Do Moslems, Christians & Jews Believe in the Same God?

frontpagemag ^ | 11/28/2002 | Serge Trifkovic

[truth_seeker]

"Well, like good Christians, let's judge people by the fruit they produce."

I'm sure that Christians give charity, to those of other faiths. I presume that Jews do likewise.

My question would follow: Do Muslims give charity, to those of other faiths?

[nicmarlo]

I seem to recall crossing your path awhile ago. : )

[Charles Henrickson]

I seem to recall crossing your path awhile ago.

Yes, I think it was on the matter of a Lutheran pastor who participated in an "interfaith" (as though there is such a thing) prayer service. I was/am very much against it. (I myself am a Lutheran pastor.)

[nicmarlo]

And Jesus also said:

"And why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? Everyone who comes to Me, and hears My words, and acts upon them, I will show you whom he is like:

he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation upon the rock; and when a flood rose, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built.

But the one who has heard, and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house upon the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."

We must listen to the Words of the Lord and act according to His teachings. We are not free to ignore Him or His Words and expect salvation simply because we think we are "entitled" to it. Luke 6:46-49.

[nicmarlo]

Yes, that's right. I remembered your name, not the topic; but that was it. Happy Thanksgiving to you.

[nicmarlo]

That is not to say, however, that our salvation is condition upon our works. Our salvation is based on faith, through grace. We cannot earn our way to heaven, or add to what Christ has already done for us. But we must be diligent in practicing what Christ would have us do, because this is right and just, as believers, to be examples to non-Christians, or the "unchurched," for what kind of witness would we be if we behaved and acted as those who do not know Him? Why, then, we would be perceived, by man, as no different. It is for other human beings we must act and live according to the laws of God, not for our own salvation's sake, but as a testimony to the Lord, that He has changed our inner being, molding us into His likeness.

And while we may still sin, we are no longer sinners, for Christ died for us. He gives us the power and the strength to overcome sin, yet we are weak and do not always strive for the perfection which He freely would bestow upon us.

Nevertheless, our aim is to please Him, for pleasing sake, not for salvation's sake. For that is accomplished, once and for all, when we accept Christ as our Savior. But no one shall come to the Father but by Him, Jesus our Lord. And this is for all peoples all over the earth, to the Jew first and the Gentile.

[lavaroise]

Even Samurais who do not refuse combat and refuse suicide have more faith than muslims.

We know who created Islam's djins and it is the muslims themselves. A religion that privileges itself is not a religion intent on freedom of blessing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Lyuing about you? I don't think so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

"I do not believe that man has either the right or the ability to govern himself justly. The idea of popular government constitutes a rejection of authority -- a Luciferic, humanistic, anti-Christian Enlightenment idea that has led to disaster in every instance of its practice. Christianity is a relgion of hmility, not pride; submission, not self-rule; and is based upon the idea of a humble Man submitting himself to the will of a Divine Father and King . The Faustian fantasy of men-as-gods, knowing for themselves Good and Evil, is a lie straight from the lips of the Serpent of Eden.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

You are saying that the Founders rejected God, and set up a Luciferic, anti-Christian nation, a Nation of sinners, without a real religion.

In talking about the American system of government, you used the term "Luciferic" to describe it, called it an "anti-Christian Faustian fantasy of men-as-gods", said that self-government "is a lie straight from the lips of the Serpent of Eden", and that you recognized "the fraudulent ideals of the Revolution -- liberté, egalité, et fraternité as the damnable lies they are...". Strange terminology to use when professing your love for this Nation, specially while trying to convince others of the Godlessness of the Islamic faith.

[monkeyshine]

Thanks for the link. Great stuff there that I want to look more into.

[PhilipFreneau]

The words of Washington are great if you want to established the believed opinions of George Washington, however he was not the only author of the US Constitution. Given that early drafts of the First Amendment that specifically protected Christianity were rejected over wording that covers the much more general "religion" instead, I'm still not convinced that it was intended only to cover one specific type of religious belief.

For what it is worth, Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention. And the only concerns I have read in historical documents about the establishment of religion were those regarding possible in-fighting between Christian denominations. They were adamant that a "national church", such as the Anglican Church of England, should not have power in America. Therefore, the "general" religion you spake of was Christian in nature, but non-denominational."

For example, the House Journal for Friday, April, 17, 1789, reads: "That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed to Congress for the present session; the Senate to appoint one, and give notice thereof to the House of Representatives, who shall thereupon appoint the other; which Chaplains shall commence their services in the Houses that appoint them, but shall interchange weekly."

Neither did the early congress have trouble passing resolutions to seek guidance from God. In the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Friday, September 25, 1789, it is written: Resolved, That a Joint Committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the People of the United States, a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of Government for their safety and happiness.

A similar reading can be found in the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Monday, September 28, 1789.

Of course, the President in question was George Washington, who honored the Lord in his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, but the speech was non-denominational.

And in the Senate on April 27th, 1789, there was this: "Resolved, That, after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice President, and the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, proceed to St. Paul's Chapel, to hear divine service, to be performed by the Chaplain of Congress, already appointed; whereupon, Resolved, That this House doth concur in the said resolution, amended to read as followeth, to wit: That, after the oath shall have been administered to the President, the Vice President, and members of the Senate, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, will accompany him to St. Paul's Chapel, to hear divine service performed by the Chaplain of Congress."

That does not sound like "Separation of Church and State" to me.

Now, there is this from John Jay: "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."

