Can Islamic and Christian Theological Concepts of God be reconciled?

[Dawnofhope]

So you consider someone who challenges your views is deliberately provocative, disrespectful and discourteous.

OK

I enjoy having my views challenged. I'm here to learn and atheists are often better at asking the hard questions than theists.

Your worldview probably isn't too dissimilar to @CG Didymus who has been asking excellent questions and challenging my views on RF for the last 18 months. I've never felt offended or insulted by his approach.

Your post #113 was a real turn off for me.

 

[ecco]

I enjoy having my views challenged. I'm here to learn and atheists are often better at asking the hard questions than theists.

There is a difference between asking questions and posing criticism. Like..

Your religion is no different than other religions.

I tend to do both.

Your worldview probably isn't too dissimilar to @CG Didymus who has been asking excellent questions and challenging my views on RF for the last 18 months. I've never felt offended or insulted by his approach.

With all due respect, our worldviews are very different. You just need to read and understand what is contained in the user info box. Mine does not say "undecided".

Your post #113 was a real turn off for me.

This one where I parsed the definition of rape and compared it to what happened to Mary...

My emphases...
Definition of rape
1: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
: an outrageous violation
Perhaps it's just my atheistic morals, but rape is rape.

What turned you off? Was it that I applied the definition of rape to the cause of the "virgin" birth? What turns me off is that, in this day and age, people are not offended by what allegedly took place.

Applying a little reality here, you are aware that Jesus was not the first and only "god" that was the result of a virgin birth - right?

 

[Dawnofhope]

What turned you off? Was it that I applied the definition of rape to the cause of the "virgin" birth?

Your antitheism.

What turns me off is that, in this day and age, people are not offended by what allegedly took place.

Do you mean that people like me still believe in the existence of God or gods with superhuman powers?

Applying a little reality here, you are aware that Jesus was not the first and only "god" that was the result of a virgin birth - right?

Of course. What about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

 

[ecco]

Your antitheism.

My "antitheism" turns you off? You specifically referred to post #113 which is where I posit the impregnation of Mary was an act of rape. I don't see how discussing an event in holy scripture is antitheistic. I wasn't questioning whether or not the incidents actually took place. I was, for the sake of discussion, accepting it at face value.

I wrote...

What turns me off is that, in this day and age, people are not offended by what allegedly took place.
​

You responded...

Do you mean that people like me still believe in the existence of God or gods with superhuman powers?

I don't understand your response. I wasn't belittling people who believe in gods. I wasn't belittling people who believe in scripture.

I was, clearly, commenting on the fact that people who celebrate the birth of Jesus fail to truly appreciate the circumstances surrounding his conception -rape.

Of course. What about it?

Your religion accepts the divinity of Jesus' birth to a virgin. Does it also then accept the divinity of all other virgin birth personages? If not, why not?

 

[Dawnofhope]

My "antitheism" turns you off? You specifically referred to post #113 which is where I posit the impregnation of Mary was an act of rape. I don't see how discussing an event in holy scripture is antitheistic. I wasn't questioning whether or not the incidents actually took place. I was, for the sake of discussion, accepting it at face value.

I wrote...
What turns me off is that, in this day and age, people are not offended by what allegedly took place.
You responded...
I don't understand your response. I wasn't belittling people who believe in gods. I wasn't belittling people who believe in scripture.

I was, clearly, commenting on the fact that people who celebrate the birth of Jesus fail to truly appreciate the circumstances surrounding his conception -rape.

The pen is mightier than the sword. In one man strikes a blow on another then tries to justify himself then something is wrong with that man. The story of the virgin Mary has nothing to do with God raping Mary. If you can not see how alleging it does would be offensive to Muslims, Christians, and Baha'is then there's not too much point in us talking further.

Your religion accepts the divinity of Jesus' birth to a virgin. Does it also then accept the divinity of all other virgin birth personages? If not, why not?

The acceptance of Christ as the Mesiah, Messenger of God, or Manifestation of God for Christins, Muslims, and Baha'is has little to do with whether or not He was born a virgin. We all believe He brought a message from God, lived an outstanding life, and brought teachings that could transform humanity. The virgin birth narrative is there to exemplify aspects of what He taught.

