Question about God

[FreyaJade]

Is it true that Muslims, Christians & Jews all worship the same God (the God of Abraham, and is that why they're known as the Abrahamic religions?

From what some people who identify as Christian or Muslim say you would think that the 3 religions worship completely different Gods, for example I've seen a comment in a newspaper site from a supposed Christians who says "Allah is evil but Jesus is good".

I didn't want to comment that Allah & the Christian God / Jesus are the same thing in case I was wrong.

firstly I would ask that person what their personal definition of
'God'
'Soul'
'Source'
and 'existence' are.

Then we would talk once I understand their process with these terms, words can be warped and before passing any judgement I would try to understand why this person believed what they do.

I myself was a deist for a while, I had my own reasons for this that turned out to be nonsensical reasons, so I abandoned the belief.

If you post represents you Sleight I would be happy to engage in a friendly, mutually non judgemental discourse with you on beliefs (or lack of them in my corner)

Good person you are

"This statement assumes that atheists have just decided they don't believe in God and then chose to see any scientific discoveries about the world around us to affirm that belief. That us just not true. Most atheists I know are in fact ex- theists from various religions, their doubts started when they started honestly and truly lifting that god- damn bible fog from their eyes and thinking truly rationally. "

ollieplimsoles Iv read this over and over and still cant seem to understand the cause of the offence you have taken. what I have tried to say is that for an atheist everything that they see around them is a confirmation that God doesnt exist and for a believer everything they see around them is evidence for God's existence.
you said that is not true but then say 'most' - but not all! - atheists you know were ex theists who saw the light etc. i honestly thought the ruder thing to assume in these discussions is that the atheist is an embittered ex theist. that a starting point was to take it as fact that an atheist's starting point was atheism. a dispassionate atheism that doesnt assume there is a God anywhere to prove or disprove.

"Deciding god exists and the Quran is true as a starting point is the pinnacle of irrational thinking, its a logical fallacy called 'poising the well' It clouds your judgement because god is a given, so everything must fit."

"God existing and the Quran is true" are not the starting points actually, the Quran and Muhammad did not evidence anything for the existence of God from scripture or revelation. islam is not a religion based on miracles for that reason.

God does not exist because 'the Quran said so'. or even 'Muhammad said so'. muslim belief in a Creator is based on contemplation of the natural and physical world. seeing the order in nature and the universe and from that deducing that this means there is an Originator and Creator.

Of course what i see as the hand of God, others like pretzel would say "But it isn't actually evidence of God - it's evidence of natural selection. You're looking at whole load of science, that you recognise as science, and giving the credit to God." when i spoke of atheist worldview and religious worldview, it was to this point. giving credit to God being a characteristic of religious mindset. and maybe i am assuming that but i think the abrahamic faiths tend to see it in this vein.
one can believe in God without having anything to do with religion, and organic belief in a 'Big God', even if amidst a pantheon of other gods, is found throughout the world long before and far beyond the reach of the abrahamic faiths.

I already stated that the case of whether this Creator God then cares about the creation, or whether just observes us dispassionately moving around like ants in an ant farm, that is based on revelation. the way the Quran presents the argument and the case for itself as from a divine source, seems rational to me. one thing i do not have to contend with is young earth creationism as in the Bible, and the Quran even taken literally can accomodate evolution and natural selection quite easily. (islam's problem historically never having been separation between religion and science as in christianity in Europe).

"This is where you are going spectacularly wrong. There is NO 'Atheist world view'! An atheist is someone who does not believe in any deity. By assuming atheism is a world view creates an allusion that it is a religion, with certain rules of thought and action. "

but worldview doesnt just allude to religion, what about capitalist worldview? communist worldview? i am certainly not calling atheism a religion as yes you can have capitalist atheists and communist atheists with widely different views on everything. but rather innocently took evolution as a topic that all atheists agree on, like sunsets and moon phases? or is it to atheists like climate change?

Just got back to this thread, everyone is making very interesting points even if I need google to understand some of the words being used.. which is good because it's helping to increase my knowledge.

The thing is that I still really don't know what I believe - sometimes I think there really is a God but I think that's just because it's more comforting than having purely Atheist beliefs.

