I agree with everything except the last sentence. It's possible for them to be referring to the same God and not know God at the same time.

Not when they affirm things about their god that deliberately precludes their god from being our God. They make claims about their Allah, I have no reason to tell them they are wrong.

Zobel said:

---

Not when they affirm things about their god that deliberately precludes their god from being our God. They make claims about their Allah, I have no reason to tell them they are wrong.

---

Except they'll tell you that's the God of Abraham. So you do.

PabloSerna said:

---

" worship a different God "

I believe Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God- the God of Abraham.

---

You gotta give it to Pablo for staying faithful to the Vatican.

I'm happy to present them with a hard dichotomy. One of us is worshipping something that is not the God of Abraham. Both can't be true.

The ecumenical approach makes liars out of everyone.

you didn't respond to the article, you responded to a guy who said islam is not compatible with the western culture, and your response was a kind of dichotomy.

Quote:

---

large groups of Muslims who reject American ideas of individual freedom or religious freedom and who would like to live under Sharia Law would be a concern.

large groups of Muslims who align with our Constitutional values, but maybe look a little different, talk a little different, and worship a different God . . . that doesn't bother me.

---

the second part there is the problem, because you project YOUR hierarchy of values and worldview on them. in YOUR worldview, our constitutional values are axiomatic and taken for granted. however, these are post-Christian and are not self-evident to people who do not share that moral framework. even further, you yourself are an agnostic that believes in explicitly secular mode of governance which again takes from granted - with no justification - that religious beliefs are secondary to these other values and are relegated to some personal sphere.

people who don't start with a post-Christian moral framework and secular ideals have no reason to agree with this, and in fact in many ways agreeing with this would make them no longer be what they are.

what's interesting is you don't even seem to be aware of this? or like... are incapable of grasping it?

so allow me to introduce a hypothetical person of a religion which is not post-Christian and therefore does not align with your post-Christian axiomatic moral assumptions, and who does not agree with your unjustified assumed secularism.

you say, well, as long as they align with my values and if necessary subordinate their religion to do so then i have no issue.

surely you see that you're basically saying that as long as the hypothetical person i described (muslim or not) STOPS being what they are in order to accept your worldview, you're not bothered.

in other words, as i said, as long as they're compatible, they're not incompatible.

but you don't see that there is the possibility that the religious and social framework itself may be the incompatibility.

i'm not criticizing your views, i'm pointing out that on the one hand you don't seem aware of the assumption you're making, and on the other - you're potentially agreeing with the person who is saying that their religion is incompatible (because it is neither post-christian nor secular).

There is a reason the Koran always addresses Jesus (Issa) as the son of Mary rather than the Son of God. He is not God to them so they use the name that emphasizes his humanity only.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

" worship a different God "

I believe Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God- the God of Abraham.

---

same historical roots, different gods.

When you change the nature of the divinity, you change the god.

---

You and I making differing claims about divine nature doesn't change divine nature.

If you and I describe the same person, how many traits can we disagree on before we have to say "we are not describing the same person" ?

We might be looking at the same thing, but we are not seeing the same thing.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

If you and I describe the same person, how many traits can we disagree on before we have to say "we are not describing the same person" ?

We might be looking at the same thing, but we are not seeing the same thing.

---

Is the person's true nature different because we perceive him/her differently?

I get why mormons want to be considered Christians and say that they worship the same god.
I don't understand the angle for Muslims.

Splitting hairs. . . I responded to a guy who said that Islam is not compatible with western culture. And my response was aimed at determining a more concise reason for the perceived incompatibility in context of an article that spends more time talking about how the economic effects of the Halal food industry and the rise in kids named Mohammad than it does on alarming conflicts in social values.


People are products, largely - but not solely, of their environment and circumstance. I am no different. I take for granted Constitutional values and that we live in a society that places high value on individual freedoms because this is the culture I have always lived in. But, I am very aware that many immigrants come to this country without these shared values. And as I've stated several times in this thread, this IS a concern. I think you've gotten so used to disagreeing with me that you don't realize that we may have some common ground.

