was under the covenant. so can I ask. where is the term first used in the Bible to describe a descendant of a non Israelite? Thanks
rosends
Well-Known Member
In the text, the term Yehudi is used 76 times to refer to someone from the tribe or nation of Yehudah. Are you trying to combine it with the idea of conversion?
Yisr'eili appears 5 times, 4 in Leviticus to refer to a woman who was part of the Children of Israel and once in Sam. 2 to refer to a man who is of the children of Israel.