# Do Christians and muslims worship the same God?



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 17, 2015)

A professor at Wheaton College, a private Evangelical Protestant college, was suspended for saying that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.


> I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.



 She also wore a hijab. 

It's interesting as I never heard that there was a questions regarding whether or not Christians and Muslims worshipped the same God. I've heard people of various religions claiming that other religions are wrong, and that they are worshipping God incorrectly, or whatever, but not that they worshipped another God.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 17, 2015)

Islam is one of the Abrahamic faiths.  As such, most people who teach religion or theology would probably assert that Muslims believe in the same deity as do Jews and Christians, and just call Him by a different name.

To say otherwise is...well...extremely rare.  My gut feeling is that those who assert that position are found only among the most conservative Islamic, Jewish or Christian faith traditions.


----------



## Istbor (Dec 17, 2015)

I feel it varies from person to person and erm "holy-person" to "holy-person". Some can wrap their head around the possibility that all religious folk are worshiping the same entity, but just go about it differently. I know a few from my Catholic Confirmation classes that would outright state that other religions are wrong and that they pray to an empty sky. 

I trend to the more compassionate of the two myself. 

I have no problem at all with her saying that sort of thing.  If it were to ever catch on, the world may end up as a much safer and cooperative place.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 17, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Islam is one of the Abrahamic faiths.  As such, most people who teach religion or theology would probably assert that Muslims believe in the same deity as do Jews and Christians, and just call Him by a different name.
> .




not even a different name.  The Arabic Allah is just a dialect variation of Elah (the word as pronounced in Aramaic) and Arabic speaking Christians call Him Allah too

Christians worship Allah just like Jews and Muslims


----------



## Mallus (Dec 17, 2015)

What Danny said. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three Abrahamic faiths; direct descendants of one another. Each positing the same transcendent monotheistic god.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 17, 2015)

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all started in the same small area of the world, from the same root faith, with many of the same root stories. Many practices, like dietary proscriptions, were also initially the same. As the professor said, as also stated in The Quran, all are "People of the Book."

But I'll just stick to my own beliefs that if there is a God, it's beyond arrogant to think that a mere mortal could read his mind.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 17, 2015)

Well, they don't worship Odin, or Set, or Thor, or Zeus, or Paladine, or Pelor, so I guess so.


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 17, 2015)

The statement she made also implies a belief in evolution and gives ethos to the Pope.  Neither of those comments will help her popularity at Wheaton.

I also don't think the consequences of her statement should surprise her/anyone.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 17, 2015)

Islamophobes are going to be islamophobic. No surprise there.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 17, 2015)

Brand confusion is a sin.


----------



## ccs (Dec 17, 2015)

I've always taken it for granted that we (Christians/Jews/Muslims) are all worshiping the same diety.  Obviously since we're all doing it differently someone might not be doing it right. Or, maybe we're all doing it correctly (or at least correctly enough?).  I don't know.  But I figure I'll find out one day....


----------



## Morrus (Dec 17, 2015)

Deset Gled said:


> I also don't think the consequences of her statement should surprise her/anyone.




Getting suspended for your religious beliefs is to be expected?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 17, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Getting suspended for your religious beliefs is to be expected?




In a private religious college, I suppose so.


----------



## Cristian Andreu (Dec 18, 2015)

At least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Muslims worship the same God we Christians do.

Catechism #841 goes as follows:

_"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."_


----------



## Eltab (Dec 18, 2015)

In fact (and despite the comments above), NO the three Monotheistic Faiths do not worship the same Being.  
I don't know if there is an equivalent of C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" for the other two faiths.  I am sure that there are analogues for Luther's "Small Catechism".  (Yes I'm sending you to better theologians than I.)
Compare and contrast the attributes of the Supreme Being as expressed in the unique sections of their Holy Books.

It is possible that (1) the Being who called Abraham "My friend" is the same Being (2) who Jesus of Nazareth described as his "heavenly Father".  But it is not possible that same Being (3) sent a messenger to reveal Himself to Muhammad; that Being is described differently.

The professor's biggest problem, were I on the review committee, is that she speaks in the manner of those who endorse the Big Warm Lovable Fuzzball in the Sky.  I expect her to know better and speak more precisely than that.


----------



## Eltab (Dec 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Getting suspended for your religious beliefs is to be expected?



When her job is to describe her Church's beliefs and doctrines to others, and she - publicly - offers fuzzy good-feelings instead, yes it is time for a review.  
It may be that her thought has evolved to the point where a different job is in order.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 18, 2015)

Eltab said:


> Compare and contrast the attributes of the Supreme Being as expressed in the unique sections of their Holy Books.




Because a supreme, omnipotent being is in any way limited by what appears in mundane, Earthly books?


----------



## GishBandit (Dec 18, 2015)

Most religions in some form or fashion will argue that they worship God the Lord Creator.   They may say they call him a different name or have a belief that the way they were taught to worship the Lord Creator is the only way to worship God.  To look at a non judgmental view on how most religions worship the lord Creator is see how these religions practice the idea of going to heaven.

Whether Islam, Wicca, Morman or most religions in the world the idea is to practice doing more good than bad.  Most religions you have to work in order to get through the gates or doors into heaven.  I believe Jehovah's Witness have to go door knocking as part of their dogma for getting into heaven.  I do not want to get into a discussion on how it is done, stating working to go to heaven is what I'm trying to get at.

Christian means "Christ like" or to be just like Christ.  It has nothing to do with being good or having a good personality.

Catholicism or protestants from what I know look back to the cross of 2,000 years ago.  Belief in the idea of the resurrection of Jesus and all the work is done for you.  The work you do is for a reward and not to get into heaven.  In other words there is going to be a certain kind of nobility for those that believe in Jesus in heaven.  Once a prayer is done telling God you believe in Jesus resurrecting on the cross, that is all you have to do to get into heaven.  

There are caveats to what I have said, but to look at the bare bones of getting into heaven from most of the worlds religions, that is it in a nutshell.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 18, 2015)

Eltab said:


> In fact (and despite the comments above), NO the three Monotheistic Faiths do not worship the same Being.
> I don't know if there is an equivalent of C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" for the other two faiths.  I am sure that there are analogues for Luther's "Small Catechism".  (Yes I'm sending you to better theologians than I.)
> Compare and contrast the attributes of the Supreme Being as expressed in the unique sections of their Holy Books.
> 
> ...




And yet Islam, itself, disagrees with you.


----------



## Cristian Andreu (Dec 18, 2015)

GishBandit said:


> Catholicism or protestants from what I know look back to the cross of 2,000 years ago.  Belief in the idea of the resurrection of Jesus and all the work is done for you.  The work you do is for a reward and not to get into heaven.  In other words there is going to be a certain kind of nobility for those that believe in Jesus in heaven.  Once a prayer is done telling God you believe in Jesus resurrecting on the cross, that is all you have to do to get into heaven.




That's "Sola Fide" - "By/Through Faith Alone". It's a predominantly Protestant belief (I think there are some Protestant denominations that eschew it, though. Can't remember which ones); neither Catholics nor Orthodox ascribe to it, believing instead that salvation requires inner qualities (Faith and Grace) as well as external qualities (Good Works, ie acts that make Faith manifest and which are empowered by Grace). 

If memory serves (and my apologies to Protestants if I'm misremembering here), the core of the Protestant belief of the Sola Fide is that, since humanity became "entirely depraved" (ie, fell completely into sin), it doesn't matter what a person does, salvation is denied. However, even despite that God granted humanity salvation and thus it is guaranteed if one believes,

Although similar ideas existed long before the Middle Ages, it was Martin Luther who structured the concept.


----------



## delericho (Dec 18, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Islam is one of the Abrahamic faiths.  As such, most people who teach religion or theology would probably assert that Muslims believe in the same deity as do Jews and Christians, and just call Him by a different name.




And yet the traits ascribed to God by the three are quite different. In particular, I'm thinking of the Christian formulation of the Trinity.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> And yet the traits ascribed to God by the three are quite different. In particular, I'm thinking of the Christian formulation of the Trinity.




Not all Christian denominations have the same belief in the triune nature of God- see Unitarians:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

Other nontrinitarian Christian denominations include Oneness Pentecostalism, United Pentecostal Church International and the True Jesus Church.


----------



## delericho (Dec 18, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not all Christian denominations have the same belief in the triune nature of God- see Unitarians:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
> 
> Other nontrinitarian Christian denominations include Oneness Pentecostalism, United Pentecostal Church International and the True Jesus Church.




Interesting.

But it's at least valid to ask if even they are following _the same_ god as the trinitarian denominations - there comes a point where the notion of God is sufficiently different to dispute that. Sky blue and midnight blue are both types of blue, but they're not the same.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 18, 2015)

Eltab said:


> It is possible that (1) the Being who called Abraham "My friend" is the same Being (2) who Jesus of Nazareth described as his "heavenly Father".  But it is not possible that same Being (3) sent a messenger to reveal Himself to Muhammad; that Being is described differently..




I'm going to have to ask you to give examples (sourced from said Holy Books) of what these apparent differences in description are. I'm not aware of any fundamental inherent differences


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> Interesting.
> 
> But it's at least valid to ask if even they are following _the same_ god as the trinitarian denominations - there comes a point where the notion of God is sufficiently different to dispute that. Sky blue and midnight blue are both types of blue, but they're not the same.




Studies have shown that perception of colour is very much culturally determined and not in fact an inherent quality. Perceptions of Blueness might be entirely different depending on the viewer, so Sky Blue and Midnight Blue might look indistinguishable from each other or any variation from grey to purple or even green.

To fit the analogy the perception of God by a particular culture or denomination might be different but that does not necessarily follow that the god itself is different 

Also every Trinitanarian sects identify God the Father who Jews and Muslims would identify as their God, Trinitanarians just add God the Sona nd the Holy Spirit as equally God


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> Interesting.
> 
> But it's at least valid to ask if even they are following _the same_ god as the trinitarian denominations - there comes a point where the notion of God is sufficiently different to dispute that. Sky blue and midnight blue are both types of blue, but they're not the same.




The faiths each have distinguishable conceptions as to the NATURE of the divine creator- and in one sense, Christianity is the odd one out- So, each faith has grounds to claim the others are not following the same divine being.

But since they each claim Abraham as a founder/prophet...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 18, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> To fit the analogy the perception of God by a particular culture or denomination might be different but that does not necessarily follow that the god itself is different




See also the story of the Blind Men Describing An Elephant.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant


----------



## delericho (Dec 18, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> Studies have shown that perception of colour is very much culturally determined and not in fact an inherent quality.




Frequencies of light are objective and measurable. Sky blue and midnight blue are not the same, even if local conditions mean that they can't always be told apart.

Edit to expand:

On the one hand, we have two things (sky blue, midnight blue) that are clearly similar (both shades of blue) and that can't always be told apart, but that we know are not the same thing.

On the other hand, we have two things that are clearly similar (God) but which have some differences in definition (trinitarian vs unitarian). Are these the same thing, distinguished only because of difference in perception, or are these different things because the definitions are different?