I have not been Christened & my dad was not Christened either. His family attended a united reform church. My mum was Christened but her family never attended church & her grandfather had Jewish ancestors - he did however own a bible that was published in 1896 & passed down to me.

I went to Church of England as a child with some neighbours - I believed in it all until I was 13 when I started feeling out of place there. I began to have doubts as some of the worshippers could be quite snobbish & hypocritical in their behaviour. Also one of my pets died in a horrible way which made me stop believing in a 'good' God.

My grandad fought in Burma in WW2, he came back believing in reincarnation which he believed in for the rest of his life, not sure if he was influenced by local Buddhists or Hindus.

I work in a hospital and have seen a lot of death & suffering so I have a lot of doubts about the afterlife as well.

We're here to glorify God. To serve him

Now when I was a Christian and heard that I'd be following behind you with a 'Hallelujah' 'bless His holy name!' and, dependant on the setting, followed with a string of 'tongues'.

But now, I think 'every Christian has a different idea, Bob thinks glorifying His name is campaigning for equal rights for LGBT but Sue think the opposite is glorifying his name. Everyone has a different idea which is merely their own opinions.

All people are atheists to some degree. I just believe in 1 less god than you

what I have tried to say is that for an atheist everything that they see around them is a confirmation that God doesnt exist

No it isn't.

Its true some people just never believed in god. some people were indoctrinated as a child and had to work harder to break the programming. i honestly thought the ruder thing to assume in these discussions is that the atheist is an embittered ex theist No one is assuming anything, The atheists in my friendship group who are now non believers but once came from a faithful position are far from embittered- their lives are far better now they have abandoned religion.

muslim belief in a Creator is based on contemplation of the natural and physical world. seeing the order in nature and the universe and from that deducing that this means there is an Originator and Creator.
Why does that indicate it had to be designed and created by a thinking agent? Looking at things around you and thinking 'wow something really clever and powerful must have thought all this up' and deciding that is the truth, is not an adequate pathway to truth.

the way the Quran presents the argument and the case for itself as from a divine source, seems rational to me.

I'm sorry but it doesn't matter if it seems rational to you, it isn't. Because existence of the 'divine source' you speak about is very doubtful. What would you think if I told you I had obtained a 2000 year old manuscript that contained a blueprint for human society, that was written by divinely intelligent pigs, all powerful, and all knowing?

but rather innocently took evolution as a topic that all atheists agree on, like sunsets and moon phases? or is it to atheists like climate change?

I don't know because I don't speak for all atheists.

"All people are atheists to some degree. I just believe in 1 less god than you"

or justanotherposter, an atheist just could be halfway to being a muslim. after all, the formal declaration of muslim faith, the first pillar of islam is:

La illaha illallah : There is no god except the (One) God.

Get it? There is no god........ except the (one) God.

ah but honestly im not on here to get people converting or anything like that, just saw this thread as a good opportunity to explain abit about islam and muslim belief.

as to your last post ollie, i feel you have contradicted yourself somewhat about what not to assume or otherwise about atheists. i think it would turn into a circular argument to be honest so il just add what i could make sense of to my rolodex of what not to say to atheists.

by all means lets get into the issue of God and existence or non existence, i shall endeavour to be as pithy and as succinct as you.

as to assumption of non Created Universe, I believe that is an inadequate pathway to truth. "Were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain." (52:35-36)

as to your intelligent pig deities idea, or sentient teapot etc, what criteria would you set for a religious text to be true? that it is a manuscript that is really a communication from some sentient deity.

as to your last post ollie, i feel you have contradicted yourself somewhat about what not to assume or otherwise about atheists. i think it would turn into a circular argument to be honest

Give me two things I said that have contradicted eaxh other on the subject you mention and Im willing to accept it. And it isn't a circular argument.

as to assumption of non Created Universe, I believe that is an inadequate pathway to truth.

What is your definition of 'truth'?

as to your intelligent pig deities idea, or sentient teapot etc, what criteria would you set for a religious text to be true? that it is a manuscript that is really a communication from some sentient deity.

Its funny you should say that because its pretty much exactly the same criteria as the Quran! What an incredible coincidence!

If we were to eradicate all religious and scientific texts right now and came back in a 100 years to check, which books religious/scientific do you feel would contain the same information?

