Is the Christian God the same as the Islamic god?

[Ivellious]

Quick point about non-Muslims bastardizing verses of the Koran in order to attack it: Here is a rather convincing article about how Sura 4:34 is not permission for a proper Muslim man to beat his wife.

http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/beating.htm

The main point here is that the word commonly translated as "to beat/strike" has over 100 meanings in the original language, ranging from violent to passive in comparison (such as "to separate"). The Koran uses this verb on several occasions to mean things other than "to beat/strike". Also of note is that cruelty and physical punishment is grounds for a religious divorce in Islam, thus putting this verse in direct contradiction with the rest of the Koran if translated the way you do, Gman.

I will point out that I find aspects of Islam to be extremely sexist, much like I find aspects of Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism to be very sexist and male-dominance-oriented. I bring up this point in particular because as it turns out, the Bible is not the only holy book that is improperly or irresponsibly bashed without cause.

[Gman]

Quick point about non-Muslims bastardizing verses of the Koran in order to attack it: Here is a rather convincing article about how Sura 4:34 is not permission for a proper Muslim man to beat his wife.

http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/beating.htm

The main point here is that the word commonly translated as "to beat/strike" has over 100 meanings in the original language, ranging from violent to passive in comparison (such as "to separate"). The Koran uses this verb on several occasions to mean things other than "to beat/strike". Also of note is that cruelty and physical punishment is grounds for a religious divorce in Islam, thus putting this verse in direct contradiction with the rest of the Koran if translated the way you do, Gman.

I will point out that I find aspects of Islam to be extremely sexist, much like I find aspects of Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism to be very sexist and male-dominance-oriented. I bring up this point in particular because as it turns out, the Bible is not the only holy book that is improperly or irresponsibly bashed without cause.

That is a bunch of baloney... Islamic men are superior to their women and do beat them. Of course they are going to try and smoosh the saying over. I have had many debates with Muslims over this verse and they all agree it means beating but with a small stick like a toothbrush...

AND, nowhere in the Bible is it EVER permitted for a man to beat his wife... Ever.

So tell me have you ever lived in a Muslim country before?

You are simply the voice of the masses who do not read the Bible.

[Ivellious]

Islamic men are superior to their women and do beat them.

This is extremely fallacious. Because they do beat their wives does not mean it is religiously acceptable. This statement is literally the same thing as me saying a christian guy beats his wife, therefore it MUST be a Christian teaching. The fact of the matter is, in biblical times, people of ALL religions lived in a society where men routinely abused their power over women. You can see traces of that culture in the Old and New Testament, in the Koran, in history books, etc. The middle east never broke out of that system like the rest of the civilized world (well, at least on the surface the rest of the civilized world has).

And you might be right in saying that people use religion to gain power over women. Very true. But that's a political issue, not a religious one. The leaders of Saudi Arabia are not religious people, they hide behind their "religion" in order to exert their will on others, women taking the brunt of it.

It's akin to how the popes of the Crusades hid behind religion to fuel their holy wars. Were those massacres backed by Christianity? Of course not. Were they "in the name of" Christianity in order to gain political support? Yes indeed. It's how terrorists convince desperate men to join their forces and hurt others. They might claim it's a religious fight, but to say that Islam itself is at fault is a lie.

AND, nowhere in the Bible is it EVER permitted for a man to beat his wife... Ever.

I never said it did. Beating is not the only form of male-dominance possible.

So tell me have you ever lived in a Muslim country before?

No, but believe me I understand the idea of what it's like to live there as a woman. See my point above about how many of these problems associated with Islam are actually just political games being played by powerful people.

You are simply the voice of the masses who do not read the Bible.

I have read the Bible. Multiple times. Am I an expert? No, of course not.

[Gman]

This is extremely fallacious. Because they do beat their wives does not mean it is religiously acceptable. This statement is literally the same thing as me saying a christian guy beats his wife, therefore it MUST be a Christian teaching. The fact of the matter is, in biblical times, people of ALL religions lived in a society where men routinely abused their power over women. You can see traces of that culture in the Old and New Testament, in the Koran, in history books, etc. The middle east never broke out of that system like the rest of the civilized world (well, at least on the surface the rest of the civilized world has).

Again.... Where in the Bible does it state that a man can beat his wife? Where??? Show me....

Why can't you admit you want nothing to do with the G-d of the Bible?? Just admit it and go your merry way...

And you might be right in saying that people use religion to gain power over women. Very true. But that's a political issue, not a religious one. The leaders of Saudi Arabia are not religious people, they hide behind their "religion" in order to exert their will on others, women taking the brunt of it.