I don't have an answer to that. All I'm saying is that it's valid to ask the question.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> Frequencies of light are objective and measurable.




Oh, boy, you picked the *wrong* analogy 

Neither "sky blue" nor "midnight blue" is fully characterized by a single wavelength of light.  Both are names for *human experiences*, not single wavelengths of light.  Midnight blue, for example, is actually more about intensity than wavelength, it is about the *lack* of light.  If it is mostly dark, and kinda bluish, you'll call it midnight blue.

Moreover, the human eye is a strange thing.  It isn't like it has receptors for each and every wavelength.  We typically have three types of photo receptors, which each respond differently to lights of different wavelengths - one is most sensitive in the blue range, one in green, and one in yellow.  Color perception starts by comparing the relative strengths of responses of the three types.  It is like having three variables (S, M, and L), and any responses that give the same set of values of S, M, and L, will look like the same color, to us.  And there are different ways to achieve that.  So, there are many different sets of photons that we would call "sky blue", rather than one wavelength we can unambiguously call "sky blue".  



> On the other hand, we have two things that are clearly similar (God) but which have some differences in definition (trinitarian vs unitarian).




Um, well, that one is sticky - we have to things that appear similar to an outsider, but which are *reported* as having different qualities (like trinitarian vs unitarian).  Reports cannot be naively taken to be definitions.



> Are these the same thing, distinguished only because of difference in perception, or are these different things because the definitions are different?
> 
> I don't have an answer to that. All I'm saying is that it's valid to ask the question.




Is it valid to ask?  I mean, the answers are generally non-falsifiable, so what's the point of asking, other than to note that we can't be sure of the answer?


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 18, 2015)

Was going to reply but Morris beat me to it.

The physics of light and color as arising as a perception of wavelength is very different than the perception of color.  The whole chain is fascinating (Feynman has a chapter on it in his lectures) but the end result is a big separation.

Out of all of it there are interesting and very clear results.  Folks (including well practiced artists) do not has a precise sense of color.  Perfect hue does not exist as an analogue to perfect pitch.  Color perception is very sensitive to context, meaning, light conditions and adjacency.

See, for example "Interaction of Color", 1963, Yale University, by Josef Albers.

Also, http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_36.html

Thx!
TomB


----------



## delericho (Dec 18, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Oh, boy, you picked the *wrong* analogy
> 
> Neither "sky blue" nor "midnight blue" is fully characterized by a single wavelength of light.  Both are names for *human experiences*




Yes, and they're given different names because they're _different_ human experiences. And while a person may not be able to tell the difference for various reasons (low light, a defect in the eye, whatever), when they're measured objectively it will be found that, sure enough, there are differences.

Is "different things are different" really a controversial statement around here?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yes, and they're given different names because they're _different_ human experiences. And while a person may not be able to tell the difference for various reasons (low light, a defect in the eye, whatever), when they're measured objectively it will be found that, sure enough, there are differences.
> 
> Is "different things are different" really a controversial statement around here?




See the previous comment about "three blind men describing and elephant" for your answer to that


----------



## Staffan (Dec 18, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Out of all of it there are interesting and very clear results.  Folks (including well practiced artists) do not has a precise sense of color.  Perfect tone does not exist as an analogue to perfect pitch.  Color perception is very sensitive to context, meaning, light conditions and adjacency.



Or, in the "a picture is worth more than a thousand words" category:


----------



## delericho (Dec 18, 2015)

- deleted -


----------



## delericho (Dec 18, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> See the previous comment about "three blind men describing and elephant" for your answer to that




Aye. I know we've had some ridiculous arguments on here, but I really didn't expect to have so much dispute over a statement that was little more than: this and this are different! 

I mean, had I known I would have gone with shades of green - that's a much more controversial colour.


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Getting suspended for your religious beliefs is to be expected?




In general, no.  But at Wheaton College, yes.

Professors at Wheaton are required to reaffirm, in writing, their conformance to the school's Statement of Faith.  They literally have to sign a contract on a yearly basis that says their religious beliefs are in line with the school's beliefs.

I'm not saying I agree with this practice.  But anyone who works there has to be aware that being fired is an completely expected consequence of publicly making statements that go against the school's doctrine in even the slightest way.


----------



## Eltab (Dec 18, 2015)

Cristian Andreu said:


> If memory serves (and my apologies to Protestants if I'm misremembering here), the core of the Protestant belief of the Sola Fide is that, since humanity became "entirely depraved" (ie, fell completely into sin), it doesn't matter what a person does, salvation is denied.



This sounds more like Calvin than Luther.  But they both could read each others' works.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yes, and they're given different names because they're _different_ human experiences. And while a person may not be able to tell the difference for various reasons (low light, a defect in the eye, whatever), when they're measured objectively it will be found that, sure enough, there are differences.
> 
> Is "different things are different" really a controversial statement around here?




No, you're missing the point - which is that *same* things are different.  Or, more to the point, the fact that they are different doesn't mean they aren't the same for our intents and purposes.  There are levels of differences that *don't matter* and will mislead you into thinking that difference is meaningful, when it isn't.

Think, for example, human skin color.  We have groups of people who are, to appearances and measure of the wavelengths of light that come off their skins, different.  But, that difference is not meaningful.  They are still part of the same species, and have few other differences that are meaningful.  We can measure a difference, but they are still part of the same thing!

This can go especially for theology, where you can have the blind men and the elephant thing going on - just because we can point to differences, doesn't mean we aren't talking about the same thing.


----------



## Dog Moon (Dec 19, 2015)

As far as I know, they all worship the same God.  The Prophets are generally sent down to guide people who have gone astray because if they hadn't gone astray, there would be no reason to send a Prophet.

Jesus was sent down to guide the people, but the Jews refused him.  The Christians decided to follow the way of Jesus, following the right path to worship, except they then decided to give Jesus the status of being the son of God and also created the Trinity.  This brought them far from the direction that God wanted for them, as can be seen when God sent:

Muhammad, the final Prophet to guide them back from the wrong path.  The Christians were committing the most grieveous of sins: shirk (taking other Gods besides God), by raising up Jesus to a Godhood status and God did not appreciate this.  He sent Muhammad to guide people in the correct way of worship, thus creating Islam.  Muslims believe that Jesus was not the son of God, but was just a Prophet, like Muhammad and all the others who came before.

I can't recall any quotes from the Quran off hand regarding Judaism, but I know there are many times when the Quran speaks of God sending Jesus to the people, how the Christians made his Prophet to become his son, which angered God. 

So in the perception of Islam, I believe they all worship the same God, but likely neither of the other two Religions would believe the same thing.  If they did, then it would be easier to accept the two Prophets Jesus and Muhammad and there wouldn't be a split in the Religions.  After all, if Christians believed that the Muslim God was also their Christian God, then they would need to accept the Prophet Muhammad as another of his Prophets and that the Quran is the word of God and if they did that then they probably would be Muslims and not Christians.


----------



## delericho (Dec 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> No, you're missing the point - which is that *same* things are different.  Or, more to the point, the fact that they are different doesn't mean they aren't the same for our intents and purposes.  There are levels of differences that *don't matter* and will mislead you into thinking that difference is meaningful, when it isn't.




I haven't missed that point - it's obvious. But what's _also_ true is that sometimes differences, and even small differences, can matter a great deal.

Context is very important in this: On the day we picked up the bridesmaids' dresses for our wedding, the differences between shades of blue could have mattered a great deal.

What isn't clear is whether the differences matter in _this_ case.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 19, 2015)

The approaches seem to be working from a sense of there being a concrete deity, or deities, which can be compared for identity.

Another approach looks at God as an abstract construct which is composed from various followers beliefs.  Then individual beliefs will need to be compared.  As well, church cannon is perhaps not the best guide, if it doesn't match commonly held beliefs.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> Aye. I know we've had some ridiculous arguments on here, but I really didn't expect to have so much dispute over a statement that was little more than: this and this are different!




Because that's not what we are arguing.  We are not arguing so much about the differences of blues - we arguing about  the *analogy*, which you framed in color terms, so we are trying to keep it in those terms.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> What isn't clear is whether the differences matter in _this_ case.




If we take God to be an actual entity and that the descriptions are for the most part accurate, if not complete, then any assertion of which differences matter for telling us whether the Abrahamic religions are actually following the same entity are non-falsifiable.  It is not clear whether the differences matter, and it will never be clear.

If we take God to be a construct of human psychology and mythology, then we can quibble over details on that basis.

But, in either case, the texts of Islam admit they are the same entity, and the dogma of the largest single Christian denomination also says they are.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yes, and they're given different names because they're _different_ human experiences. And while a person may not be able to tell the difference for various reasons (low light, a defect in the eye, whatever), when they're measured objectively it will be found that, sure enough, there are differences.
> 
> Is "different things are different" really a controversial statement around here?




The quibble was with the analogy, which was poorly chosen: carefully placed, sky blue and midnight blue may be indistinguishable.  The problem with using color as the analogy is whether the subject is the color that a physicist would measure (wavelengths) or color as perceived by a person, which is understood differently.  Artists will deal more in the second.  Having looking into the physics of color, and having done a bit of miniature painting, the physical understanding was less practically useful.

Edit: take a look at the cover image:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=0300018460&cm_sp=mbc-_-0300018460-_-all

Thx!
TomB


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Dec 19, 2015)

All the Abrahamic religions worship the same deity.  There has never been any doubt about that.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2015)

pickin_grinnin said:


> There has never been any doubt about that.




With respect, that's not true.  Early Christianity doubted, and rejected, the idea that the followers of Muhammad were following the same god as they.  The current Catholic catechism dates only to 1964, IIRC.

And the Jews will still tell you that the Christian God is a false one, as YHWH is indivisible, not a trinity...

There's been lots of doubt about that.


----------



## Riley (Dec 19, 2015)

I'm not sure that any two people are worshipping the same god - let alone any two sects or two religious groups. 

People seem to vary so widely in their definitions of what their god is, wants, and does - and objective evidence to clarify the matter is desperately lacking.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Dec 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> With respect, that's not true.  Early Christianity doubted, and rejected, the idea that the followers of Muhammad were following the same god as they.  The current Catholic catechism dates only to 1964, IIRC.
> 
> And the Jews will still tell you that the Christian God is a false one, as YHWH is indivisible, not a trinity...
> 
> There's been lots of doubt about that.




You're right, I should have worded that differently.

There has never been any real doubt about it among the vast majority of people who are knowledgeable about the history of religions and theologies.  Religious insiders who have vested interests in proving the contrary don't really count because they are not objective.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Dec 19, 2015)

Riley said:


> I'm not sure that any two people are worshipping the same god - let alone any two sects or two religious groups.
> 
> People seem to vary so widely in their definitions of what their god is, wants, and does - and objective evidence to clarify the matter is desperately lacking.




That has more to do with personal interpretation of the deity than historical development of belief in it.