Just I think the scientific books would need updating and the religious books would need a bloody good edit.
My hope regarding spirituality though, would be, we wouldn't need books, we'd just know.

Bluedemilune there are a number of aspects of the Islamic narrative that I prefer to the Christian narrative. Although I’m an atheist, I feel strangely heartened that an alternative conception of the significance of Jesus exists in the minds of Muslims. It seems to hark back to the way he was viewed by his original Jewish followers.

Are there others out there, coming from a Christian heritage, who feel as I do?

'A religious text to be true...'

What does 'true' mean?

Do I believe Jesus rose from the dead? No, absolutely not. Nor do I believe in eternal life.

Do I believe in people living on through memory, their writing, talking about them, spreading their ideas, gathering and performing rituals in memory of them? Yes, absolutely.

To me, the resurrection is not a factual description of a stopped heart and drained blood being reanimated by a supernatural process. It is a recognition that evolution and the cognitive revolution have given us ways to prolong our existence and to have unprecedented power over ourselves and others. Advanced cognition has allowed us to form large societies with hierarchies that allow us to achieve things like agricultural progress, but also gives us power over each other. We have resouraces greater than needed for day to day survival. Even weak humans with tools/weapons can murder each other for space, possessions or access to sex. We can remember each other and communicate at a distance. How do we manage these abilities? How do we make a society that functions better than gun law or every person for themselves? I believe that naming an external authority God has helped us to do this. I believe that most religious rituals (eg prayer, cleanliness routines, festivals) are entirely positive for humans. I absolutely reject supernatural rationales for any of this but unfortunately it is hard to maintain them without. 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that all who believe in him might have eternal life' -is this 'true'? Not to me. Is it beautiful and transcendent? To me yes, though the emphasis on incarnation will be ugly and pagan to many I think. Is 'truth beauty and beauty truth' as Kents said? Yes in a way, no in other ways.

I’m afraid I have a strong visceral reaction against the crucifixion and what it says about humanity.

When news filtered out recently that ISIS were crucifying people, I had a horrible dream about Jesus on the cross, watching him dying, feeling guilty, responsible and helpless. I woke with a thumping sinus headache. The idea that this is/was considered a necessary act because humans are inherently sinful just haunts me – even though I’m not a Christian, just someone brought up with Christianity as the backdrop of life.

The Islamic story of Jesus - which describes him as a good, pure man and doesn't attach significance to the crucifixion - just makes me feel less, I don't know, wretched.

marking to read properly later.

"Its funny you should say that because its pretty much exactly the same criteria as the Quran! What an incredible coincidence!"

plimsoles i didnt get that bit at all but rather than go back and forth il just leave it here with you. your mind is obviously too nimble for me. Peace out

outwith except the resurrection and divinity Muslims venerate Jesus for pretty much the same reasons as Christians do. that he was born of the Virgin Mary, came as the Messiah, spoke from the cradle, brought the dead back to life, turned clay birds into real life birds are the notable stories in the Quran about Jesus. the key thing is that our faith is not based on that but because the Quran does a good job of making its claim that it is from God, we take those stories as just gospel. like Moses split the sea, David spoke to animals, Jonah swallowed by the whale, those stories are accepted as part of the Quran, like the parts about Jinn, or multiple earths, etc. the faith in the scripture is underpinned by some core truths that the other parts can then be taken for what they say.

i agree the purpose isnt as a scientific text book or a historical account. the Quran is firstly 'a healing and a guidance for a people who believe'. counselling to patience and good action. not fatalism though that is how some muslims take peace through submission to the will of God to mean. and to be honest, sometimes though it drove me to distraction when younger now i find the fatalism of my mother's people, devout muslims, very comforting. the cold and broken 'Alhamdullillah' 'praise be to God', with heads sunk low, at the first blow of bad news.

That resilience is also the first thing i appreciate about Judaism, their keeping the faith, the rituals, the rules, through all of travels and trials the Jewish people went through. millenia and aeons of wisdom on human nature and the divine nature. reverence for the part of God that is the Law Giver as much as the part of God that is Love.

anna i also agree that religion was crucial to forming up those large socieities of advanced cognitive beings to cooperate and work together. "How do we make a society that functions better than gun law or every person for themselves". the 'golden rule' is in every world religion, that takes alot of social conditioning to overcome the natural instinct of 'survival of the fittest'. i read that christian monks tending to the sick babies and lepers left out by the rest of their communities is what helped Christianity to spread through Europe rather than at the orders of Rome. that loving nature is i think the best part of Christianity, those who believe they already have God's love but then are moved by the sacrifice of their (version) of Christ to then do good to others. When there is nothing staked upon them doing so having already obtained their salvation.

