Do Christians and Muslims Worship The Same God? 2

Yes, you're missing something. The Pope doesn't just toss off one of these things at poolside in between Mai Tais. All these sorts of statements are heavily studied and vetted by experts.

But look closely at the URL and you will find that you're also underestimating who is talking. This is a Vatican II document. This means that it's not just the Pope talking but all the bishops sitting in council, including those who have been serving in muslim lands all their lives. I'd be much more confident about a Syrian bishop speaking on the nature of Islam than a non-expert in America. If those who have the closes professional experience possible are of the opinion that Islam is an Abrahamic faith that's good enough for me.

The Vatican has been making these judgments on other religions for about 2 millenia now. Why not trust the experts? If you don't, at least respect the expertise enough to do more provide a few throwaway lines.

No, you're not missing anything. Your perception of the divergence between the Christian and the Islamic conceptions of God is quite accurate.

The concept of God is admittedly problematic, since we attribute characteristics to Him that go well beyond what we're capable of imagining. All the same, the characteristics Christian and Islamic theologians have attributed to Him, and the relation of Man to God which those theologians have propounded, are so sharply different that one could easily say, with justice, that Muslims worship an entity no Christian could possibly recognize.

Though the Holy Father doesn't "toss off one of these things at poolside in between Mai Tais," he has been known to emit a statement of this sort for reasons other than the purely theological.

I agree with Francis. Two people may say, "I know Bill Smith", but if one of them says he is black, married, has 3 kids, and lives in Chicago, and the other one says he is white, single, childless, and lives in London, they can't both be talking about the same person.

There are attributes of Allah and Yahweh that are diametrically opposed to each other, and both cannot be true. But the most important factor is Jesus himself. If he is God in the flesh, as he himself says, then anyone who excludes him from worship does not worship the same God as Christians. It's all or nothing.

I'm (converted) Catholic and agree with the latter two posts - especially the comment that sometimes the Holy See makes statements that are for political posturing. But if you read just the first paragraph of the document, they spell out that this is what it is:

***
In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.
***

So this is basically a feel-good document to outline what everyone has in common - leaving out what is different so "we can all get along" instead of inciting (even) more religous hatred in the world. So this is not a religuous study, and shouldn't be read as such. I believe a rigorous Cathlic study would come to your same conclusions. As would a Muslim study, since Islam views the Holy Trinity as polytheism and was one of the reasons Muslims originally persecuted Christians.

If it makes you feel better, many Eastern Rite Catholics still pray for Protestants during Mass since you aren't considered to be worshipping the same God. And if they feel that way about Protestants, just imagine what they feel about the Muslims.

I suspect you would feel the same about me, a Mormon. I have been told many, many times that I am not a REAL Christian because I don't believe the exact same things that they do.

Somehow that just doesn't feel right to me. Yes, I agree with your argument about someone who worships a tree. Where I think you go wrong is in your sense of perspective. Put it in the context of your hypothetical tree worshipper- then you start to realize that Moslems and Christians have an awful lot in common. There are differences too, to be sure, but you shouldn't forget how much we have in common.

I think you should clarify what you are discussing.

By saying that Yahweh and Allah are different, are you positing the existance of a spiritual being Allah who is receiving the worship of Muslims, and (since we are looking at things from the Catholic perspective) masquerading as the one true God? This would be deceptive and you would probably conclude that your average Muslim's conception of Allah is a lot closer to Yahweh than that hypothetical being. So which one receives the worship? Recalling C S Lewis's fictional work The Last Battle, I would argue that in that case Yahweh receives the worship, because the Muslim is after all intending to worship the one true God, not a fake. Thus it becomes unimportant whether such a fake "Allah" exists at all - the worship is received by God.

Now step back. Whether we are right about the attributes of God or they are, it is clear that we are both talking about the same God. We could both be wrong about certain aspects of his character I suppose, but you either have all of us worshiping the same God or you have some of us worshiping God and some of us worshiping something that doesn't exist at all.

In that case, how does God regard those who are incorrect? Does he stick his fingers in his ears and refuse to listen?