It's akin to how the popes of the Crusades hid behind religion to fuel their holy wars. Were those massacres backed by Christianity? Of course not. Were they "in the name of" Christianity in order to gain political support? Yes indeed. It's how terrorists convince desperate men to join their forces and hurt others. They might claim it's a religious fight, but to say that Islam itself is at fault is a lie.

Again.. You claim to know the Bible... Show me where it is permitted to beat your wife... Also explain to us the heart of the G-d of the Bible.

No, but believe me I understand the idea of what it's like to live there as a woman. See my point above about how many of these problems associated with Islam are actually just political games being played by powerful people.

I have read the Bible. Multiple times. Am I an expert? No, of course not.

No... You do NOT want to have any part of the Bible. You despise the G-d of the Bible, just admit it....

[Ivellious]

You seem to be on quite the hot streak of not paying attention to what people say. I very specifically said nothing about the Bible allowing people to beat their wives. I even clarified it in my last post, which you conveniently did not quote or reference at all.

You fallaciously said that, because Islamic men beat their wives, that Islam says they should beat their wives. I said that is wrong, because what they do is not necessarily backed by their religion. For some reason you don't understand how that is awful logic on your part.

You then just repeated the line "where does the Bible say you can beat your wife?" despite it having nothing to do with the posts you quoted...are you that afraid to actually reconcile with what I said? I mean, I answered your question already:

"I never said it did. Beating is not the only form of male-dominance possible."

[Gman]

You seem to be on quite the hot streak of not paying attention to what people say. I very specifically said nothing about the Bible allowing people to beat their wives. I even clarified it in my last post, which you conveniently did not quote or reference at all.

You fallaciously said that, because Islamic men beat their wives, that Islam says they should beat their wives. I said that is wrong, because what they do is not necessarily backed by their religion. For some reason you don't understand how that is awful logic on your part.

You then just repeated the line "where does the Bible say you can beat your wife?" despite it having nothing to do with the posts you quoted...are you that afraid to actually reconcile with what I said? I mean, I answered your question already:

"I never said it did. Beating is not the only form of male-dominance possible."

No.... You stated that it's akin to how the popes of the Crusades hid behind religion to fuel their holy wars.... Remember?

"It's akin to how the popes of the Crusades hid behind religion to fuel their holy wars. Were those massacres backed by Christianity? Of course not. Were they "in the name of" Christianity in order to gain political support? Yes indeed. It's how terrorists convince desperate men to join their forces and hurt others. They might claim it's a religious fight, but to say that Islam itself is at fault is a lie."

Again... Show me in the Bible where it states this.

[Ivellious]

...are you confused here? The Bible wasn't written during the Crusades. Christian leaders ordered the Crusades in the name of Christianity in order to gain political power. Was it a good, christian thing to do? No, but if we follow your logic (that a group of people doing something bad must mean their religion is in favor of it), it must have been. When you say that Islam accepts the beating of women because Muslims do it, it's the same as me saying Christianity accepts the Crusades because Christians did that.

[Gman]

...are you confused here? The Bible wasn't written during the Crusades. Christian leaders ordered the Crusades in the name of Christianity in order to gain political power. Was it a good, christian thing to do? No, but if we follow your logic (that a group of people doing something bad must mean their religion is in favor of it), it must have been. When you say that Islam accepts the beating of women because Muslims do it, it's the same as me saying Christianity accepts the Crusades because Christians did that.

And what exactly is your point? And what does this have to do with the G-d of the Bible?

[Ivellious]

My point is, you said as an argument for the Koran accepting wife abuse, that Muslim men beat their wives, therefore it was a Muslim act. I said that if everything you said was true, that every organized evil committed by Christians must also be a Christian act. Which clearly is not true. Therefore, your argument is moot, and you reasoning for Islam accepting wife-abuse is purely a byproduct of your own biases, and not fact.

[Gman]

My point is, you said as an argument for the Koran accepting wife abuse, that Muslim men beat their wives, therefore it was a Muslim act. I said that if everything you said was true, that every organized evil committed by Christians must also be a Christian act. Which clearly is not true. Therefore, your argument is moot, and you reasoning for Islam accepting wife-abuse is purely a byproduct of your own biases, and not fact.

Again... It IS A FACT that Muslims use this verse to beat their wives when they get out of hand. Holy wars are completely a different issue. Holy wars ARE NOT wife beatings.... Where on earth does wife beating mean Holy wars?????

Answer it now.

[Ivellious]

So murdering people in the name of Christ is better than beating your wife?

I'm saying they are essentially the same in your logic. You say that Muslims beat their wife because they think their religion says so, and I say that Christians have fought holy wars because they thought their religion said so. How is that all that different? For the record, all I mean to say is that just because a group thinks that they are doing something that their religion allows, doesn't mean it really does allow it. I'm saying in both cases here that the people who partake/partook in these acts were are very wrong.

