So, they both cancel each other out by the contradictions?

angelo wrote:So, they both cancel each other out by the contradictions?

If only.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

If we see God as a generic concept then the one God between the different religions should make perfect sense, (provided you don't get so specific as to include the Trinity for example).

It does not make perfect sense because deities are very different to every belief system. They have very little in common and some cases are a complete contradiction. To say there is one deity for them all is a complete nonsense. Even its vaguess form. So by saying someone in a belief system worships that deity and someone else in another belief system worships this deity and then saying both deities are the same is almost childish in its rationality.
No two deities are the same not even within the group. All xtian deities are not the same. They may have the same name but that is about it.
Even in the different branches deities to those who worship them means something completely different. The deity is part of the culture of the belief system and seeing that cultures differ therfore the deities differ it cant be any other way.
As I have said already the deity of the pastor in a small Dutch village is not the same as that of the pope. It is not logical. So stop grouping them as xtians that term has no meaning. It is exactly the same for muslims as they are divided just as much as what xtians are and for different subgroups their deity is different to the deity of the other sub group. In the muslim world there are sects that are being prosecuted by other sects. Just look at Iraq.

Everything you have said applies to my second category: the God of Belief, and you have told me nothing new (I did actually go through the thread before posting this). No two deities are the same in that sense, but in the monotheistic world they still, for the most part, refer to the same concept, and I have already given an example of the possible implications.

Have a look at this rather convincing little exposition, where Lee Strobel sets up two stooges to Caner's argument.

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/v ... robelT1056

(2 mins)

My god's better than your god, man.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

If we see God as a generic concept then the one God between the different religions should make perfect sense, (provided you don't get so specific as to include the Trinity for example).

It does not make perfect sense because deities are very different to every belief system. They have very little in common and some cases are a complete contradiction. To say there is one deity for them all is a complete nonsense. Even its vaguess form. So by saying someone in a belief system worships that deity and someone else in another belief system worships this deity and then saying both deities are the same is almost childish in its rationality.
No two deities are the same not even within the group. All xtian deities are not the same. They may have the same name but that is about it.
Even in the different branches deities to those who worship them means something completely different. The deity is part of the culture of the belief system and seeing that cultures differ therfore the deities differ it cant be any other way.
As I have said already the deity of the pastor in a small Dutch village is not the same as that of the pope. It is not logical. So stop grouping them as xtians that term has no meaning. It is exactly the same for muslims as they are divided just as much as what xtians are and for different subgroups their deity is different to the deity of the other sub group. In the muslim world there are sects that are being prosecuted by other sects. Just look at Iraq.

This is sort of like saying, that because I find Richard Dawkins to be an idiot, and you find him to be one of the most intelligent men around, that we believe in two different persons, rather than differing on how we view certain parts of that persons nature.

theidiot wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

If we see God as a generic concept then the one God between the different religions should make perfect sense, (provided you don't get so specific as to include the Trinity for example).

It does not make perfect sense because deities are very different to every belief system. They have very little in common and some cases are a complete contradiction. To say there is one deity for them all is a complete nonsense. Even its vaguess form. So by saying someone in a belief system worships that deity and someone else in another belief system worships this deity and then saying both deities are the same is almost childish in its rationality.
No two deities are the same not even within the group. All xtian deities are not the same. They may have the same name but that is about it.
Even in the different branches deities to those who worship them means something completely different. The deity is part of the culture of the belief system and seeing that cultures differ therfore the deities differ it cant be any other way.
As I have said already the deity of the pastor in a small Dutch village is not the same as that of the pope. It is not logical. So stop grouping them as xtians that term has no meaning. It is exactly the same for muslims as they are divided just as much as what xtians are and for different subgroups their deity is different to the deity of the other sub group. In the muslim world there are sects that are being prosecuted by other sects. Just look at Iraq.

This is sort of like saying, that because I find Richard Dawkins to be an idiot, and you find him to be one of the most intelligent men around, that we believe in two different persons, rather than differing on how we view certain parts of that persons nature.

The difference is that Richard Dawkins is a demonstrably real person. God is not.

Oh so true. Both gods are figments of the imagination.

angelo wrote:Oh so true. Both gods are figments of the imagination.

Gods are as much a figment of the imagination as inferring that that you're a woman by your choice of avatar, or that mindyourmind is from south africa, rather than just an individual who likes their flag better than his own.

But perhaps you're a solipsist and hold that everything and everyone else is a figment of your imagination.

Here's common belief muslims and christians as well as most religions share: an inference of a creator. These may be based on mistaken perceptions of design, but it's no more of a figment of one imagination than inferring that a computer, or a painting is designed.

Mistaken beliefs are not synonymous with figments of imagination.

Isn't the main contradiction that Christians believe JC to be the (son of) god, while for Muslims, he's only a (minor) prophet?

Everything you have said applies to my second category: the God of Belief, and you have told me nothing new (I did actually go through the thread before posting this). No two deities are the same in that sense, but in the monotheistic world they still, for the most part, refer to the same concept, and I have already given an example of the possible implications.