YHVY, God, Allah, etc. all derive in part from the same root deities from earlier pantheonic religions (El and Yahweh).  Aspects of them were combined to form a deity in monotheistic Judaism.  Christianity and Islam sprang from those same roots, much later on.  Just as Zeus and Jupiter are essentially the same deity, so are YHVH, God, and Allah.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> With respect, that's not true.  Early Christianity doubted, and rejected, the idea that the followers of Muhammad were following the same god as they.  The current Catholic catechism dates only to 1964, IIRC.
> 
> And the Jews will still tell you that the Christian God is a false one, as YHWH is indivisible, not a trinity...
> 
> There's been lots of doubt about that.




I can deny my parentage. Hell, I'd like to. That doesn't change my source. As I said previously the three fork from the same original stories. They differ in interpretation, not source.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I can deny my parentage. Hell, I'd like to. That doesn't change my source.  As I said previously the three fork from the same original stories. They differ in interpretation, not source.




That's taking it as a matter of history and mythology, first of all.

But, even then, consider this - we are not discussing whether they all come from the same root.  We are discussing if the gods are the *same entity* in some sense.

Using your own analogy - you are not the same individual as your mother, are you?  No, you are not.  You are a mixture of your mother, and your father, and your upbringing, that lead to a completely separate individual - you may share some similarities to your ancestors, but you are not the same person.  So, apply that to the Abramamic god(s).  The Judaic god gets reformed into the Christian god.  As myth and literature, Islam borrows from Judaism directly, and from Christianity, and from Persian and Arabic mythology, and changes it all and wraps it up together to get Allah.

Now, at any of these steps, as mythology and literature go, we might call the god the same entity, or we might say that the changes at one or more of those steps yields an entity that is sufficiently different from what came before as to not be the same thing.

As a pretty direct analogy, we will take the Norse god Odin.

The Odin most of us know is a war god, king of the Norse pantheon, called "All-father".  He's the Big Cheese of the pantheon.  But, note that the Norse didn't always have him that way.  The war-god Odin is the god of the late, Viking-Norse.  To the earlier Norse, before the Viking period, however, his brother Tyr was the king of the pantheon - and Tyr was more a god of justice than war (not strange, for a people who had not yet turned to aggression and raiding as a notable economic pillar).  Odin had a role in the stories more equivalent to Hermes or Mercury - the messenger deity, rather than the king and war god.

If we told a story of the old Odin, without naming him, you probably wouldn't recognize him.  The Odin we are most familiar with has the same name, and is said to have some of the same history, but some events previously ascribed to Tyr and others then gets ascribed to Odin, and he was transformed enough that he even takes a different role in the mythology - it would be reasonable to say that the older version really was a different entity by the same name.  

And all that is setting aside the more philosophical and  theological question - say one or more of the gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam *actually exist*.  Are they actually all worshiping the same being?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 19, 2015)

It's more like a modern story taking it's cues from an ancient story, but people who read the modern version not knowing about the original when they read the new one. Whether or not they know where the inspiration came from is meaningless in the context of its actual origin.

They all worship the same God; just in different ways.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> It's more like a modern story taking it's cues from an ancient story, but people who read the modern version not knowing about the original when they read the new one. Whether or not they know where the inspiration came from is meaningless in the context of its actual origin.
> 
> They all worship the same God; just in different ways.




I think that's a bit of a reductionist way to think of it.  By that logic, they *really* all worship Ra, but don't realize it.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I think that's a bit of a reductionist way to think of it.  By that logic, they *really* all worship Ra, but don't realize it.




Well that route goes more into the death and resurrection thing.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> That's taking it as a matter of history and mythology, first of all.
> 
> But, even then, consider this - we are not discussing whether they all come from the same root.  We are discussing if the gods are the *same entity* in some sense.




I'm not sure why there's much discussion. Each newer follow-on to the Abrahamic tradition has been pretty clear that they're worshipping the same god as the guys ahead of them. It's the old geezers who don't like change yelling at the kids to get off the lawn who deny it and they really don't get a definitive say in the matter when their descendent say they're worshipping the same god, but a bit differently.


----------



## Displacer Kitten (Dec 20, 2015)

Yes, but they worship him differently. Historically, Islam has been accepting of Christianity and other monotheistic religions, but for many groups that is not the case today. Christianity has not been accepting of Islam until recently, and even now many Christians and Christian groups are not.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 20, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yes, and they're given different names because they're _different_ human experiences. And while a person may not be able to tell the difference for various reasons (low light, a defect in the eye, whatever), when they're measured objectively it will be found that, sure enough, there are differences.
> 
> Is "different things are different" really a controversial statement around here?




Green lights at stop lights are called blue lights in Japan. Is the "go" light green or blue?  It is the same light.


----------



## delericho (Dec 20, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Green lights at stop lights are called blue lights in Japan. Is the "go" light green or blue?  It is the same light.




As far as I can tell, that's an artefact of the development of the language, and not an inability to distinguish the two colours - colour-blindness appears to be no more prevalent in Japan than elsewhere.

And that actually goes  to support the point I made all those pages ago: although a quirk of language may lead to two different things being given the same label, that doesn't make those two things the same. The "blue light" in Japanese traffic lights, removed from the context of a traffic light, is green.

By the same token, a trinitarian and a unitarian both put the same label on the being that they worship (God). But if the traits that they ascribe to that being are significantly different, there comes a point at which it's hard to say it's the same being.

A group playing 3e and a group playing 4e are both playing D&D. But they're not playing the _same_ D&D. Are they playing the same game?

What about a group playing d6 Star Wars, one playing d20 Star Wars, and one playing FFG Star Wars? They're all playing Star Wars, clearly, but are _they_ playing the same game?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Well that route goes more into the death and resurrection thing.




Yes.  Those are certainly aspects of the Christian God.  And you say they all worship the same god.  Therefore...

That's what I mean by it being reductionist.  You are reducing a possibly complex problem into only one axis of simplified logic.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 20, 2015)

delericho said:


> As far as I can tell, that's an artefact of the development of the language, and not an inability to distinguish the two colours - colour-blindness appears to be no more prevalent in Japan than elsewhere.
> 
> And that actually goes  to support the point I made all those pages ago: although a quirk of language may lead to two different things being given the same label, that doesn't make those two things the same. The "blue light" in Japanese traffic lights, removed from the context of a traffic light, is green.



Except it actually _does_ affect people's perceptions. People have made experiments with some tribes that use different "base" colors in their language, so they draw their conceptual lines between colors in different places. That makes it easy for them to distinguish some shades that, to us, are very hard to tell apart, but it makes it hard for them to tell others apart that are completely different for us.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2015)

delericho said:


> As far as I can tell, that's an artefact of the development of the language, and not an inability to distinguish the two colours - colour-blindness appears to be no more prevalent in Japan than elsewhere.




It isn't that simple.  For example, how many bands of colors are there in a rainbow?  The answer to that question depends upon your language.  Your eye may not be different from a person who speaks another language, and you both can actually discern about a million colors.  But, you will still perceive the rainbow in bands of colors, and what those bands are depends in large part on your native language and its words for color.

So, now we have a problem when all we have is reports of a phenomenon.  We know that people with different perspectives will see different things, and report different things.  Sometimes, they will be looking at the same reality, and reporting different things.  Sometimes they will be seeing different realities or phenomena, and reporting different things.  And, we can't tell the two cases apart.

Now, for light, we have the recourse of stepping back and saying that it's all really electromagnetic radiation, and that the structures described in the rainbow are an artifact of language and perception, and have no reality - that is still oversimplified, because such perceptions have cultural impacts, but let's go with it for now.  We don't have that for God.  Even if we are looking at it all as merely historical mythology, the amount of cultural mixing and change going on leaves us with no clear and objective reality to fall back to like we do with light.

It comes down to a question that gets asked in other forms in other places:  What does it mean to have an identity?  How much change does a person (or a god) have to undergo before we recognize that we are not really talking about he same person any more?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  Those are certainly aspects of the Christian God.  And you say they all worship the same god.  Therefore...
> 
> That's what I mean by it being reductionist.  You are reducing a possibly complex problem into only one axis of simplified logic.




As Christianity grew it adopted aspects of other religions, I would say in an effort to be more palatable to local populations. That also doesn't change its origins.


----------



## delericho (Dec 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It comes down to a question that gets asked in other forms in other places:  What does it mean to have an identity?  How much change does a person (or a god) have to undergo before we recognize that we are not really talking about he same person any more?




Which is _exactly_ the point I've been trying to make:



delericho said:


> By the same token, a trinitarian and a unitarian both put the same label on the being that they worship (God). But if the traits that they ascribe to that being are significantly different, there comes a point at which it's hard to say it's the same being.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 20, 2015)

delericho said:


> By the same token, a trinitarian and a unitarian both put the same label on the being that they worship (God). But if the traits that they ascribe to that being are significantly different, there comes a point at which it's hard to say it's the same being.




As I quipped earlier, that is one thing that means most Christians would be the actual odd man out in this discussion- Islam and Judaism, at least, don't have trinitarianism in their theology.

But even so, one could ascribe traits to a being and simply be incorrect, so still talking about the same being.

If 2/3 of people think Steve is a self-taught computer programmer, and 1/3 think he's Electrical Engineer with an MIT degree, when it is revealed that the latter is the case, everyone could still be talking about the same guy if they're all talking about the guy who lives at the house on 1122 Boogie Woogie Avenue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It comes down to a question that gets asked in other forms in other places:  What does it mean to have an identity?  How much change does a person (or a god) have to undergo before we recognize that we are not really talking about he same person any more?



The Ship of Theseus question, in living form.

Well, I still think of my 6mo old self as "me", but I'm clearly different than I was back then.  And the "me" that I will be 15 seconds before I die will also be "me"...and who knows what that iteration of myself will be like?


----------



## delericho (Dec 20, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But even so, one could ascribe traits to a being and simply be incorrect, so still talking about the same being.




Absolutely. I'm not claiming they're _not_ the same being, just that we can't be certain they _are_. We could have three blind men describing an elephant, or we could have three blind men describing three elephants.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 20, 2015)

I gotta ask: How does the answer to this question help us?  What utility is there in the answer?

Also, don't all the Abrahamic faiths have as a core belief that the is only one God?  Then either, the several faiths worship the same God, or, several of the faiths have empty beliefs.

I'm more interested in a slightly different questions:  Do the several Abrahamic faiths believe, either as canon, or as a commonly held belief (I'm presenting those as distinct questions) that they believe in the same God?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Morrus (Dec 20, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I gotta ask: How does the answer to this question help us?  What utility is there in the answer?




Curiosity and learning does not require utility. It can exist for its own sake. Knowledge has a value all of its own.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 20, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Curiosity and learning does not require utility. It can exist for its own sake. Knowledge has a value all of its own.




Sure, sure.  But in this case, I'm finding the question really really thin.  What it's teaching me is that there are a lot of nearby questions which are a lot more interesting.

YMMV, of course.

