Do Christians and muslims worship the same God?

[WayneLigon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

.... 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.