Finally, I refer to the 1st Amendment, which begins, "[The] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That clearly means that religion is within the sphere of the states and the people, as per the 10th Amendment. Jefferson, who has the infamous reputation of being the author of the mis-interpreted "Separation of Church and State" clause used by the anti-religion faction in the U.S., interpreted the 1st Amendment differently from that faction. Jefferson wrote, "I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S." (from a letter to the Rev. Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808). Jefferson's interpretaion was the case until the federal government usurped that power from the states several decades ago.

[Dajjal]

BTTT

[PhilipFreneau]

We must listen to the Words of the Lord and act according to His teachings. We are not free to ignore Him or His Words and expect salvation simply because we think we are "entitled" to it. Luke 6:46-49.

What you said is definitely in the Bible, but I hesitate to ignore Peter's declaration regarding the Lord's longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[Pliney the younger]

There is and always will be only one God. And he is the God of all. But he LOVES his children. No interpretation of him build on a theology of hatred consequently can be an accurate interpretation of his relationship with man.

When Mohamed first wrote the Koran he said that he was not certain if he had been inspired by God but rather by Satan. (Consequently Moslems aversion to any reference to Satanic verses.) Sounds as if he was right, and that he was partially or wholly inspired by Satan.

Problems:
1. There are presently one billion followers of Islam.
2. Religious wars tend to go on for long periods, hundreds of years not being uncommon.
3. Small groups of fanatical followers can do enormous damage to modern civilized societies.
4. Cells of this belief are pushing the potential for it.s hatred and destruction to the limits. And they are doing it in the United States.
5. The potential recruiting grounds for the most radical elements of this religion, in our nations prisons is unlimited and has been underway for some time.

Problem how to neutralize the radical elements, and promote and assist the rest of the faith to undergo the religious transformation into modernity.

Presumption: We have one h..l of a job ahead of us.
A 30-year struggle is an optimistic prediction.

[B-Chan]

Au contraire. I never said that America as a nation was an abomination, which is your claim. I did say, and say again, that representative government in any form or historical manifestation is at its root anti-Christian, humanistic, and based upon the Luciferic ideal of man as his own master. In other words, I reject the Enlightenment philosophy of Humanism that gave birth to the poltical idea of popular government, not any specific popular govermnment extant today

You are saying that the Founders rejected God, and set up a Luciferic, anti-Christian nation, a Nation of sinners, without a real religion.

I am saying no such thing. I am saying that the Founders were men steeped in the ideals of the so-called Enlightenment, which has as its premise the rejection of a sovereign personal God that rules the universe -- a Luciferic and anti-Christian philosophy. The Constitution of the United States itself (and the federal government it establishes) is no more evil than that of any other post-Enlightenment political entity.

What is a patriot? A patriot is a person loyal to the government and people of his native land. He cheerfully obeys his nation's laws, respects its culture, fulfills his civic obligations (paying taxes, etc.) and is willing to fight and if necessary die in its defense.

As a law-abiding citizen, taxpayer, and and military veteran, I believe I meet those criteria.

I disagree that representative governnment is a Christian form of government, but the government we have in the United States is, for better or worse, my government, and I swore an oath to defend it. Since all authority on Earth is instituted (or allowed to exist) by God, as a Christian I am obligated to support and honor whatever form of authority exists in my country, whether I agree with its principles or not.

President Jordan Lyman: So you, ah, you stand by the Constitution, Jake?

Colonel Martin "Jiggs" Casey: I never thought of it just like that, Mr. President, but, well, that's what we got and I guess it's worked pretty well so far. I sure don't want to be the one to say we ought to change it.

President Jordan Lyman: Neither do I.

-- Seven Days In May, script by Rod Serling, 1964

Ultimately, any form of government not specifically based upon the Christian faith is anti-Christian: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." [ St. Matt. 12:30 RSV]. But a Christian may not be a revolutionary; Christianity is against every rebellion or revolution that ever existed. Rebellion was the Original Sin; my role as a believer in Christianity is to fight rebellion and revolution, not support them. I am therefore content to count myself as a patriotic American and an enemy of those who would rebel against or attempt to overthrow our government.

[Commie Basher]

Okay, you wanna discuss Bible as literature? Well, I've not read the Koran, but neither have I read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.

I sometimes wonder if the Bible is hailed as great literature merely because people are suckers for Shakesperean English. That it, they're reacting to the King James translation, rather than to the Bible itself.

I've read some of the King James translation, not much. While there's some good quotes, there's also much turgid boring stuff. All that begetting, and all those looong descriptive passages of the tabernacle, or whatever.

Judged purely as literature rather than "the word of God", much of the Bible, even the King James Bible, should have been cut -- that is, judged purely as literature.

[Commie Basher]

"..all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death."

This is very different from the false Islam god. The verse you refer to above is directed to the Jews living "in the Holy Land."

No, not "very different." You're straining here. Had this passage been in the Koran, I think you'd use it against them.

[Blood of Patriots and Tyrants]

The real enemy is Arab culture. That is why these idiots are from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and train in Afghanistan.

[Commie Basher]

the crucification and resurrection of Christ are denied by Islam. Accordingly, Islam is not the same God as Judeo-Christian Godhead.

The resurrection of Christ is also denied by the Judeo- part of that Judeo-Christian Godhead you speak of.

[AmericaUnited]

As to whether there is or is not a holy Trinity, that is for each to decide for himself. Neither the NT nor the OT says there is. It is a theological concept by scholars to help them understand and communicate.

Hmmm... Really? Time to go study your Bible a little bit better...

I John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

Now from John, we see that the Word is Jesus:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."