Thx!.
TomB


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 20, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I gotta ask: How does the answer to this question help us?  What utility is there in the answer?
> 
> Also, don't all the Abrahamic faiths have as a core belief that the is only one God?  Then either, the several faiths worship the same God, or, several of the faiths have empty beliefs.
> 
> ...




Knowledge and understand always have the potential for utility, whether it is ever realized or not.

Specifically, in Islam, followers of Judaism and Christianity are referred to as "people of the book"; essentially people who follow the same teachings, but interpret them incorrectly. They are not necessarily denied salvation.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 20, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I'm more interested in a slightly different questions:  Do the several Abrahamic faiths believe, either as canon, or as a commonly held belief (I'm presenting those as distinct questions) that they believe in the same God?



It is definitely canon for Islam that Jews and Christians believe in the same God, except they got a bunch of stuff wrong. They basically see themselves as Monotheism v3.0.

It is currently the opinion of the Catholic Church that Muslims believe in the same God they do, except they're getting a bunch of stuff wrong. They also hold that Jews believe in the same God they do, but now God has changed his mind on some things and the Jews refuse to acknowledge that.

I'm not sure how Judaism and other Christian churches see things. It probably varies a bunch.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 20, 2015)

delericho said:


> As far as I can tell, that's an artefact of the development of the language, and not an inability to distinguish the two colours - colour-blindness appears to be no more prevalent in Japan than elsewhere.
> 
> And that actually goes  to support the point I made all those pages ago: although a quirk of language may lead to two different things being given the same label, that doesn't make those two things the same. The "blue light" in Japanese traffic lights, removed from the context of a traffic light, is green.
> 
> ...




No, it really isn't.  It's blue because they say it's blue.  Blueness is not an inherent quality.  It's only green because you grew up calling it green.  Has nothing to do with color blindness at all.  It's not like there's some mistranslation going one.  It's _aka shinto_ red light, _kiiro shinto_ yellow light, _ao shingo_ blue light.

And, if you look at a new green light, one with LED's, it looks pretty darn blue.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 21, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I gotta ask: How does the answer to this question help us?  What utility is there in the answer?
> 
> Also, don't all the Abrahamic faiths have as a core belief that the is only one God?  Then either, the several faiths worship the same God, or, several of the faiths have empty beliefs.
> 
> ...




I saw some stuff about this very question the other day. The hard-line Protestant answer is, apparently, heck no. The addition of Jesus forms the triune God (that crucial bit where Jesus is both Jesus and God at the same time, along with the Holy Ghost) that is quite a bit different from God 1.0.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 21, 2015)

Staffan said:


> It is definitely canon for Islam that Jews and Christians believe in the same God, except they got a bunch of stuff wrong. They basically see themselves as Monotheism v3.0.
> 
> It is currently the opinion of the Catholic Church that Muslims believe in the same God they do, except they're getting a bunch of stuff wrong. They also hold that Jews believe in the same God they do, but now God has changed his mind on some things and the Jews refuse to acknowledge that.
> 
> I'm not sure how Judaism and other Christian churches see things. It probably varies a bunch.




Thanks!

For the other half of the question: Do you think that everyday members of the several faiths think that they worship the same God as the other faiths?

Also: (This may seem too twisty, but bear with it.)  Do any of the faiths think that the _other_ faiths are worshiping the God that the _other_ faiths think that they are worshiping?  That is, does each faith consider that the God, as envisioned by the other faith, exists?

When does this all fall into semantic goo?  If I imagine a God that provides salvation through faith, and you imagine a god that requires good works to go along with faith, but otherwise the gods that we imagine are the same, are we worshiping the same god?  Does it matter?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Hussar (Dec 21, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Thanks!
> 
> For the other half of the question: Do you think that everyday members of the several faiths think that they worship the same God as the other faiths?




Most of the time I would say yes they do. It's somewhat an outlier to say that the three Book Faith's are worshipping a different God


> Also: (This may seem too twisty, but bear with it.)  Do any of the faiths think that the _other_ faiths are worshiping the God that the _other_ faiths think that they are worshiping?  That is, does each faith consider that the God, as envisioned by the other faith, exists?
> 
> When does this all fall into semantic goo?  If I imagine a God that provides salvation through faith, and you imagine a god that requires good works to go along with faith, but otherwise the gods that we imagine are the same, are we worshiping the same god?  Does it matter?
> 
> ...




Well, it matters to those that think their particular God is the right one. For the most part though, no this isn't really a major bone of contention. 

There are all sorts of things that are major issues though.


----------



## delericho (Dec 21, 2015)

Hussar said:


> It's not like there's some mistranslation going one.  It's _aka shinto_ red light, _kiiro shinto_ yellow light, _ao shingo_ blue light.




I'll bow to your superior knowledge of Japanese. However...



> And, if you look at a new green light, one with LED's, it looks pretty darn blue.




You said previously it was the same bulb. If it's not, it's hardly surprising it looks different.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 21, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Thanks!
> 
> For the other half of the question: Do you think that everyday members of the several faiths think that they worship the same God as the other faiths?



No idea. As someone who thinks the whole idea is rather silly, I haven't delved that much into what lay members believe.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 21, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> A professor at Wheaton College, a private Evangelical Protestant college, was suspended for saying that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
> She also wore a hijab.
> 
> It's interesting as I never heard that there was a questions regarding whether or not Christians and Muslims worshipped the same God. I've heard people of various religions claiming that other religions are wrong, and that they are worshipping God incorrectly, or whatever, but not that they worshipped another God.




That is like asking whether Jews and Christians worship the same God. They consider themselves to be within the same tradition as Judaism and Christianity, just like Christians consider themselves to be within the same tradition as Judaism. Muhammad is simply the last in the line of prophets for them, and the Quran is viewed as the most up to date and perfect rendering of god's message (it contains many characters from the New Testament for example, but the details are different. Allah simply means The God.

I think within that people can still debate how similar the characterization of the God is among these three faiths. They all three clearly share common roots, but there are definite differences in how God is presented, and what is focused on. I wouldn't say that constitutes a different God, but they certainly have different interpretations of the same figure. And there are still very different notions of what one must do to be in good standing with God from one faith to another (but that is even true among different Christian sects).


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 21, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Thanks!
> 
> For the other half of the question: Do you think that everyday members of the several faiths think that they worship the same God as the other faiths?
> 
> ...




1. Muslims believe that the Jews worship the same God but broke the covenant and rejected Mohammad as prophet and for this they were 'cursed'
2. Muslims believe that Christians worship the same God but are idolators who elevated a prophet (Jesus) to be a partner with Allah, thus they are cursed

1. Christians believe that the Jews worship the same God but rejected the son of God however they are the chosen people and in the last days will accept the Messiah
2 Christians believe that the Muslims worship a moon god and that Mohammad is not a prophet

1. Jews believe that the Christians worship the same God but are also idolators worshiping a man (who was a false prophet)
2. Jews believe that the Muslims worship the same God but are heretical and reject Muhammad as prophet


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 21, 2015)

And ultimately, until/unless He reveals Himself, all is conjecture.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 21, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Also: (This may seem too twisty, but bear with it.)  Do any of the faiths think that the _other_ faiths are worshiping the God that the _other_ faiths think that they are worshiping?  That is, does each faith consider that the God, as envisioned by the other faith, exists?




The answer I've always gotten is 'no', they consider that, at best, a false imaginary god and at worse a demon and/or Satan. Of course, I've also been told that when considering the various denominations within Christianity, or even within Protestantism. There are sects and churches of Protestants that think all Catholics are going to Hell, or the Baptists think the Methodists are all going there, etc, etc, because the difference in denominations usually derives from the method/means of salvation. They think it very much does matter.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Thanks!
> 
> For the other half of the question: Do you think that everyday members of the several faiths think that they worship the same God as the other faiths?




My guess (and it is just my personal guess) is that for the most part, yes.  Most individuals of any religion are not terribly dogmatic, can look at the history and basic similarities and go, 'Yeah, okay, same god, different methods," and get on with their lives.  For most, the difference in dogmas is an academic matter - God will sort it out.  

For some few, there's the issue that you're worshipping the same God, but you're doing it *wrong*, and how you do it is terribly important and must be dealt with in this world.



> Also: (This may seem too twisty, but bear with it.)  Do any of the faiths think that the _other_ faiths are worshiping the God that the _other_ faiths think that they are worshiping?  That is, does each faith consider that the God, as envisioned by the other faith, exists?




None of the Abrahamic faiths allow for there to be any god but the one God - that's part of all their dogmas.  The God of other faiths cannot be a separate entity - either you are worshipping the same God, or you are worshiping the devil, or something that does not exist.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 22, 2015)

Umbran said:


> None of the Abrahamic faiths allow for there to be any god but the one God - that's part of all their dogmas.  The God of other faiths cannot be a separate entity - either you are worshipping the same God, or you are worshiping the devil, or something that does not exist.




"No gods before Me" could be interpreted to mean you can worship other gods as long as you acknowledge that God is Top Dog.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 22, 2015)

Umbran said:


> None of the Abrahamic faiths allow for there to be any god but the one God - that's part of all their dogmas.  The God of other faiths cannot be a separate entity - either you are worshipping the same God, or you are worshiping the devil, or something that does not exist.




To be fair though, the concept of the trinity gets awfully close to going beyond one God. I was raised in the Church and had the trinity explained over and over, yet still The Son and the Father always appeared in my mind as distinctly different entities (and I am still not sure I grasp what the Holy Spirit is). There is an explanation but the fact that it always has to be explained in rather complicated terms, suggests this isn't an intuitive thing to grasp. I can easily see how that might appear to a non-christian as being a form of polytheism or at the very least, not fully committed monotheism.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> "No gods before Me" could be interpreted to mean you can worship other gods as long as you acknowledge that God is Top Dog.




It could be (at least, in its English translation), but it isn't.  

Specifically, you have to be aware of the context of the original - a person could be stoned for idolatry on the testimony of only two people.  Trying to ride the line of, "I worship this other guy, but not as much," was asking to be pelted with rocks until you were dead.  The people in general still had the story of the Flood in mind, remembering that if such practice became too common, God would obliterate the entire nation.  The God of the Covenant was pretty jealous, and a little passive-aggressive.  

And note that the Ten Commandments are basically a *summary* of the most important laws - they are, in effect, the bullet points version.  The Torah contains 613 other commandments that build out what folks need to do in a practical sense.

Of course, in the original all these commandments only apply to the Israelites, because they were the chosen.  The rest of the world was held to a different standard - any non-Jew who followed the Seven Laws of Noah was considered a "righteous gentile" and god would look kindly on them in the world to come.  This is a basis for how Judaism doesn't generally go out beating people over the head to accept the religion - there's an explicit place for those who don't follow as the Jews do.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 22, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It could be (at least, in its English translation), but it isn't.
> 
> Specifically, you have to be aware of the context of the original - a person could be stoned for idolatry on the testimony of only two people.  Trying to ride the line of, "I worship this other guy, but not as much," was asking to be pelted with rocks until you were dead.  The people in general still had the story of the Flood in mind, remembering that if such practice became too common, God would obliterate the entire nation.  The God of the Covenant was pretty jealous, and a little passive-aggressive.
> 
> ...