Not more nimble man I have probably just read different books. No disrespect intended

Blue - Societies were developing long before religions were invented, unless you mean the type where they worshipped the sun or venerated an old tree. As usual, religion came much later to the party and then claimed all the credit.

certainly i didnt just mean the Abrahamic religions cardinal. humans started off in tight knit small hunter gatherer groups and scaling upto large anonymous numerous socieities was complex. what process to use to decipher the motivations of those over the next copse or valley whose fathers and grandfathers you never heard of or saw?the ancient civilisations of the Middle East, the Greeks, the Egyptians, Romans, all were advanced socieities for their age and overcame smaller groups because intra group cooperation was better than those around them, they got bigger and acquired more land and people etc. ultimately, the monotheistic religions either prevailed over them, or in Judaism's case outlasted them, because their groups worked even better again, helped each other more, got more stuff done.

and whether true or not, the idea of a creator God who rewards the good with heaven, 'smites the wicked', omniscient - knowing all, omnipresent - always there, and omnipotent - having unlimited power - which many scoff at now, helped to ensure cooperation between constantly expanding groups.

the early christians won hearts because they didnt euthanise the disabled, the sick or the elderly and looked after the ones left out to die by the pagans. one might have thought their resources would have got bogged down caring for such people and made them less competitive as a group. but their social cohesion based on their religious principles instead made them more attractive and gained followers.

same with islam. as well as social benefits, where the orthopraxy of religious rituals, food rules, hygeine rules, helped create social cohesion as much as faith in a Unified God, etc. some nations and tribes converted for the earliest version of respectability politics.

As you said, the religious came along later and took credit for everything that was already going on. There are very good sociological theories as to why religion took such a strong hold (obedience to a senior figure saying "don't eat that", "don't play with that sabre toothed tiger", "don't play with the fish" etc., makes children much more likely to survive to procreating age, therefore making unthinking obedience to a "father" figure a successful evolutionary trait that we're only now finally starting to get away from), but no, they don't give any evidence that religion is either "good" (as shown by the extremely frequent misuse of that power), or desirable (given the way that they are always playing catch up with the way societal morals develop and the way they have consistently held back scientific development). They have basically been parasitical, as they continue to be.

" therefore making unthinking obedience to a "father" figure"

is it enough to say "father figure" though cardinal honestly? all human social groups would have had 'father' figures that would not have been enough to confer the advantages of 'belief'. what happened to those children when the coast was clear and when the father/ patriarch/ leader wasn't around to see them eat the poison berries/climb up the steep gully/pull the sabre toothed tiger's tail. what happened when they were not being watched? not being monitored..?

it was the belief in a supernatural figure specifically all seeing, all hearing, all knowing, that could punish as well as reward, that helped humans to evolve societies. that didnt have to be monotheistic religion, but it would have needed religion. The 'Big gods' in the polytheistic religions before Abraham fulfilled this role as divine monitors/observers: Brahma, Zeus, Amun Ra, Jupiter, Odin, Buddha. reincarnation as a rat or river Styx to Hades what mattered more was the supernatural threat of punishment. the hold out of a reward of heaven after death didnt have that same ability to ensure watched people are good people. Rather than being a pernicious and retrograde influence on humanity religion and the ability to believe was an evolutionary benefit.

Societies have always had an authority figure, whether the strongest in the village in the old days, or the oldest, or whatever. The fact that religion has used this in order to subjugate people does not mean that these societies existed because of religion. Your thinking on this is extremely muddled. You are simply coming from the starting point of "I believe in a god and that my religion is the most important thing in human civilisation, therefore I will credit it with everything", not looking at the evolution of societies as they happened. Religion came along later and enabled certain people to subjugate more and more people, but religion is not the reason for societies. Even some animal species have societies, and I'm pretty sure they don't use religion!