Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
So says the obviously clueless pastor who gave the invocation at a McCain rally on Saturday:
Sometimes the most interesting stuff happens before John McCain even arrives. At a McCain rally today in Davenport, a pastor delivered an odd invocation."There are millions of people around this world praying to their god -- whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah -- that his [McCain's] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons," said Arnold Conrad, former pastor of Grave Evangelical Free Church. "And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day."
As we were having breakfast at Lauri Lebo's house on Sunday morning, Vic Walczak, one of the attorneys in the Dover case, was reading this to me out of the newspaper and we all just broke up laughing. This poor minister can't even put together a coherent list, for crying out loud (Hindu is the name of the religion, not the god they worship).
More importantly, the statement is just plain stupid. Let's put it in syllogism form:
Premise: millions of people of non-Christian faiths around the world want Obama to win (and let's ignore for the moment that he doesn't have the first clue if this is true or not)
Premise: God wants McCain to win
Conclusion: therefore if McCain doesn't win, those non-Christians will think that their god is more powerful than the Christian god. And therefore God must defend his own reputation by making sure McCain wins.
That's too idiotic to even bother debunking step by step.
Politics
Comments
With apologies to Mary Wells:
Nothing you can say,
Can take me away,
From my god.
Nothing you could do,
'cause I'm stuck like glue,
To my god.
I'm sticking to my god,
Like a stamp to a letter,
Like birds of a feather,
We, stick together,
I can tell you from the start,
I can't be torn apart from my god.
Nothing you could do,
Could make me be untrue,
To my god.
(My god)
Nothing you could buy,
Could make me tell a lie,
To mygod
(My god)
I gave my god,
My word of honour,
To be faithful,
And I'm gonna,
You'd better be believing,
I won't be deceiving,
My god....
;D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 13, 2008 9:55 AM
The Buddha is not a god, either.
Posted by: TomS | October 13, 2008 10:06 AM
I love this shit, because I can't believe it. Quick, somebody now pipe up and declare that if Barak Obama is elected, God is dead! Please. (Or that he perhaps never existed...?)
Sometimes you wonder if these people are deep-cover moles.
Posted by: Kristine | October 13, 2008 10:07 AM
Of course, the ironic part of that statement is the projection of this pastor. If McCain does win, besides the country probably being completely and truly fucked, then he will think that it's because his god is the greatest. So if he loses, he'd be right (in his own mind), that those 'other people' would think Hindu *snicker* is greater than Yahweh.
The question is, would he follow his own 'logic' to it's inevitable conclusion and also deduce that Yahweh is, indeed, the inferior deity?
Posted by: FastLane | October 13, 2008 10:26 AM
I just knew that little out-of-wedlock-birth would affect God's reputation eventually. Especially since He didn't marry the girl. At least He never wore a dress, like Shiva and some other gods I might mention. I imagine they'll have to get the warning tattooed on.
Of course the Buddha isn't a god, he's a demon. Well, the old fat Buddha, anyway. I'm reserving judgment on the young Buddha stamp.
Gingerbaker: Choice.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 13, 2008 10:39 AM
Because there are no Christians praying to God that Obama will win. Nope! Not a one!
Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2008 11:01 AM
After failing to fulfill a couple of decades of Pat Robertson's prophesying, I'm amazed God still has a reputation to lose.
Posted by: schism | October 13, 2008 11:06 AM
Weird. I thought God had, like, power. If his reputation suffers, or those other gods get uppity, can't he just smite their asses? Or, heck, just pull the Big Lever for McCain?
There's just too many rules. Maybe God should take his eye off the sparrow, just for a little while, to take care of bidness down here. Too much is at stake.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | October 13, 2008 11:07 AM
Gingerbaker - are you channeling Whoopie Goldberg, or just speaking in toungues? :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 13, 2008 11:09 AM
(Hindu is the name of the religion, not the god they worship)
head*desk. head*desk. head*desk.
Things like this make me wish that you had to have some kind of accreditation to be a preacher. At least the Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant churches require you to get an education and a degree before they let you have a church to preach in. So you have to be exposed to some level of discussion about your religion before you can teach it to others. Being able to just hang out a shingle and call yourself a preacher leads to very poor quality control.