 

[ecco]

The pen is mightier than the sword. In one man strikes a blow on another then tries to justify himself then something is wrong with that man. The story of the virgin Mary has nothing to do with God raping Mary. If you can not see how alleging it does would be offensive to Muslims, Christians, and Baha'is then there's not too much point in us talking further.

So you are offended by the discussion of the circumstances surrounding Mary's impregnation, but you are not offended by the actual circumstances of the impregnation.

Perhaps you could volunteer to be Harvey Weinstein's lawyer.
Perhaps you could volunteer to be Larry Nassar's lawyer.

You do see the validity of the analogies, don't you?

The acceptance of Christ as the Mesiah, Messenger of God, or Manifestation of God for Christins, Muslims, and Baha'is has little to do with whether or not He was born a virgin. We all believe He brought a message from God, lived an outstanding life, and brought teachings that could transform humanity. The virgin birth narrative is there to exemplify aspects of what He taught.

The point isn't whether or not Mary was a virgin. The point is that while she was betrothed to a man, she was impregnated by god.

KJV

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.​

Does that sound like informed willing consent to you?

 

[CG Didymus]

My "antitheism" turns you off? You specifically referred to post #113 which is where I posit the impregnation of Mary was an act of rape. I don't see how discussing an event in holy scripture is antitheistic. I wasn't questioning whether or not the incidents actually took place. I was, for the sake of discussion, accepting it at face value.

I wrote...

What turns me off is that, in this day and age, people are not offended by what allegedly took place.
​

You responded...


I don't understand your response. I wasn't belittling people who believe in gods. I wasn't belittling people who believe in scripture.

I was, clearly, commenting on the fact that people who celebrate the birth of Jesus fail to truly appreciate the circumstances surrounding his conception -rape.

Your religion accepts the divinity of Jesus' birth to a virgin. Does it also then accept the divinity of all other virgin birth personages? If not, why not?

Our views are dissimilar. I believe Mary and the Holy Spirit had consensual sex. Who wouldn't want to have sex with God? Actually, I believe the virgin birth fictional. I don't know why Baha'is support it and say most everything else in the Bible as "symbolic".

 

[Dawnofhope]

So you are offended by the discussion of the circumstances surrounding Mary's impregnation, but you are not offended by the actual circumstances of the impregnation.

I was for a few minutes and then got over it.

Perhaps you could volunteer to be Harvey Weinstein's lawyer.
Perhaps you could volunteer to be Larry Nassar's lawyer.

You do see the validity of the analogies, don't you?

No.

The point isn't whether or not Mary was a virgin. The point is that while she was betrothed to a man, she was impregnated by god.

KJV
Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Does that sound like informed willing consent to you?

Informed consent is a twentieth century ethical/legal principle that is irrelevant to the virgin birth of Jesus narrative.

The Muslims and Christians are agreed with the virgin birth so once again you are right off topic.

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...logical-concepts-of-god-be-reconciled.210107/

 

[ecco]

Our views are dissimilar. I believe Mary and the Holy Spirit had consensual sex. Who wouldn't want to have sex with God?

Does this sound like a 19 year old groupie accepting an invitation to a rock star's hotel room, or does it sound like a confused 19 year old accepting the inevitable?

KJV
Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Actually, I believe the virgin birth fictional. I don't know why Baha'is support it and say most everything else in the Bible as "symbolic".

As with many things surrounding Jesus, we only have stories of stories. There is absolutely nothing to confirm the story of a Holy Ghost. Did someone interview Mary ten months later?

So, Mary, tell us, how did it happen that you got pregnant?
Well, you see, this entity came to me and said God wanted to get me pregnant and...​

 

[ecco]

Informed consent is a twentieth century ethical/legal principle that is irrelevant to the virgin birth of Jesus narrative.

Twentieth Century? Hmmm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Islamic_law
Rape is considered a serious sexual crime in Islam, and can be defined in Islamic law as: "Forcible illegal sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is not legally married to him, without her free will and consent".[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then only the man that lay with her shall die.​

The Muslims and Christians are agreed with the virgin birth so once again you are right off topic.