Just as it is a mistake to group all Christians into one box, I would say it is equally a mistake to group all Muslims into one box. And just as some Christian groups can hold views that are either compatible or incompatible with what I think are Western values, Muslim persons can be the same. Maybe there is a smaller pool in this case, but progressive, pro-democracy, 'Westernized' Muslims certainly exist.

Now, there may be a problem with what I just wrote above in the form of ambiguity of 'western values' and what that it means to be compatible or incompatible with those values. Its been suggested that we should define those terms, but no one seems to want to.

Anyway, from my perspective, the concern isn't Halal food or kids named Mohammad and I don't even think the concern is necessarily Islam. The concern, from my point of view, has to do with those constitutional values that I take for granted. Fundamental rejection of our 'post-Christian' / Constitutional values is the destabilizing force that I am concerned for - not which God we worship. A large group of persons who wish to enact local religious law and circumvent American legal protections or processes is a problem. Religious 'honor-based violence', removal of safeguards for women, forced veiling, many of the items listed in the article are a concern - and many of those items reflect that fundamental presuppositional differences. If you want to insist that any separation between those concerning values and Islam is folly . . and if you want to argue that a Muslim who adopts a 'Western' value system has stopped being a Muslim. . . .you go ahead I guess. I'm going to avoid gatekeeping who is and isn't a Muslim.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Not when they affirm things about their god that deliberately precludes their god from being our God. They make claims about their Allah, I have no reason to tell them they are wrong.

---

Except they'll tell you that's the God of Abraham. So you do.

---

I worship the God of Abraham who is Trinitarian.

I just asked my Muslim coworker if he worships a Trinitarian God. He said no. I asked if he worships the God of Abraham. He said yes.

Either I'm wrong or he's wrong.

---

He's wrong, and the referent is the same.

This seems to be a pointless distinction then. It's as if anyone can worship anything and describe it however they like, but as long say it's the God of Abraham, you'd agree with them and say it's the same as your God but say they're doing it wrong. No?

Zobel said:

---

This seems to be a pointless distinction then. It's as if anyone can worship anything and describe it however they like, but as long say it's the God of Abraham, you'd agree with them and say it's the same as your God but say they're doing it wrong. No?

---

In the same way that if I see a bird, and you see a plane. At a minimum one of us is wrong even if we're looking at the same thing. I'm not saying their worship isn't disordered, just that they are referring to the same God.

What are they seeing and pointing to?

RAB91 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

There's around 400,000 Muslims in Texas. Thats maybe 1% of the population. The xenophobia is just a touch ridiculous.

---

Islam is not compatible with the Western culture. HTH.

---

Do a search on Twitter for Dearborn Michigan for further evidence. It will show you some of what went on tonight. You can argue about the style/type of protest done by the anti-islam groups, but the reaction from the Muslims is just another proof point about how they have no desire to assimilate.

I'm not sure how to answer this. There are 2 Church documents, both I think from Vatican ii that seem to say that with us they (the Moslems) adore the one true God, but don't possess the true faith. So I think it's safe to say that what the Church is saying is that it's possible to be profoundly wrong on what God has revealed about Himself and leave in tact certain metaphysical truths about God that we share. He subsists in Himself. He's the one, true God. He's the creator of Heaven and Earth, etc.

It's possible they're unwittingly worshipping God similar to how Paul tells the Athenians that's what they're doing. And similarly, their worship is disordered and damaging to them and they're called to repent.

Well, presumably when we both see an object (bird vs plane) there's a shared experience. What is the shared experience here?

Islam claims no direct interaction with Allah ever, as far as I know - only through angels. (Happy to be corrected if this is not the case). Our faith does not make this claim. So what is the "bird" we're both pointing at?

The Athenians made no claims about the unknown god. St Paul says I will make the unknown known. Not the same.

And by Vatican II we'd been out of communion for nine centuries. So that doesn't carry for me, sorry.

Zobel said:

---

Well, presumably when we both see an object (bird vs plane) there's a shared experience. What is the shared experience here?