What I find interesting about early Judaism is there does seem to at least be this sense that other gods exist (you just are not supposed to worship them) but then it increasingly becomes more monotheistic than henotheistic.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> What I find interesting about early Judaism is there does seem to at least be this sense that other gods exist (you just are not supposed to worship them) but then it increasingly becomes more monotheistic than henotheistic.




Yes, but it does make sense.  Consider that they were a minority population among polytheistic peoples.  Taking the position, "They are all following nothing!" is probably a non-starter for two reasons: 1) Socially, the minority holding the position that the majority is so wrong is asking for trouble, 2) it would have been a major cognitive dissonance for new believers of the time - a major paradigm shift.

Allowing that others might exist, but the Chosen shouldn't follow them, would seem to be a much easier sell all around.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 22, 2015)

It might be accurate to think of monotheism as a..."revealed truth"...to those who converted to Judaism in the early days.  As in, they talked about their faith in a certain way in public, but the true nature of the Jewish theology on divinity would be only be taught to those who converted.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 22, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but it does make sense.  Consider that they were a minority population among polytheistic peoples.  Taking the position, "They are all following nothing!" is probably a non-starter for two reasons: 1) Socially, the minority holding the position that the majority is so wrong is asking for trouble, 2) it would have been a major cognitive dissonance for new believers of the time - a major paradigm shift.
> 
> Allowing that others might exist, but the Chosen shouldn't follow them, would seem to be a much easier sell all around.




I am no biblical scholar, but just from the handful of ancient history and historiography courses I took, granted probably a decade out of date as well, is the mainstream view is this reflects an evolution of the concept, not necessarily a desire to sell the concept to surrounding polytheists. I could be wrong on that, but that is how I remember it being explained.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> .... is the mainstream view is this reflects an evolution of the concept, not necessarily a desire to sell the concept to surrounding polytheists. I could be wrong on that, but that is how I remember it being explained.




Not really sell the concept to surrounding polytheists, in that the religion was drawn up on cultural and racial lines, and seeking converts not such a big thing.  But sell them, in the sense of, "think of the early Jews as non-threatening".  New minority religions have it hard enough without doing things that actively cheese off the majority.  Just ask the Mormons. 

And not like this was willfully designed as such - I don't expect the authors to have had quite so much understanding as to plan it this way.  I think of it more as a sociological form of Darwinian selection - those burgeoning factions that didn't have such characteristics were probably more likely to fail.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 22, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> What I find interesting about early Judaism is there does seem to at least be this sense that other gods exist (you just are not supposed to worship them) but then it increasingly becomes more monotheistic than henotheistic.




It is really, really murky - very likely having been deliberately obscured by successive rounds of purges, etc, etc. 

There is definitely a period where the Jews are 'there are other gods, but El/Yah/whatever wants us to hold Him Preeminent', then X happens and suddenly they are 'There are no other gods and never have been'. 

Some scholars put X at around the time of the Exodus, some push it back onto Abraham. The most likely explanation is that there is a schism within the temple, with one faction finally getting tired of losing, falling on the other with swords, then as winners usually do, making up whatever they needed to justify and legitimize their victory. There's also the idea that it's a more gradual take-over of the religion by internal factions that develop - finally they just outlive everyone else, burn the scrolls that contradict them, and suddenly 'We're monotheists! And always have been!'. 

Some other scholars point to 'culture building', as the elders cobble together laws and customs in order to differentiate their people from all the other tribes and set them apart as something special. They don't have to make sense, they just have to be different, so different and memorable that people go 'Oh, they do X? They must be the Y people!' (You see the most blatant example of this in Leviticus).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 22, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Not really sell the concept to surrounding polytheists, in that the religion was drawn up on cultural and racial lines, and seeking converts not such a big thing.  But sell them, in the sense of, "think of the early Jews as non-threatening".  New minority religions have it hard enough without doing things that actively cheese off the majority.  Just ask the Mormons.
> 
> And not like this was willfully designed as such - I don't expect the authors to have had quite so much understanding as to plan it this way.  I think of it more as a sociological form of Darwinian selection - those burgeoning factions that didn't have such characteristics were probably more likely to fail.




I understand, but again, my understanding is this isn't the mainstream view among historians or biblical scholars. It sounds like things we can't possibly know about their thought process are being added in here. All we really have is the text and archeological records to go on. By those, the evidence seems to suggest they believed other gods existed early in their history but that over time this evolved into a belief in a single God. I could certainly be wrong here, I am just restating what I remember encountering on when this stuff came up in relevant history courses.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 22, 2015)

Abraham was a Chaldean (Babylonian) Astronomer, who was raised in a Polytheistic culture which venerated gods including El Elyon, Ashera and Baal. Josephus claims that Abrahams study of the stars eventually lead him to recognise the supremacy of El Elyon. Abraham had an Epiphany whereby El called him to leave Ur, however it was in his later meeting with King Melchezedek that he first embraced true Monotheisim as an option. 

The Old Testament does allow for the existence of other gods, at the time polytheism was everywhere and the Hebrews regularly saw mountains, trees and temples which they knew to be sacred sites dedicated to these gods -  but the Chosen people are commanded to have no other god and the Old Testament Prophets were largely about ensuring the Hebrews didn't fall back to paganism



			
				Josephus said:
			
		

> And he (Abraham) inferred these things from the changes in land and sea that are dependant upon the sun and the moon and all the happenings in heaven. For he said that, if they had the power they would have provided for their own orderliness. But, since they lack this, it is evident that as many things as they contribute to our increased usefulness they perform not by their own authority but in accordance with the power of their commander on whom alone it is proper to confer honor and gratitude


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 22, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It might be accurate to think of monotheism as a..."revealed truth"...to those who converted to Judaism in the early days.  As in, they talked about their faith in a certain way in public, but the true nature of the Jewish theology on divinity would be only be taught to those who converted.




Also very likely. Possibly only taught to priests. 'Mystery Cults' are a big deal in just about any time period.

Veering off into fiction, one of my favorite scenes in Jericho Moon is where Joshua becomes the high priest of Yahweh, only to discover that the real function of the priesthood is to _protect _their people _from _Yahweh, keeping them within certain strictures so Yahweh doesn't destroy them in a snit.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> It sounds like things we can't possibly know about their thought process are being added in here.




Well, all other explanations are *also* things we can't possibly know about heir thought processes.  All we have now are some very old resulting documents and fragmentary (and occasionally inconsistent) history - we do not have explication of their thought processes.  Any suggestion about how and why they got from A to B is merely our putting together a plausible story.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 23, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, all other explanations are *also* things we can't possibly know about heir thought processes.  All we have now are some very old resulting documents and fragmentary (and occasionally inconsistent) history - we do not have explication of their thought processes.  Any suggestion about how and why they got from A to B is merely our putting together a plausible story.




Keep in mind what we are discussing is not a view that "this is absolutely how it went down" but more along the lines of "this is the most accepted scenario because it seems more likely given the textual evidence". I am not objecting to the conclusion that they didn't believe in these other gods, just saying your explanation seems to go a lot further than did they believe or didn't they.

There is a certain amount of speculation involved in both conclusions but examining the text, two possibilities present themselves when you see references to other gods: they believed those gods existed or they didn't believe they existed. Stating one or the other as a more likely conclusion, isn't exactly speculative to the degree of adding in the "Why".


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 23, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> "No gods before Me" could be interpreted to mean you can worship other gods as long as you acknowledge that God is Top Dog.




That is monolatry or henotheism and early Judaism could have been practicing one of those instead of monotheism.

There is evidence of other minor Hebrew divinity for early Hebrews. The central Hebrew divinity might have had a wife too. A wife with an interest for trees... *wink wink* The Adam and Eve myth could just be an attempt at getting rid of their divinity status while contenting those who worship the minor divinities. Instead of having the central deity married to Eve, it is Adam, who is made in the deity's image, that marries Eve.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 24, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It could be (at least, in its English translation), but it isn't.
> 
> Specifically, you have to be aware of the context of the original - a person could be stoned for idolatry on the testimony of only two people.  Trying to ride the line of, "I worship this other guy, but not as much," was asking to be pelted with rocks until you were dead.  The people in general still had the story of the Flood in mind, remembering that if such practice became too common, God would obliterate the entire nation.  The God of the Covenant was pretty jealous, and a little passive-aggressive.
> 
> ...




Ok, but consider this, there other deities named in the Holy Bible, Lucifer (contrary to popular belief its not the name of the Devil but rather a Roman (maybe it was Greek, im always getting those mixxed up) god of knowledge and enlightment) and Beelzebub, a Babylonian deity, I believe, immediately come to mind, although there are probably more I just dont feel like scouring the Bible for them at this time. So it seems silly to me that the writers of the bible didnt believe in any other gods. Also, werent the Pharaoh's holy men or whatever able to call upon their gods and perform minor magics to show Moses that they could do stuff to? And another thing, after Adam & Eve eat the forbidden fruit God says something along the lines of they are like US, knowing good and evil, who would else would He be refering to if He's the only God? And theres also the fact that Jews have had a long history of being subjugated by other people and were expected to worship their gods, Its quite possible that they did so believing that they were ok cause they didnt put them before their God in their hearts. 

Now sure some might say that its all the Devil or whatever, but the concept we have of the Devil now didn't exist back in old testament times.

So yeah, I believe that writers of the Bible recognized the existence of other deities aside from their own.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Dec 24, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> Ok, but consider this, there other deities named in the Holy Bible, Lucifer (contrary to popular belief its not the name of the Devil but rather a Roman (maybe it was Greek, im always getting those mixxed up) god of knowledge and enlightment) <SNIP>



Um, no.  You have crossed two lines of Latin and come up naught.  The NAME Lucifer was that of an angel, "the morning star or the "bringer of light" an archangel that was chief among the heavenly host.  The WORD was Latin for "Light bringer" and was often used in conjunction with the worship of Venus "the morning star".  So, while Lucifer was used in conjunction with deity by the Romans (and the Greeks) it was not a name, the name Lucifer used in the bible is strictly used the name of a fallen angel who would become the devil.  As a side note if you read the Latin Vulgate, Jesus is given the title "luciferi" "the morning sun (son)"  So if you listen to a Catholic mass in high Latin, it can get very confusing when the words luciferi, lucifer and lucirefien are thrown around during the Easter resurrection sermon. 



The_Silversword said:


> <SNIP> Beelzebub, a Babylonian deity, I believe, immediately come to mind, although there are probably more I just dont feel like scouring the Bible for them at this time. So it seems silly to me that the writers of the bible didnt believe in any other gods. Also, werent the Pharaoh's holy men or whatever able to call upon their gods and perform minor magics to show Moses that they could do stuff to? And another thing, after Adam & Eve eat the forbidden fruit God says something along the lines of they are like US, knowing good and evil, who would else would He be refering to if He's the only God? And theres also the fact that Jews have had a long history of being subjugated by other people and were expected to worship their gods, Its quite possible that they did so believing that they were ok cause they didn't put them before their God in their hearts.
> Now sure some might say that its all the Devil or whatever, but the concept we have of the Devil now didn't exist back in old testament times.  So yeah, I believe that writers of the Bible recognized the existence of other deities aside from their own.