From your OP:

Questions, comments, discussion and debate as you will.​

I don't consider issues of morality being irrelevant to the topic.

Many Muslims believe it is immoral for a woman to wear a bikini or dance with a man they are not married to. Most Christians are OK with both. So, I guess concepts of the morality of rape play into the issue of reconciliation.


From your OP:

I lean strongly towards yes. There is just One God and He has revealed Himself through both Jesus and Muhammad.​

Christians believe Jesus is part of that One God. Muslims do not. I hardly see any shot at reconciling these two opposing views.

 

[CG Didymus]

Does this sound like a 19 year old groupie accepting an invitation to a rock star's hotel room, or does it sound like a confused 19 year old accepting the inevitable?

​

As with many things surrounding Jesus, we only have stories of stories. There is absolutely nothing to confirm the story of a Holy Ghost. Did someone interview Mary ten months later?

So, Mary, tell us, how did it happen that you got pregnant?
Well, you see, this entity came to me and said God wanted to get me pregnant and...​

It sounds like a made up story. Where did the writers get their information? Plus, the writers have conflicting views of what happened. But if I was writing a story about Jesus and wanted to make him a god, I'd definitely include a virgin birth story... And a resurrection story.

But, I've always wondered why the resurrection is considered unscientific and therefore must symbolic, yet the virgin birth story is "verified" by Baha'is as something that really happened? And in several things written in the NT, Baha'is are quick to point out that the writers were not eyewitnesses, so probably got it wrong.

 

[ecco]

It sounds like a made up story. Where did the writers get their information? Plus, the writers have conflicting views of what happened. But if I was writing a story about Jesus and wanted to make him a god, I'd definitely include a virgin birth story... And a resurrection story.

To build a religion, you need converts.
Multiple religions of the time had Virgin Birth deities, so you give Jesus a virgin mother.
Want to covert Naturalist Pagans, coincide Jesus birth with the Winter Solstice.
Want to convert Jews, tell them Jesus is descended from Adam, Noah etc.
What happend to Jesus, have the bad Romans kill him and then, to prove his divinity, have him resurrected. Date the resurrection to around Spring Solstice to get the worshipers of Ēostre.

But, I've always wondered why the resurrection is considered unscientific and therefore must symbolic, yet the virgin birth story is "verified" by Baha'is as something that really happened? And in several things written in the NT, Baha'is are quick to point out that the writers were not eyewitnesses, so probably got it wrong.

That's what happens when you get a bunch of people writing stories based on the legends they heard and wanted to promote. Muslims and Baha'is each have different beliefs about Jesus based on what they want to promote.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Twentieth Century? Hmmm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Islamic_law
Rape is considered a serious sexual crime in Islam, and can be defined in Islamic law as: "Forcible illegal sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is not legally married to him, without her free will and consent".[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then only the man that lay with her shall die.

Sure. I was thinking about informed consent in medicine that has become part of the culture of medical practice in the twentieth century, so my error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent#Medical_history

As previously stated the virgin birth story is a 'theological concept of God' that both Christianity and Islam are in agreement. No adherents of either religion would believe God raped Mary. Understandably if you 'bait' adherents of Islam and Christianity with this suggestion they will most likely be disinterested in talking to you. Some at the time they feel offended will say something that gives you further opportunity to attack their religion.

From your OP:
Questions, comments, discussion and debate as you will.
I don't consider issues of morality being irrelevant to the topic.

Many Muslims believe it is immoral for a woman to wear a bikini or dance with a man they are not married to. Most Christians are OK with both. So, I guess concepts of the morality of rape play into the issue of reconciliation.

You really are focused on rape aren't you? Why not start a thread about an area you are so keen to discuss?

The different moral codes of the two religions are another topic. Moral codes are not theological concepts but clearly areas of important difference between the two religions.

From your OP:
I lean strongly towards yes. There is just One God and He has revealed Himself through both Jesus and Muhammad.
Christians believe Jesus is part of that One God. Muslims do not. I hardly see any shot at reconciling these two opposing views.