Islam claims no direct interaction with Allah ever, as far as I know - only through angels. (Happy to be corrected if this is not the case). Our faith does not make this claim. So what is the "bird" we're both pointing at?

The Athenians made no claims about the unknown god. St Paul says I will make the unknown known. Not the same.

And by Vatican II we'd been out of communion for nine centuries. So that doesn't carry for me, sorry.

---

I think you may be overthinking it. We're both pointing to God, and their claims about Him aren't true. I'm not carrying water for the claims of Islam here with regard to the nature of God.

Is it possible the Athenians didnt have a distorted view of the nature of God considering they worshipped a lot of them?

I referenced the Vatican II documents because that's where this comes from, and I wasn't clear about your question. My belief in this one thing is rooted in deference for the magisterium so I couldn't flesh it out as much as it seems like you're wanting me to.

A lot of Christian denominations have perceptions of the divine that I think are widly inaccurate. I think they still worship the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

So do Mormons, and Rabbinic Jews, and Samaritans, and Beta Isreal, and Sunnis, and Shiites.

Everyone has some concept of God that is flawed. Now, I personally believe the core Christian narrative is the most accurate. There are plenty of things that I feel other Abrahamic religions are wrong on. But I also believe that when they earnestly open their hearts to God he hears them. God knows what their perceptions are flawed. God knows the limitations in their personal journeys.

Well, in the case of the bird, there's a physical phenomenon we're naming.

Here you've got a testimony of a guy who says an angel revealed a bunch of stuff to him versus people who say they met God face to face. The guy who talked to an angel says the other guys didn't meet God face to face.

There is no "bird". There's two stories about two different things that are mutually exclusive. What is the shared experience? If I say, I believe that Abraham was actually worshiping Baal, and I worship Baal does that mean I'm worshipping the same God as you? Why not?

I found this article that I think helps answer the question. Under the section failure of reference, 6th paragraph down in case you don't want to read the whole thing, but it's not a bad read

"being absolutely metaphysically ultimate, being that from which all else derives, being that which does not have and in principle could not have a cause of its own, etc. -- in short, being what classical theism says God essentially is -- is, I would say, what is key to determining whether someone's use of "God" plausibly refers to the true God. If someone affirms these things of God, then there is at least a strong presumption in favor of the conclusion that he is referring to, and thus worshipping, the true God, even if he also says some seriously mistaken things about God. If someone does not affirm these things of God, then there is at least serious doubt about whether he is referring to and worshipping the true God. And if someone positively denies these things, then there is a strong presumption that he is not referring to or worshipping the true God."

So the answer is definitely no, as long as Baal has the same attributes as the god of the same name in the Canaanite religion.

Edward Feser: Christians, Muslims, and the reference of "God" https://share.google/o4qzyfJE3CKJh3KPr

So Aristotle's uncaused cause is the Christian God? Plotinus' One?

Aquinas seemed to think so, right? That's good enough for me.

this is so broad a claim as to be useless then, and probably actively harmful. anyone who says their God created the universe, by your rules is worshipping the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham created the universe.

if a cult that worshipped napoleon popped up claiming that he was a manifestation of the god who created the universe, would you say that they were worshipping the God of Abraham? because that's an easy no for me dawg.

Alright Kurt, Zobel's about finished you off on this mental exercise in suicidal empathy but I have one last question.

If muslims grew and grew and grew, kept voting their their tribe into power, slowly allowed for more sharia law to gain influence and then one day held a constitutional convention to formally implement sharia law - is that A) American because they used the democratic process? B) A good thing? and C) Just to resist such things?

You give up the plot right there.

Muslims will not be satisfied with the trappings of secular materialism for long. They explicitly work to gain power and bring about sharia law.

Find me a muslim majority country that doesn't have sharia law, or allows open discussion of religion or even religious conversions without the threat of death.

Remember when I said that Christian Nationalism is the best way out of this regardless of its warts. This is one of the other few options on the table.

Your options for what america is in 50 years are:
-Christian Nationalist
-Communist, atheist, rainbow secularist state
-Sharia law muslim
-Indian pagan chaos