I think you can see where this is going. If you argue that Yahweh and Allah are not the same, you can mean one of two things. The weak meaning is simply that people disagree about the details of God's character, and come on that takes place even within Catholicism (not to mention Christianity at large). The strong meaning implies a Christian God who does not receive prayer addressed to Allah. He ignores them by choice because they do not conform to his revealed religion. Even an ignorant heretic who has never heard of the true religion is stonewalled when he reaches out to the one true God. Sounds more like Allah than Yahweh, doesn't it?

Francis - I can see how a conciliar document could be drafted with other than theology in mind. I can't see how the bishops would have signed off on it. At least a few would have rejected a false teaching because there are plenty of bishops that are just that ornery. Orthodoxy sent observers to Vatican II. Why didn't they denounce this document? They could have and didn't. What's *their* possible motivation? It certainly isn't fear of papal retribution nor any desire for a false unity. Either would have long ago led to a papered over reunion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism long ago.

John - The idea of it being a case of mistaken identity is untenable. If they faked it, they did it on purpose. It's either true (as per authentic Catholic theology) or intentionally false (and a nasty scandal to misuse the conciliar process in this manner). The number of people who had to pass this makes shallow theology or unserious review impossible and Benedict XVI was right smack in the middle of the process.

anon - I'm not really sure that I'm worshipping the same God as Jack Chick or Fred Phelps. That's why I've got a priestly class, some of which is tasked to researching the matter as necessary. I'm an Eastern Catholic (Romanian Byzantine Catholic) and we pray for all sorts of people though my understanding of our prayers for protestants is that those are for reuniting the Christian Church. The recognition of baptism is key. If you can tell me that there's a BC rite that's rebaptizing protestants, I'll buy your story. If they accept the baptism, they accept it's one God.

Jim - Catholic theology holds Mormonism to be mistaken. My understanding is that it's not classic trinitarian christianity. For those who draw the line between real christians at the doctrine of trinitarianism or closer, you're clearly out. Don't feel to badly about it. I got called a heretic by an orthodox priest from the pulpit because I accepted that a different section of the Catholic Church could legitimately address the Arian heresy via the addition of the filioque. Yes, sometimes the lines get drawn that close. Other, more charitable interpretations put you in the family, if not on good terms with the head of the family.

Samwise - I know from the Bible that God does not accept all prayers. If you're tossing babies into burning brass idols, God will close his heart to you, whether Baal exists or not. The question of Muslim belonging in the category of Abrahamic faiths is important. You can't just paper it over.

TM Lucas: God may not find all prayers perfectly acceptable, in fact I'm sure mine aren't - they are far too short-sighted, self-absorbed, and self-confident.

But despite my sinfulness and any technical stupidity in my conception of the nature of God, surely my prayers to the one true God are received. After all, He's in the business of drawing people closer to him, not driving them away.

You've now moved from Allah to Baal, who to the best of my knowledge was never conceived as the only one God, creator of the everything. He's an idol in a fictional pantheon of gods, no?

What does Abraham have to do with it anyway? I think if a Muslim person prays to the one true God who created everything, then that God does listen. I'm not claiming Islam is a salvific faith or anything close to that. But God takes note. He is being addressed.

'The Vatican has been making these judgments on other religions for about 2 millenia now.'

Not actually true! The Catholic Church only has divine competence to talk about faith and morals. For her to make judgements about other things (including other religions) is a very bad idea. Most of the bishops at Vatican II weren't experts about anything other than being bishops: they were glorified lobby-fodder. In fact they didn't even know very much about theology, and hence the supposed need for the so-called periti or theological 'experts' (the youngest of whom was a young German priest called Joseph Ratzinger). There's certainly no reason to suppose that they knew very much more about Islam than anybody else.

Samwise: The Bible is very clear that God does not listen to the prayers of pagans, idol-worshipers, or followers of any religion other than that revealed through the Bible and Jesus Christ. It doesn't really matter who such people are attempting to "address" their worship towards, because God won't accept it.

Oliver: My intuition leads me to think you're close to the truth, but I have little actual knowledge of the matter.

The thing is, at the innermost level no one believes the same things about God. I am a regular participant on a Mormon board and it turns out that we all have all sorts of different ideas on different doctrinal points. There are some fairly broad things that we mostly agree on, but it doesn't take much to get some friendly (usually :-) ) disagreements.

I would be very surprised if the same were not true of Catholics or any other religious denomination that you care to name.