Actually the Old Testament is filled with names of other gods, but are always referred to as false (eventually), usually after said worshipers have their collective butts kicked by one of god's prophets, messengers, King David, etc.  Also, there are plenty of instances where it is shown that Jews may have been subjugated, but clearly didn't fall in line much to their eventually glory (Daniel; Ruth; Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego for example.)  So as to recognizing other deities, well, yes, but more in a "these heathen morons that are ignorant of the truth are about to get schooled", kind of way.

BTW, I personally am an atheist(non-militant (ie the rare type)) but was a minister for quite a while. The problem most folks have with interpreting the bible, the quaran and the talmud/torah, are hearing the stories and then forgetting key parts that are very minor but intrinsically important.  Do you know how many people think King Solomon actually sliced a baby in half? (he threatened to and then gave the baby to the mother who didn't think it was a good idea. (in one piece.))


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 24, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> Um, no.  You have crossed two lines of Latin and come up naught.  The NAME Lucifer was that of an angel, "the morning star or the "bringer of light" an archangel that was chief among the heavenly host.  The WORD was Latin for "Light bringer" and was often used in conjunction with the worship of Venus "the morning star".  So, while Lucifer was used in conjunction with deity by the Romans (and the Greeks) it was not a name, the name Lucifer used in the bible is strictly used the name of a fallen angel who would become the devil.  As a side note if you read the Latin Vulgate, Jesus is given the title "luciferi" "the morning sun (son)"  So if you listen to a Catholic mass in high Latin, it can get very confusing when the words luciferi, lucifer and lucirefien are thrown around during the Easter resurrection sermon.
> 
> 
> Actually the Old Testament is filled with names of other gods, but are always referred to as false (eventually), usually after said worshipers have their collective butts kicked by one of god's prophets, messengers, King David, etc.  Also, there are plenty of instances where it is shown that Jews may have been subjugated, but clearly didn't fall in line much to their eventually glory (Daniel; Ruth; Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego for example.)  So as to recognizing other deities, well, yes, but more in a "these heathen morons that are ignorant of the truth are about to get schooled", kind of way.
> ...




It seems I remember reading somewhere that Lucifer was a son of Venus and, well somebody else, I dont remember, but it appears you are right, that it was a title given to the Greek god Phosphorus, and apparently to the moon as well. But regardless, no where in the Bible is Lucifer named as an angel.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Dec 24, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> It seems I remember reading somewhere that Lucifer was a son of Venus and, well somebody else, I dont remember, but it appears you are right, that it was a title given to the Greek god Phosphorus, and apparently to the moon as well. But regardless, no where in the Bible is Lucifer named as an angel.





Isaiah 14:12King James Version (KJV)

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

here is the reference


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 24, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> It seems I remember reading somewhere that Lucifer was a son of Venus and, well somebody else, I dont remember, but it appears you are right, that it was a title given to the Greek god Phosphorus, and apparently to the moon as well. But regardless, no where in the Bible is Lucifer named as an angel.




the Hebrew term used is Heylel  הֵילֵל  which means "to shine" and was specifically a name of the morning star (the planet Venus) St jerome translated this as Lucifer when he wrote the Latin Vulgate which translates Isaiah 14:12 as "How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven!"

In Hebrew and Christian lore Lucifer is a Cherub (one of the scary four-faced 'living creatures' kind, not a winged baby) but as has been stated the title lucifer (Shining One) was relatively common in ancient Canaanite and Classical mythology. One story has the title lucifer given to the son of Aurora (dawn) who rose as the morning star. 

Lucifer has only become exclusively applied to the Devil by English translations that adhere to King James Versionism, many modern non KJV versions stick to 'morning star' rather than Lucifer


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 24, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> Isaiah 14:12King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
> 
> here is the reference




So is the writer refering to an angel, a star, or a moon, possibly even a planet, wasnt the planet Venus also called Lucifer?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 25, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> So is the writer refering to an angel, a star, or a moon, possibly even a planet, wasn't the planet Venus also called Lucifer?




Well, therein lies a problem.  You *can't tell* from the text itself - it doesn't explicate everything.  It isn't an encyclopedia.  The authors and translators generally expected individuals to either have the context for the references, or to have a priest or religious leader to give you that context.  When those books were collected int the Bible, nobody expected you to be able to pick up the book (presuming you could read it) and know everything you needed to know.  

The Bible (both Old and New Testament)... are kind of like comic books.  There's a core story, but it often makes references to things more fully described in other works (for the Christians, the extras are often collectively called Apocrypha - the books that didn't make the cut when the current books of the Bible were chosen - in the 1500s and 1600s, depending on the denomination) that aren't part of the main collection.  Reading the Bible is kind of like reading the Marvel Comics "Secret Wars" miniseries, but not reading all the crossover issues in the other titles.  Or, like current Star Wars, with the Expanded Universe stories that aren't considered canon.

That's where we get the word canon, from, by the way.  The books the church says are the accepted ones are the church canon.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 25, 2015)

One of the reasons we got my Mom an iPad was so that she could read books with expanded typeface, without paying extra or lugging around huge hardcovers.  One of the first books on it was a Catholic bible.  

She was so overjoyed that one of her first self-appointed tasks was to read the Bible cover to cover- unusual for most Catholics.  It took a while, but she enjoyed it.  Then she read it with all of the footnotes enabled, so she could get that "full context" that escapes most modern readers who aren't actual theology students.  That took MONTHS.  

She felt much enlightened, but says she'll never do that again.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, therein lies a problem.  You *can't tell* from the text itself - it doesn't explicate everything.  It isn't an encyclopedia.  The authors and translators generally expected individuals to either have the context for the references, or to have a priest or religious leader to give you that context.  When those books were collected int the Bible, nobody expected you to be able to pick up the book (presuming you could read it) and know everything you needed to know.
> 
> The Bible (both Old and New Testament)... are kind of like comic books.  There's a core story, but it often makes references to things more fully described in other works (for the Christians, the extras are often collectively called Apocrypha - the books that didn't make the cut when the current books of the Bible were chosen - in the 1500s and 1600s, depending on the denomination) that aren't part of the main collection.  Reading the Bible is kind of like reading the Marvel Comics "Secret Wars" miniseries, but not reading all the crossover issues in the other titles.  Or, like current Star Wars, with the Expanded Universe stories that aren't considered canon.
> 
> That's where we get the word canon, from, by the way.  The books the church says are the accepted ones are the church canon.




Well if we read the proceeding text from Isaiah 14, it becomes clear that it is about the fall of a king of Babylon, possibly Nebuchadnezzar, not an angel, so from this I believe Lucifer, in this case, to be referencing Nebuchadnezzar, or perhaps equating the setting of the Moon or possibly Venus to the fall of said ruler, but as you said its difficult to know for sure since it was written so long ago and been translated how ever many times so much of its original meaning may be lost. 

Nice comic book analogy by the way, although some might disagree, I could imagine a priest red in the face screamin, "its not a comic book!!!" lol


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 25, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One of the reasons we got my Mom an iPad was so that she could read books with expanded typeface, without paying extra or lugging around huge hardcovers.  One of the first books on it was a Catholic bible.
> 
> She was so overjoyed that one of her first self-appointed tasks was to read the Bible cover to cover- unusual for most Catholics.  It took a while, but she enjoyed it.  Then she read it with all of the footnotes enabled, so she could get that "full context" that escapes most modern readers who aren't actual theology students.  That took MONTHS.
> 
> She felt much enlightened, but says she'll never do that again.




My wife, who was raised Catholic, and I sometimes get into religious debates and she usually ends up saying something along the lines of "well youre talking about the King James version, Im talking about the REAL Bible!" Is there really that much difference between the two?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 25, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> My wife, who was raised Catholic, and I sometimes get into religious debates and she usually ends up saying something along the lines of "well youre talking about the King James version, Im talking about the REAL Bible!" Is there really that much difference between the two?



Yep:



> ...the KJV follows the Protestant pattern of not including the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament that are recognized by Catholics: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees (as well as portions of the Books of Esther and Daniel). As such, readings from these books appear in the Catholic Lectionary at various times of the liturgical year. Likewise, these books contain references to concepts that are familiar to Catholics but rejected by Protestants such as prayer for the dead and intercessions of saints and angels.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 25, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yep:




Interesting, I may have to check that out, but I dunno, nothing against Catholicism, but the speaking in unison thing kinda wigs me out, we never did that in our Protestant churches, I dont ever recall ever refering to our selves as protestant, I always thought that was a Church of England thing, but apparently Catholics apply the term to any non-Catholic Christian.

Anyways, im veering way off topic here, so I just wanna say yeah, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God, or to put it in D&D terms, they worship aspects of the same god.


----------



## Riley (Dec 25, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> BTW, I personally am an atheist(non-militant (ie the rare type))




Um, no, that would be the common type. You just don't hear from us as often as you do from the evangelists. Because, you know, they are evangelists, and we are not.


----------



## Cristian Andreu (Dec 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, therein lies a problem.  You *can't tell* from the text itself - it doesn't explicate everything.  It isn't an encyclopedia.  The authors and translators generally expected individuals to either have the context for the references, or to have a priest or religious leader to give you that context.  When those books were collected int the Bible, nobody expected you to be able to pick up the book (presuming you could read it) and know everything you needed to know.
> 
> The Bible (both Old and New Testament)... are kind of like comic books.  There's a core story, but it often makes references to things more fully described in other works (for the Christians, the extras are often collectively called Apocrypha - the books that didn't make the cut when the current books of the Bible were chosen - in the 1500s and 1600s, depending on the denomination) that aren't part of the main collection.  Reading the Bible is kind of like reading the Marvel Comics "Secret Wars" miniseries, but not reading all the crossover issues in the other titles.  Or, like current Star Wars, with the Expanded Universe stories that aren't considered canon.
> 
> That's where we get the word canon, from, by the way.  The books the church says are the accepted ones are the church canon.




It's not just the Apocrypha; for Orthodox and Catholics, the Bible alone is not enough for teaching the faith, as Tradition is also necessary, from where the Exegesis (explanation of the text) comes from.

That is, after all, one of the central aspects to the differences between Catholics/Orthodox and most Protestant denominations: The idea of _Sola Scriptura_, that the Holy Book alone is enough and that external sources should be eschewed. The former say no to _Sola Scriptura_, the latter say yes.

For example, the Catholic Church refuses literal interpretations of the Bible precisely because of what you mention: That the text alone, sacrosanct as it may be, cannot be fully understood by and within itself.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 25, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> Interesting, I may have to check that out, but I dunno, nothing against Catholicism, but the speaking in unison thing kinda wigs me out, we never did that in our Protestant churches, I dont ever recall ever refering to our selves as protestant, I always thought that was a Church of England thing, but apparently Catholics apply the term to any non-Catholic Christian.
> .