I agree the Divinity of Christ as believed by Christians is one of the most important theological differences between Christianity and Islam. Christians believe Jesus is physically God incarnate. Muslims don't. Adherents of both religions are unlikely to change their views, so we have a key area Christians and Muslims will not reconcile on. The next step is understanding the theological basis of their respective beliefs. Are there plausible and coherent alternative interpretations that might bring the two perspectives closer together?

From memory, you suggested that if adherents of both religions recognised their religions were man made and there was no God, that would provide the necessary reconciliation. Is that correct? If so its a plausible approach though not one I agree with for obvious reasons.

 

[ecco]

No adherents of either religion would believe God raped Mary. Some at the time they feel offended will say something that gives you further opportunity to attack their religion.
You really are focused on rape aren't you? Why not start a thread about an area you are so keen to discuss?

I focused on the alleged divine conception of Jesus because it is a key factor in any reconciliation of Islam with Christianity.

I don't believe God raped Mary because I don't believe in the existence of God or Mary.

What I am doing is challenging adherents of religion to read and understand what is actually written in their holy scripture. Mary, a 14 year old betrothed virgin, was impregnated. Her acquiescence amounts to no more than, I am your servant, do as you will. That is, by any standards, rape.

The different moral codes of the two religions are another topic. Moral codes are not theological concepts but clearly areas of important difference between the two religions.

I don't understand how you can say "Moral codes are not theological concepts". Christians will proudly boast that American laws of morality are based on the Bible. Many Muslims live by Sharia Law.

I agree the Divinity of Christ as believed by Christians is one of the most important theological differences between Christianity and Islam. Christians believe Jesus is physically God incarnate. Muslims don't. Adherents of both religions are unlikely to change their views, so we have a key area Christians and Muslims will not reconcile on. The next step is understanding the theological basis of their respective beliefs. Are there plausible and coherent alternative interpretations that might bring the two perspectives closer together?

Do you even believe that you can get Petacostalists and JWs and Mormons together on anything above a superficial level?

From memory, you suggested that if adherents of both religions recognised their religions were man made and there was no God, that would provide the necessary reconciliation. Is that correct? If so its a plausible approach though not one I agree with for obvious reasons.

No, it is not correct.

If "adherents of both religions recognised their religions were man made and there was no God" they would not be adherents of any religion. Therefore, there would be no "reconciliation of adherents".

I have stated that if there were no religion there would be one less thing for people to fight over. And, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I am not suggesting that we forcibly eliminate religion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't understand how you can say "Moral codes are not theological concepts". Christians will proudly boast that American laws of morality are based on the Bible. Many Muslims live by Sharia Law.

We need to make distinctions between God, His messenger, and the message He brought. Its like understanding the difference between governments that make the law, the police that enforce it, and the judicial systems that administers. You don't need to believe in God to understand such distinctions.

Sure. American Christians talk about how their politics is based on the bible, but that could also be a perversion of what the bible actually taught. Same deal with Sharia law and the Quran.

Do you even believe that you can get Petacostalists and JWs and Mormons together on anything above a superficial level?

Of course I do. I am the Baha'i representative of my cities interfaith council. Mormons play an active role. I do volunteer work at a Christian Medical Centre. I've had great discussions with a couple of the Pentecostal Christians there. A Baha'i friend has been meeting with a JW weekly for bible study for over a year. Admittedly they would both like to convert each other but they get along fine and have great discussions. I've had discussions with adherents of all three groups here on RF.

No, it is not correct.

If "adherents of both religions recognised their religions were man made and there was no God" they would not be adherents of any religion. Therefore, there would be no "reconciliation of adherents".

I have stated that if there were no religion there would be one less thing for people to fight over.

There's always something to fight over. The problem is much more to do with human nature, but religion can certainly contribute significantly to conflict.

You might like the following thread that addresses this very point.

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...ristianity-youd-still-have-fanaticism.210462/

And, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I am not suggesting that we forcibly eliminate religion.

That's probably what a few of those who participated in the Russian revolution believed of communism at the time.