On a more personal level- I believe that my personal beliefs are correct (of course, or I would believe something else), though there are things that I am not sure about. The key thing about my beliefs, though, is that they are not static. They change as I learn more about God through scripture study, interactions with my fellow human beings, and interactions with God himself. I like to think that my beliefs about God are getting more accurate with time. Again, I doubt that I am much different from anyone else in this regard.

I hope you can see where I am going with this. Given that no one has completely accurate and complete information on God, where do you draw the line at who is REALLY worshipping God? Does it take 90% accuracy? 75%? 50%? Oh, and what exactly constitutes that kind of accuracy? From that perspective, the question itself seems a little foolish.

I know the throwback is to use a set of standard creeds as the baseline. My point is those are a fairly weak set of knowledge about God. They are much less than personal experience with God.

One of my beliefs is that God can do a lot more with someone who recognizes he knows next to nothing but is teachable, than he can with someone who is convinced he has all the answers- even if those answers are right.

It occurs to me that my remarks might be misinterpreted. I am not saying that all religions or beliefs are equally true and good. I do not believe that. What I am saying is no mortal has complete knowledge about God, or anything close to it. We all have varying mixtures of truth and untruth.

Jim: For a Christian, the truth comes from the Bible. God is whatever he is, regardless of our perception, and he lays out in the Bible exactly what we need to know to relate to him and worship him properly. There's a lot of stuff we don't know about God, to be sure, but he's told us all the important things. Those who reject the Bible are, by definition, rejecting the true God and worshipping a false one.

Samwise - I brought Baal into this because I wanted to establish that there is a line before getting into the harder question of where it is drawn. If Allah is not God, but a fake deity, a demon masquerading as God, your heartfelt prayer to a demon is not very different than a prayer to Baal.

Oliver - Whether Moslems worship the same God is very much a question of what is their faith, and thus properly in the competence of the Church. What do you judge a religion on besides faith and morals?

Michael - Actually, the truth, for all the Abrahamic faiths comes from Divine revelation. The Bible is but one aspect of that great gift. The Apostles did not have the Book of Acts when they were doing the acts that would eventually make up the book. They had the Holy Spirit given them at Pentecost and God revealed himself through other means.

Michael Williams said: "The Bible is very clear that God does not listen to the prayers of pagans, idol-worshipers, or followers of any religion other than that revealed through the Bible and Jesus Christ."

What are you meaning by "listen" ?? God is omniscient, so he knows every word that is spoken in the hearts of those who are praying. He cannot help but hear and understand. Do you mean He doesn't give them what they want? He often deals likewise with most Christians. In what sense is he not listening? What is the chapter and verse quote you are thinking of?

Samwise: It's not a hard teaching to find in the Bible. By "listen" I meant that he isn't attentive to the prayers of non-believers, not that he isn't aware of them. See, for instance,

1 Peter 3:12

For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.

Michael Williams said: "For a Christian, the truth comes from the Bible. God is whatever he is, regardless of our perception, and he lays out in the Bible exactly what we need to know to relate to him and worship him properly. There's a lot of stuff we don't know about God, to be sure, but he's told us all the important things. Those who reject the Bible are, by definition, rejecting the true God and worshipping a false one."

Wrong. You can be a Christian without believing in the Bible. For goodness sake the new testament wasn't compiled as a single document for hundreds of years after Christ. Truth comes from God, through Christ who is the Word of God. We can learn about Christ through a variety of sources, the Bible being only one (major) source.

Besides there are conflicts over every major idea about the nature of God expressed in the Bible. Which ones do we have to be right about for God to listen to us?

Aparently this Catholic sides with the Mormon.

Back at you: what do you mean by attentive?

Peter is referencing Psalm 34. The full NT quote starts at vs 10, mirroring Psalm 34:13-17

[For: "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep the tongue from evil and the lips from speaking deceit, must turn from evil and do good, seek peace and follow after it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears turned to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against evildoers." ](1Peter version, NAB)

Longevity and Prosperity as a reward for just living is a common Old Testament theme. Context makes it clear that when Psalm 34:17 talks of God's face being against evildoers, it means He is not giving them the long and prosperous life promised to the righteous.

Calamities visited upon the unrighteous can be understood as warnings for them to convert, or as God's vengence (Cain, the Flood, Sodom & G, etc. but also Ninevah) Ultimately when Peter quotes the Psalms saying God is attentive to the prayers of the righteous, he is saying that God often rewards them with what they ask for in prayer.