So a concept has become a deity

Deities are not real. There is no proof of their existance. I agree you can have a concept but for every belief system the concept is different. It varies so much that none of the 'concepts' have anything in common.
Even one pastor from a fishing village here as a completely different concept of what a deity is as the next pastor in the village up the road. The strange thing is they all say they have right concept.

Since when do we live in a monotheistic world? Sorry that is very far from truth and once again I am refering to my two pastors from the fishing villages who would state that their belief systems have nothing in common. They may use a similer book which will not be exactly the same but that is as far as it goes I am afraid.

Jesus at least seemed to be a decent and kind person.

Mohamed robbed caravans and molested littler girls.

Tyrannical wrote:Jesus at least seemed to be a decent and kind person.

Mohamed robbed caravans and molested littler girls.

WTF has that got to do with the OP.

Tyrannical wrote:Jesus at least seemed to be a decent and kind person.

Mohamed robbed caravans and molested littler girls.

I;m not so sure about that being the real Jesus - even the jazzed up Gospel superhero was more often than not quite indecent and quite unkind, most unbecoming of God. Or, I suppose, if you compare him to Old Jealous in the OT he may very well be the "decent and kind" one in the family

Scot Dutchy wrote:I agree you can have a concept but for every belief system the concept is different. It varies so much that none of the 'concepts' have anything in common.

That is the point where we differ. The difficulty with purely hypothetical concepts is that they are inherently adjustable (and some have questioned whether my preferred concept qualifies as God at all). But generally speaking, God is seen as a creator, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, eternal, interacts with human kind, judges human kind, and is the ultimate authority over all things. It is very true that each and every one of those can be said to mean different things, but I think the combination of such traits is still sufficient to qualify as a generic concept to which the vast majority of theists adhere. The generic God, as opposed to the Brand name Gods of monotheistic religion, is the key idea I am trying (perhaps badly) to argue for.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Since when do we live in a monotheistic world? Sorry that is very far from truth and once again I am refering to my two pastors from the fishing villages who would state that their belief systems have nothing in common. They may use a similer book which will not be exactly the same but that is as far as it goes I am afraid.

I was referring to the world of the monotheists, people who believe there is one almighty God. I meant no hint in that phrase of a world 'united under the one God.' On the whole, I am not dedicated in any particular way to the idea that everyone worships the same God. The question itself is partly politically motivated. I could toss a coin and argue whichever way it lands. I would like people to gain from this thread, (respectfully not trying to hijack it from its rightful owner) not a conviction one way or the other, but if anything an enhanced awareness of just how many different spins one can put on the question, whether they are agreeable or not. For what it's worth, I think I have.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Deities are not real. There is no proof of their existance.

This keeps coming up, and I would like to point out that if God does exist that changes nothing. We are arguing purely on the basis of what we do know (about religion). I think that gels well with what theidiot has been saying.

nunnington wrote:What is the argument that Christianity and Islam don't worship the same God? The fact that they have some different beliefs doesn't lead to that conclusion - after all, so do Catholics and Baptists.

Christians believe that Jesus is God.

Muslims believe that Jesus was a human prophet.

That's a non-trivial difference.

All religion fatally contradict reality.

Basically...same start concept , different stories and atributes/actions , that is enough to say they don't worship the same being.
Edit , they even got different names don't they ? Yavhé and Allah was it ?

Hang on. 'Allah' is simply the Arabic word for God, and was being used by Christian Arabs before Islam, and still is. I think it is also used by Arabic speaking Jews.

Mohammed took the religion of the Jews and the Christian idea of Jesus and created his own version of a religion out of it. Muslims believe that jesus was a prophet like Mohammed. Basically, it is all the same thing: God, angels (even the same angels) heaven and hell and the history of the OT. What you really have here is a variation on the theme of the mythology of the Near East as it prevailed in the 1st millennium BCE and the first millennium CE. It was just an evolution of the story that came from the Babylonian exile and that became the two branches after the supposed Resurrection. Some story, just different takes on it.

Agrippina wrote:Mohammed took the religion of the Jews and the Christian idea of Jesus and created his own version of a religion out of it. Muslims believe that jesus was a prophet like Mohammed. Basically, it is all the same thing: God, angels (even the same angels) heaven and hell and the history of the OT. What you really have here is a variation on the theme of the mythology of the Near East as it prevailed in the 1st millennium BCE and the first millennium CE. It was just an evolution of the story that came from the Babylonian exile and that became the two branches after the supposed Resurrection. Some story, just different takes on it.

But doesn't that create a different problem?

Assuming it is all the same god, then we have to accept that this god revealed himself to the Jews, then changed his mind and fucked over the Jews by giving them Jesus to help the Gentiles, and then a few centuries changed his mind and handed Gawd 2.0 to Mo, in a cave. From the um, progression, of these three religions, and in their own words, does it not follow that it CANNOT be the same god?