 

[ecco]

I don't understand how you can say "Moral codes are not theological concepts". Christians will proudly boast that American laws of morality are based on the Bible. Many Muslims live by Sharia Law.

Do you even believe that you can get Petacostalists and JWs and Mormons together on anything above a superficial level?

If "adherents of both religions recognised their religions were man made and there was no God" they would not be adherents of any religion. Therefore, there would be no "reconciliation of adherents".

I have stated that if there were no religion there would be one less thing for people to fight over. And, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I am not suggesting that we forcibly eliminate religion.

We need to make distinctions between God, His messenger, and the message He brought. Its like understanding the difference between governments that make the law, the police that enforce it, and the judicial systems that administers. You don't need to believe in God to understand such distinctions.

Sure. American Christians talk about how their politics is based on the bible, but that could also be a perversion of what the bible actually taught. Same deal with Sharia law and the Quran.

That in no way addresses:
I don't understand how you can say "Moral codes are not theological concepts".

Of course I do. I am the Baha'i representative of my cities interfaith council. Mormons play an active role. I do volunteer work at a Christian Medical Centre. I've had great discussions with a couple of the Pentecostal Christians there. A Baha'i friend has been meeting with a JW weekly for bible study for over a year. Admittedly they would both like to convert each other but they get along fine and have great discussions. I've had discussions with adherents of all three groups here on RF.

So, as I implied, no reconciliation of anything above a superficial level.

You might like the following thread that addresses this very point.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/even-if-you-removed-islam-judaism-and-christianity-youd-still-have-fanaticism.210462/.

I might, and then again, I might not. Let's stick to one thread at a time.
Do you agree or disagree with: I have stated that if there were no religion there would be one less thing for people to fight over.

 

[Hawkins]

From what I know the two are completely different. Christianity is all under the assumption that humans are incapable of abiding by laws and in the end need to be saved by Grace. Islam however is still about a set of dogmas the god need humans to abide by. There's no assumption nor solution for humans who failed to abide by.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That in no way addresses:
I don't understand how you can say "Moral codes are not theological concepts".

Moral codes are theological concepts. They are not theological concepts that describe the nature of God.

God in an unknowable essence is a Baha'i theological concept of God.

Jesus is God is a Christian theological concept of God.

God is One and Creator of all is a theological concvept of God common to all the Abrahamic faiths.

Treat others with justice and kindness is a theological concept in all religions to some degree but is not a theological concept that describes God.

So, as I implied, no reconciliation of anything above a superficial level.

What do you consider reconciliation at a deeper level then.

I might, and then again, I might not. Let's stick to one thread at a time.
Do you agree or disagree with: I have stated that if there were no religion there would be one less thing for people to fight over.

People fight over healthcare, education, and government. If we removed healthcare, education, and government there would be anarchy. Just because people fight over something does not man we should abolish it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

From what I know the two are completely different. Christianity is all under the assumption that humans are incapable of abiding by laws and in the end need to be saved by Grace. Islam however is still about a set of dogmas the god need humans to abide by. There's no assumption nor solution for humans who failed to abide by.

At the end of the day are we not all dependant on God's Grace whether we are Muslim or Christian? I think what you are alluding to is the different concepts of salvation between Christianity and Islam. That is certainly an important difference between the two religions. While its possible that one religion is right (Christianity) and the other (Islam) wrong as you suggest its also possible that both are right and both are wrong, is it not?

 

[ecco]

God in an unknowable essence is a Baha'i theological concept of God.

So, you're a fan and follower of an "unknowable essence".

So, as I implied, no reconciliation of anything above a superficial level.

What do you consider reconciliation at a deeper level then.

That's not for me to worry about. I'm not the one believing there can be reconciliation between religious groups. If you accept superficial aspects of reconciliation as amounting to reconciliation, OK. If you are talking about something more substantial, then you are the one who must decide what your goals are.

People fight over healthcare, education, and government. If we removed healthcare, education, and government there would be anarchy. Just because people fight over something does not man we should abolish it.

There ya go. Who said anything about abolishing religion?

I have stated that if there were no religion there would be one less thing for people to fight over. And, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I am not suggesting that we forcibly eliminate religion.