But the word attentive is used almost as a metaphor, for after all how can an eternal omnipotent omniscient God be said to be only half-listening or listening unattentively in the distracted way a person can? No, to say He is unattentive must be a way to say he witholds the response one seeks. And even this is a special, merciful kind of attentiveness that he pays to the sinner - allowing one's evil to drag one down, down, down, until the consequences of it have a chance to pierce the callous heart with fear, and drive the sinner to repentence. The "inattentiveness" of God is a manifestation of His mercy.

I'm afraid that the original question of whether Yahweh = Allah or the later of whether God "listens" to Muslims are inarticulate ways of asking whether Muslims are on the same team or whether they are our enemies -- whether we should look on them with appreciation of our similarities or with hostility at our differences. I want to point out that admiting that God hears the prayers of all mankind does nothing to take away from the primacy of the Christ Event, or the necessity of Christ for a person's salvation. We should be able to say to the Muslim, "God hears your prayers and loves you, and wants to bring you to heaven through your conversion to Christ."

TM Lutas says: "Samwise - I brought Baal into this because I wanted to establish that there is a line before getting into the harder question of where it is drawn. If Allah is not God, but a fake deity, a demon masquerading as God, your heartfelt prayer to a demon is not very different than a prayer to Baal. "

Ah, but it is more complicated than that, for there is deception involved. Take the extreme case - a Christian is visited by Satan disguised as Jesus. Thinking he is seeing Jesus, the devout Christian instinctively worships. Who receives this sincere worship that is intended for Jesus? I think the real Jesus does.

Similary a mere demon who asserts that he is the one true all-good creating God may be worshiped by many, but he doesn't really receive this worship in any meaningful sense. The deceived believe they are worshiping God, and so in a sense they are.

Samwise: The metaphor is pretty clear to me. The sentence includes references to the eye and ear of God being turned towards believes and away from unbelievers.

To argue that someone can be a Christian without believing the Bible is nonsense. Christianity is a revealed religion, and the primary way God reveals himself (now, and ever) is through his written word. If you reject that, you aren't left with much, certainly not enough to lead to salvation and forgiveness of sins.

I'm not even really sure what your position is and what you're arguing for. Most of what you're saying is irrelevant or tangential.

"Christianity is a revealed religion, and the primary way God reveals himself (now, and ever) is through his written word. If you reject that, you aren't left with much, certainly not enough to lead to salvation and forgiveness of sins."

I guess all those first and second century Christians are in hell because they didn't have the Bible to lead them to Christ. And God forbid someone should be illiterate or blind before the recent invention of braille. No salvation for them.

But seriously, I thought the Bible taught that salvation is from the cross, not from the written word. After all the Bible never says that you have to believe in the Bible to be saved. But it does talk a great deal about faith in Christ and righteous living.

By the way, do people convert without the Holy Spirit working on their hearts? It sounds like you believe that God doesn't get involved in somebody's life until they become officially Christian, since he's not listening to their prayers and all. Any convert will tell you this is hogwash. All of life before conversion is a dramatic love story of Christ wooing the unbeliever with divine patience. Surely you believe that God loves everyone. Does one who loves refuse to listen? Is one who loves inattentive?

Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. If anyone has a question contact me please!!

As with most people who take an anti-Catholic position (as you have, I've seen the "You're Going To Hell" site that you think is so cool.) you have not done your homework nor thought your position on this topic through.

Case in point: This directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

Nothing in that violates the Word of God and though you and others may choose to interpret things to suit yourself, you cannot point to a passage of the Word of God that tells anyone that they can discern the hearts of anyone else, not can you claim to know how God will deal with others. He has apparently reached out to you personally, but how does that make you able to judge His dealings with anyone else.

From the lips of Christ Himself we hear "14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. 15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:14-16)

Notice especially verse 16 which says, "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." Do you know what that other flock consists of? Neither does anyone else.

Let's look at one more statement from the Catechism that will shed some great light on this matter.
"67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

[b]Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".[/b]

I think some common sense and a non-biased reading of Catholic teaching dispels your implied premis that somehow the Catholic Church is in error for its attitude towards Moslems and other non-Christian religions.
Pax tecum,
Blackie