[Danieltwotwenty]

So murdering people in the name of Christ is better than beating your wife?

I'm saying they are essentially the same in your logic. You say that Muslims beat their wife because they think their religion says so, and I say that Christians have fought holy wars because they thought their religion said so. How is that all that different?

His point is, nowhere in the Bible does it condone any of the crusades, where as the Koran condones the miss treatment of women.


Dan

[Gman]

So murdering people in the name of Christ is better than beating your wife?

Where is murdering justified in the Bible?

I'm saying they are essentially the same in your logic. You say that Muslims beat their wife because they think their religion says so, and I say that Christians have fought holy wars because they thought their religion said so. How is that all that different?

No they are not.... One is individual and one is corporate.

[RickD]

I don't concede your premise. It's the premise you've been arguing that I've been disagreeing with throughout this entire thread. Just because one does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, it does not follow that they do not believe in the same God. It is perfectly meaningful to say, "The God of Abraham has no incarnated Son." It's a wrong statement, but the only reason it can be wrong is the fact that it is meaningful. Meaningless statements are neither wrong nor right, precisely because you cannot be wrong or right unless you mean something to be wrong or right.

This just goes back to the first point I made that, for the most part, was ignored. Just because people disagree on the some of the attributes or features or works of God, it does not follow that they therefore believe in a different God. It just means that they don't believe certain statements about God are true, or it means that they believe that certain statements about God are false. The theology of you all arguing that Muslims and Jews have a different God makes it impossible to say incorrect things about Yahweh, because such incorrect statements turn out to be about someone other than Yahweh!

So regarding the Gospel, FG theology does not say that believing in God saves. It says believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God saves (John 20:31).

Jac, I've read from you, that some of us are arguing that Muslims and Jews have a different God than Christians. That is not my argument. There is one God. Everybody has the same God. I'm talking about believing in the same God. There's a difference that you may not be seeing. The God I believe in, is a trinitarian God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God. The God that Muslims believe in, is Unitarian. Jesus is not God to them. Christians believe Jesus is God. Muslims don't believe Jesus is God. Muslims and Christians believe in a different Jesus, therefore Muslims and Christians believe in a different God. I think you're making my argument out to be something it's not. It's pretty simple. If one believes in a different Jesus, than the biblical Jesus, then one believes in a different God. I'm not talking about disagreeing with attributes or features of God. Jesus is not an attribute or feature of God. He is God. If one doesn't believe in Jesus, one doesn't believe in the one true God, but some other god.

And, just because Muslims believe they believe in the one true God, that doesn't mean they do. You really need to think about the possibility that Allah, is a deception from the prince of the this world, to deceive Muslims into believing in a false god.

[PaulSacramento]

Implicit doesn't = explicit and we all know that even some Christian denominations do NOT agree with the trinity Doctrine.

I guess you and I disagree on what defines a Christian. Who is Jesus Christ? If a denomination teaches he is not the second person of the trinity, and just a man(not God in the flesh), then in my book, that denomination is not Christian, and teaches heresy. It's one thing for a Christian to not understand the concept of the trinity, but to deny that Christ is God, is anti-Christ, and has no business being called Christian. And as usual, I could be wrong, and we should all sit around singing kumbaya with anyone who believes in any kind of god.

It is not up to me to judge who is or isn't Christian.
Just because one group disagrees with the trinity doctrine but still accepts Christ as Lord and saviour, does the disagreement with the Trinity doctrine make them "false" Christians or non-christian? were those that lived before the Doctrine of the trinity ever came to be formalized, not Christians because they didn't believe in a doctrine that didn't exist yet?
I can't make that call nor would I want to.

Paul, if a group disagrees with the trinity, but still accepts Christ as lord and savior, wouldn't you wonder which "Christ" they believe in? The Christ we need to believe in, is the Jesus Christ of the bible. God incarnate. Not The Jesus Christ that's is merely some great prophet.
On Unitarians, from Wikipedia:

Thus, Unitarians adhere to strict monotheism, and maintain that Jesus was a prophet, perhaps even supernatural to some extent, but not God himself

You tell me, does a "denomination" that believes that, believe in the Jesus Christ of the bible? Or, are they believing in a false Christ?

PaulS wrote:
were those that lived before the Doctrine of the trinity ever came to be formalized, not Christians because they didn't believe in a doctrine that didn't exist yet?

Paul, the trinity is in the Old Testament. You do realize that, don't you?

Not gonna make a judgment call on who is or is not a christian based on how they interpret the trinity doctrine.
And yes I know that the Trinity is also implicit in some passages of the OT BASED on Christ's revelation in the NT.
That is why without the NT AND Christ and the HS, there is no understanding of the OT verses that imply the trinity as doing just that, implying the Trinity.