That is odd. Were you Anglican? I was raised in both the catholic and episcopal church (which is part of the Anglican Communion), and we did the whole speaking in unison thing at both. I wonder if this varied between the High and Low churches. I had the same experience with not thinking of the Episcopal Church as protestant (in that they seemed to regard themselves as a mean between the two or a kind of catholic light...which is why my mom would agree to go there).


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 25, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> That is odd. Were you Anglican? I was raised in both the catholic and episcopal church (which is part of the Anglican Communion), and we did the whole speaking in unison thing at both. I wonder if this varied between the High and Low churches. I had the same experience with not thinking of the Episcopal Church as protestant (in that they seemed to regard themselves as a mean between the two or a kind of catholic light...which is why my mom would agree to go there).




well the Anglican Communion is unusual in as much as it considers itself both Catholic* and Reformed, so there is some debate about whether Anglicans can be considered to have followed the Lutheran Protestation. 
Anglican Communion is really Catholic sans Pope rather than the full Protestant Reformation that marks other Denominations.

_* Catholic as in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church"_


----------



## Umbran (Dec 25, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> Well if we read the proceeding text from Isaiah 14, it becomes clear that it is about the fall of a king of Babylon, possibly Nebuchadnezzar, not an angel




Yes, well, Biblical literalism gets you in trouble very quickly.  The book is not entirely self consistent if you take *everything* literally.  For example, you have issues with Revelations, which to some clearly refers to the Roman Empire, but that empire no longer exists and judgement day still seems like it is in the future....

If, instead, you consider there is an analogy or metaphor in action here (the King of Babylon is *like* the devil, in that he was angelic and then fell) things become less problematic.  



> Nice comic book analogy by the way, although some might disagree, I could imagine a priest red in the face screamin, "its not a comic book!!!" lol




Any priest who *screams* at me for making an analogy for the structure that would be understandable to a geek layman... isn't really my problem


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yes, well, Biblical literalism gets you in trouble very quickly.




And it starts as early as Genesis.  If Eve is literally the mother of all humanity- a strong implication from the literal text- then incest is part if the story of mankind.  Otherwise, there are other humans out there, and Adam & Eve are not literally the parents of all humanity.

In Genesis 4:1-2, her first kids are Cain & Abel.  Abel gets killed, Cain is exiled for the murder in Gen 10-12.  But even then, there is an understanding of "other people" besides Cain, Adam and Eve- Cain laments in Gen 4:14 "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

By Gen:17, Cain has fathered Enoch with his unnamed wife in a city he is building.

Nowhere is it mentioned in Gen 4:1-16 that Adam & Eve have any other children...so we have a conflict.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 26, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And it starts as early as Genesis.  If Eve is literally the mother of all humanity- a strong implication from the literal text- then incest is part if the story of mankind.  Otherwise, there are other humans out there, and Adam & Eve are not literally the parents of all humanity.
> 
> In Genesis 4:1-2, her first kids are Cain & Abel.  Abel gets killed, Cain is exiled for the murder in Gen 10-12.  But even then, there is an understanding of "other people" besides Cain, Adam and Eve- Cain laments in Gen 4:14 "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
> 
> ...




Well, if you notice, the book of Genesis is laid out in chronological order, so and so begets so and so and so on. Anyways, on the 6th day god creates man, as in humankind, male and female, he tells them to be fruitful and multiply, on the 7th day he rests. The it goes into him creating Adam, so if its all in chronological order, people were already in the world by the time Adam was created in the Garden of Eden, so when Cain was expelled the rest of the world was already populated so he was able to find himself a wife. 

Thats my take on it anyways.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 26, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> That is odd. Were you Anglican? I was raised in both the catholic and episcopal church (which is part of the Anglican Communion), and we did the whole speaking in unison thing at both. I wonder if this varied between the High and Low churches. I had the same experience with not thinking of the Episcopal Church as protestant (in that they seemed to regard themselves as a mean between the two or a kind of catholic light...which is why my mom would agree to go there).




No, definitely not Anglican, I havnt been to church since I was a kid, well my wife has dragged me to a few Catholic services, but I dont really remember the denomination that my parents would take me to, I want to say Methodist, but im not 100% sure about that, I would have to double check on that, assuming that church is still there. Basically what I remember about it was that the preacher would talk from the heart instead of reciting prayers or whatever that seemed to be the Catholic way of doing things, from the limited exposure I've had to it.

Now, my grandmother identified as a Southern Baptist, but she had some odd beliefs that I dont think were shared by other Southern Baptists but I could be wrong, for instance, God is white and created white people, and I wasnt allowed to play with dinosaurs at her house cause they wasnt in the Bible, therefore they were the Devil.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 26, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> Well, if you notice, the book of Genesis is laid out in chronological order, so and so begets so and so and so on. Anyways, on the 6th day god creates man, as in humankind, male and female, he tells them to be fruitful and multiply, on the 7th day he rests. The it goes into him creating Adam, so if its all in chronological order, people were already in the world by the time Adam was created in the Garden of Eden, so when Cain was expelled the rest of the world was already populated so he was able to find himself a wife.
> 
> Thats my take on it anyways.



Genesis isn't quite laid out chronologically.

Genesis 1 is the big overview of the story of creation.  So, in Gen. 1:11, God creates plants:



> 11 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth”; and it was so.




Genesis 2 is more detail oriented.  It is filling in the details glossed over in Gen 1, as we see quite clearly in Gen 2: 4-5



> 4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
> 5 and before every plant of the field was in the earth, and before every herb of the field grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.




Despite mentioning the flourishing plants in Gen1:11, Gen2:5 clearly discusses a time before the 7th day, a time before any plants grew because there was no rain nor man to till the soil.

So, despite Gen1 mentioning humanity on the 6th day, it doesn't follow that the events of the rest of Genesis are actually after the 7th or even 6th day.  Instead, they just detail the events of the 6th day from an immanent and not transcendent perspective. 



A thought occurs: given later verbiage about how God perceives and acts in time, it is possible we're still in the 7th day.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 27, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nowhere is it mentioned in Gen 4:1-16 that Adam & Eve have any other children...so we have a conflict.




Adam had a third son named Seth. Genesis 5: 4-5 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"

Seth obvously was able to reproduce via parthenogenesis.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 27, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Adam had a third son named Seth. Genesis 5: 4-5 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"
> 
> Seth obvously was able to reproduce via parthenogenesis.



As I recall, parthenogenesis is asexual reproduction that requires eggs, so unless Seth was a hermaphrodite...

I..I don't know that there is a word for what I'm thinking.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 27, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I..I don't know that there is a word for what I'm thinking.




[video]http://i.memeful.com/media/post/1d4BJDM_700wa_0.gif[/video]


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 28, 2015)

Maybe my grandmother was right, White god created white people, black god created black people, chinese god created Chinese people and so on ,so they were all able to reproduce with each other and populate the world. Or maybe God endorses incest. 

But, I still like my theory that Adam & Eve werent the only ones on the planet, and they were created to be the pinnacle of humankind, the perfect specimen or whatever.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 28, 2015)

Well, I'm not a bible literalist, so the whole reproduction thing isn't a problem for me.

However...

In a very real sense, Adam & Eve as the literal genesis of all humanity is kind of necessary precondition to the theology behind why Original Sin taints us all.

Again, though, if you're not a literalist, Original Sin and its origin is allegorical- it affects us all because there wasn't one single act, but rather, general disobedience on humanity's part.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Dec 28, 2015)

I'm late to this conversation, but here's my two cents (or 6 cents, as the case may be), and a couple of follow ups:

http://www.scottpaeth.com/2015/12/do-christians-and-muslims-worship-the-same-god.html
http://www.scottpaeth.com/2015/12/christians-muslims-and-god-take-two.html
http://www.scottpaeth.com/2015/12/once-more-into-the-one-god-breach-dear-friends.html

Thanks.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> But, I still like my theory that Adam & Eve werent the only ones on the planet, and they were created to be the pinnacle of humankind, the perfect specimen or whatever.




Depending on your preferred Apocrypha, there's also Lilith - God's first attempt at woman, and Adam's first wife.  Made from the same earth as Adam (as opposed as being made from Adam's rib) she's a bit... independent.  She refuses to be subservient to Adam and either leaves or is tossed about, depending which version you read.

She then couples with the archangel Samael....


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 28, 2015)

I thought Lilith was more of a Jewish thing and didnt make it into any Christian texts?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> I thought Lilith was more of a Jewish thing and didnt make it into any Christian texts?




Thus my comment about Apocrypha.  Though, why are you worried about it being a Christian text, specifically?  Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Seth appear in all the Abrahamic religions.

Clearly, the Bible itself doesn't actually resolve the question - they do not say where Seth gets a wife/partner, merely that he begets children.  We must make suppositions.  What would you prefer - to suppose new things not in the texts at all, or things from texts that don't happen to be included in some specific anthology gathered in the 1500s, but are part of the overall Judeo-Christian tradition?

Other Apocrypha are more clear - that Seth marries his sister Azura.  But it is from the Book of Jubilees, from 2nd century BC, and so not a "Christian" text either, as it is not considered canon, and from a couple hundred years before the Christian church.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 29, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Adam had a third son named Seth. Genesis 5: 4-5 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"
> 
> Seth obvously was able to reproduce via parthenogenesis.





it amuses me that the Bible avoids thoughts of incest here and yet explicitly includes it in the story of Lot. Then again perhaps the biblical account acknowledges that Adam and eve were the first Cro-Magnons and that the people in the Land of Nod were neanderthals (and thus not truely humans) that would explain why Adam and Eve were special but Seth was able to find a wife.


.despite being polytheistic my culture explicit acknowledges that incest was necessary for humanity to exist. The story being that the Procreator god mated with various divine females to give birth to various living things including dragons, rocks, magma, trees and birds. He then goes and ask his mother Earth where he will find the mortal essence and is sent to her pubic mound where he finds the first woman. He mates with her and has a daughter (the dawn) who he also later takes to wife and thus descends the first humans. When the daughter discovers that her husband is also her father she is horrified and flees into the underworld thus opening the pathway to death.

So we have an explicit acknowledgement that mating with mothers and daughters was required but also condemnation of the practice as leading to death


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Thus my comment about Apocrypha.  Though, why are you worried about it being a Christian text, specifically?  Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Seth appear in all the Abrahamic religions.
> 
> Clearly, the Bible itself doesn't actually resolve the question - they do not say where Seth gets a wife/partner, merely that he begets children.  We must make suppositions.  What would you prefer - to suppose new things not in the texts at all, or things from texts that don't happen to be included in some specific anthology gathered in the 1500s, but are part of the overall Judeo-Christian tradition?
> 
> Other Apocrypha are more clear - that Seth marries his sister Azura.  But it is from the Book of Jubilees, from 2nd century BC, and so not a "Christian" text either, as it is not considered canon, and from a couple hundred years before the Christian church.




I was under the impression that the Apocrypha was more of a Catholic thing, and that early Christian leaders basically edited out parts from the Jewish texts that they didn't agree with, like Adam having multiple wives. And I'm not worried at all about Lilith appearing in a "Christianized" text, Its just that I thought we were talking about Creation specific to the Christian Bible, but I personally believe that for Christians to really understand their religion and Jesus they should probably read up on the Tanakh, Muslims too. Actually, I think that all religion has some truth to it. I personally believe that God is real, although I dont believe in some old bearded guy on a throne in the clouds or whatever, but I think the universe has a sort of intelligence to it far beyond our understanding, and each religion sorta gives their view of that, but the big picture is so big that we cant see it all, just bits and pieces, so if you took all the world's religions and put them all together you might have some semblance of the truth, so I guess I'm a Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu/Spiritualist/Taoist/Whatever else, but I believe that Jesus was real, I mean he has a whole time keeping system based on his birth, and his message and deeds traveled far and wide way before the age of the internet, so I figure there must be something there, so I usually label myself as a Christian even though my beliefs dont mesh well with other Christians' beliefs, and may even be called blasphemy.

But anyways, I was just sticking to "Christian" texts cause I thought thats what the conversation was focusing on, and most Christians seem to hate it when you bring up stuff from other religions, like Judaism, cause Jesus is the New Law and Christians can ignore all that Old Testament stuff and eat bacon.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 29, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> it amuses me that the Bible avoids thoughts of incest here and yet explicitly includes it in the story of Lot. Then again perhaps the biblical account acknowledges that Adam and eve were the first Cro-Magnons and that the people in the Land of Nod were neanderthals (and thus not truely humans) that would explain why Adam and Eve were special but Seth was able to find a wife.
> 
> 
> .despite being polytheistic my culture explicit acknowledges that incest was necessary for humanity to exist. The story being that the Procreator god mated with various divine females to give birth to various living things including dragons, rocks, magma, trees and birds. He then goes and ask his mother Earth where he will find the mortal essence and is sent to her pubic mound where he finds the first woman. He mates with her and has a daughter (the dawn) who he also later takes to wife and thus descends the first humans. When the daughter discovers that her husband is also her father she is horrified and flees into the underworld thus opening the pathway to death.
> ...




How it was explained to me was that yes incest is bad, but Gods command of be fruitful and multiply trumps that, so if all you have to mate with is your mother or sister or whatever, then its ok as long as you produce some offspring, so Lot and his daughters were ok cause they thought they was repopulating the world cause everyone else was dead, they didnt realize that God only nuked 2 cities, not the whole world. Likewise its totally cool for David to send his best friend off to die and sleep with his wife cause that produced Solomon, who turned out to be a great Jewish king, so all was forgiven. 

I'm not saying that I think that makes it ok, just that thats how it was explained to me.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 29, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> I was under the impression that the Apocrypha was more of a Catholic thing, and that early Christian leaders basically edited out parts from the Jewish texts that they didn't agree with, like Adam having multiple wives. And I'm not worried at all about Lilith appearing in a "Christianized" text, .




Lutherans and KJV Anglicans also include the Apocryphal Books as Intertestament Books, they are not considered canon but they are books by godly men and thus recommended reading. They include the Maaccabees and various legends and do make for interesting reads

the word lilith is actually first mention in Isaiah as part of a list of animals and is thought to have referred to a type pf owl (whose screech sounded like that of a woman). The word was also used to refer to a female monster or demon and in this way eventually worked its way into being the first disobedient harridan wife of Adam


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 29, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> it amuses me that the Bible avoids thoughts of incest here and yet explicitly includes it in the story of Lot. Then again perhaps the biblical account acknowledges that Adam and eve were the first Cro-Magnons and that the people in the Land of Nod were neanderthals (and thus not truely humans) that would explain why Adam and Eve were special but Seth was able to find a wife.



I think its stated that Abel had some kids (with whom?) before he was killed. So Seth could have used his nieces to make babies. Alabama is like Eden.

But maybe we're paying too much attention to this and do not understand the original function of the book of Genesis. There is evidence that shows that early Hebrews were possibly polytheist or monolatrist. There is a book on Hebrew goddesses. The story of Yahweh, Lucifer, Adam, Eve, Lilith, Cain, Abel and Seth, might just be stories designed to consolidate minor divinities worshipped by different tribes or cities. The stories of the bible were conceived in at a time when cities had there own divinity and unity was reach by manipulating divine ancestry. For example, the Egyptian deity Ra was fused with Amun to become Amun-Ra because of political reasons. The book of Genesis says Adam was created in the image of Yahweh. Maybe Adam was originally a divinity different from Yahweh and the Genesis story makes them sort of one and the same, and unity between two cities made possible. Eve could just have been a deity who was the wife of Yahweh, Abel and Cain divinities that need to have ancestry from Adam/Yahweh.

There is so much context missing from the stories in the bible, that focusing on modern concerns like incest might just miss the point. The story of the Tower of Babel is about a tower that reached heaven. Sumerians built ziggurats with what might have been astrological signs (heaven) on them. The Babel story could just be about proscribing astrology, like Abraham and Isaac's story is just about forbidding child sacrifice in a region where it was the norm.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 29, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I think its stated that Abel had some kids (with whom?) before he was killed. So Seth could have used his nieces to make babies. Alabama is like Eden.
> 
> But maybe we're paying too much attention to this and do not understand the original function of the book of Genesis. There is evidence that shows that early Hebrews were possibly polytheist or monolatrist. There is a book on Hebrew goddesses. The story of Yahweh, Lucifer, Adam, Eve, Lilith, Cain, Abel and Seth, might just be stories designed to consolidate minor divinities worshipped by different tribes or cities. The stories of the bible were conceived in at a time when cities had there own divinity and unity was reach by manipulating divine ancestry. For example, the Egyptian deity Ra was fused with Amun to become Amun-Ra because of political reasons. The book of Genesis says Adam was created in the image of Yahweh. Maybe Adam was originally a divinity different from Yahweh and the Genesis story makes them sort of one and the same, and unity between two cities made possible. Eve could just have been a deity who was the wife of Yahweh, Abel and Cain divinities that need to have ancestry from Adam/Yahweh.
> 
> There is so much context missing from the stories in the bible, that focusing on modern concerns like incest might just miss the point. The story of the Tower of Babel is about a tower that reached heaven. Sumerians built ziggurats with what might have been astrological signs (heaven) on them. The Babel story could just be about proscribing astrology, like Abraham and Isaac's story is just about forbidding child sacrifice in a region where it was the norm.




That...that actually makes sense.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 29, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> Lutherans and KJV Anglicans also include the Apocryphal Books as Intertestament Books, they are not considered canon but they are books by godly men and thus recommended reading. They include the Maaccabees and various legends and do make for interesting reads
> 
> the word lilith is actually first mention in Isaiah as part of a list of animals and is thought to have referred to a type pf owl (whose screech sounded like that of a woman). The word was also used to refer to a female monster or demon and in this way eventually worked its way into being the first disobedient harridan wife of Adam




Interesting stuff, to be perfectly honest I first heard of Lilith through Sandman comics, the cool things you learn from comic books!


----------



## Staffan (Dec 29, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> the word lilith is actually first mention in Isaiah as part of a list of animals and is thought to have referred to a type pf owl (whose screech sounded like that of a woman).



Huh. So _that's_ why Lilith in the Exalted RPG is a Lunar with an owl as her totem.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2015)

The_Silversword said:


> But anyways, I was just sticking to "Christian" texts cause I thought thats what the conversation was focusing on, and most Christians seem to hate it when you bring up stuff from other religions, like Judaism, cause Jesus is the New Law and Christians can ignore all that Old Testament stuff and eat bacon.




Well, the thread is about all three, and the basic story is common to all of them, so I don't see a real reason to exclude any, especially because even among those who call themselves Christian, there are differences in the canon.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2015)

goldomark said:


> But maybe we're paying too much attention to this and do not understand the original function of the book of Genesis.




The original function, and the function(s) when it came to be canon for each Abrahamic religion in turn, and the function when each revised its canon, and its function today, are all likely to be different things.  The question is which of these things do we care about.



> There is so much context missing from the stories in the bible, that focusing on modern concerns like incest might just miss the point.




A writing teacher of mine once said that there are (at least) three copies of any text - what the author intended, what the author put on the page, and what the audience came to understand.  "The point" seems to be focused on the intent of some people a few thousand years ago, in a different culture.

This is of some interest - kind of like discussing what "Henry V" meant to people in Shakespeare's age.  But, that has little relevance when considering the impact on people who see it today, most of whom are not so steeped in the history to have that in mind.  They consider the St. Crispin's Day speech from teh point of view of a modern person, familiar with a different history.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The question is which of these things do we care about.



Obviously, what "we've" been caring about for centuries is interpreting those texts so they say what "we" want them to say. Original meaning be damned.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The original function, and the function(s) when it came to be canon for each Abrahamic religion in turn, and the function when each revised its canon, and its function today, are all likely to be different things.  The question is which of these things do we care about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I think there is a big difference though when you are talking about text intended to entertain or engage our imagination, versus texts purporting to make claims about reality or being presented as accounts of the past. Then I think it becomes important to understand its origins, its intentions and its flaws. We shouldn't just accept the opinions of believers regarding the text.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jan 5, 2016)

So back to the original topic. Looks like Wheaton is going to fire the professor that dared say Christians and Muslims worship the same god. I'm just surprised it took them this long to do it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 5, 2016)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So back to the original topic. Looks like Wheaton is going to fire the professor that dared say Christians and Muslims worship the same god. I'm just surprised it took them this long to do it.




Well, it is an evangelical college so they probably don't even believe that Catholics and Protestants worship the same god.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jan 5, 2016)

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, it is an evangelical college so they probably don't even believe that Catholics and Protestants worship the same god.



They're going to fire you for even suggesting Catholics worship a god rather than a demon.


----------



## Gene Riemenschneider (Jan 6, 2016)

First off you have to be careful as within most faiths there are divisions and then you have to separate the true believers from the cultural followers.  For example many people grew up in church and parents went to church, they may even go to church still so they call themselves a Christian.  Then there are those that believe what the Bible says and really believe in the God of the Bible.
Muslims believe in One God.  They claim Christians who believe in the Trinity are not Monotheist and are basically Pagans.  Christians believe God became man in the form of Jesus - Died on the Cross and rose again.  His death was a payment for sin; the concept of Grace.  Muslims have no concept like Grace it is a matter of doing what they think God wants them to do with a hope of getting into heaven.  Christianity claims to be Monotheist; but there are 3 aspects of God - Father - Son - Holy Spirit.  The trinity is central to Christianity.  It also explains many of the Christian Communities stand on issues of traditional marriage and such.  
Ok that is 2000 years of theology in 2 paragraphs.  So yes there are lots of exceptions, questions, and disagreement.  But that is the basic.


----------