Well that and the fact that he doesn't seem to realize that his own religion rejects the existence of other gods in the first place. They're not supposed to exist. At best they're other names for the One True God, at worst they're minions of Satan disguising themselves as gods to mislead the masses. Either way, Allah shouldn't even be able to beat up Yahweh in the first place.
Posted by: NonyNony | October 13, 2008 11:10 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 13, 2008 11:18 AM
Posted by: J | October 13, 2008 11:19 AM
Trying to guilt-trip God? Now that takes guts. But then again the Son aspect did have a Jewish mother. So perhaps God is vulnerable to that particular form of passive aggressive manipulation.
If McCain wins do you think they'll update the standard prayers to start pushing God's buttons for other things.
"Give us this day our daily bread. Is that so much to ask? I hear Lakshmi gave the neighbors a new plasma."
"Take from our souls the strain and stress, and let our ordered lives confess the beauty of Thy peace. You know, like Buddha does for His people."
"Lord, watch over me, or I'll have to get Allah to do it."
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 13, 2008 11:22 AM
Nony: Yes, but that would mess with the whole Penelope Pitstop model God uses for running the world. He gives away the whole M.O. pretty early in the show with that whole universal flood thing. After that we get Isaac being sacrificed, the first Passover and the book of Judges, culminating in His death on the cross -- but wait, He's a Jesus-in-the-box, springing back out on Easter morning! And then, according to the Apocalypse, he has an even bigger last minute trick to turn everything around. It's like McGuyver, only with people getting killed and all.
Fortunately, most other religions sound even stupider when given this treatment.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 13, 2008 11:26 AM
Posted by: WScott | October 13, 2008 11:28 AM
Really, bout the same I'd say.
Posted by: JimC | October 13, 2008 11:36 AM
Yeah, some of us actually had to get BA's BEFORE starting seminary. (Mine is in psychology-from the very secular school of IU). Then I had to go to four years of seminary (receiving only a degree of Master's of Divinity-if I want a doctorate-more school), along with many different interview processes, psychological testing, background checks, etc-and have a call to a congregation BEFORE I was ordained.
By this guy's estimation, I guess I was praying to the god Hindu yesterday; and I know many good Christians who must be, too;-)
God is having a good laugh over this one!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 13, 2008 11:39 AM
So, Hindu isn't a god. Neither is Buddha. And Allah is... the same God that this guy is praying to.
I will leave it to a theologian to explain whether a god can be bigger than himself.
Posted by: Bob O'H | October 13, 2008 11:44 AM
Oh, boy, Election 2008 -- Divine Smackdown!
Stock up now on popcorn and beer.
Posted by: R Soles | October 13, 2008 11:51 AM
I have mixed feelings about that. True, you don't want chowderheads such as this dude preaching. On the other hand, when Apollos was mangling doctrine, Priscilla and Aquila corrected him a bit and sent him on his way to preach some more. They didn't enroll him in a four year seminary. Some denominations make it too hard to preach. (e.g., Presbyterian PCA) Posing problems on exams that would cross a rrrrabbi's eyes. La-de, da, da, la-de, da da.
Posted by: heddle | October 13, 2008 11:51 AM
Bob - you asked the big one (forgive the unintentional play on words):
Premise: god can do anything.
Question: can god create another god, too big for (s)he/it to roll?
DINGO
Posted by: DingoJack | October 13, 2008 11:55 AM
I'm waiting for heddle to show up and whine that Allah is not the same God that Christians worship, ignoring the fact that they're both directly traceable to the same character in a shared narrative.
Posted by: DaveL | October 13, 2008 11:58 AM
Why shouldn't this jerk think that Hindus pray to "Hindu"? These nutjobs obviously pray to Christianity. That's one of their many problems.
Posted by: Kristine | October 13, 2008 12:22 PM
It is, of course. Just about the whole world is for Obama, and very few people have ever thought about subtle problems of free will.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 13, 2008 12:25 PM
I have been planing to vote for Obama before this.
But, if I am to believe this, if McCain loses God's reputation will take a swift kick in the nuts?
Is there any way I could arrange to vote twice for Obama. I will have to talk this over with some of my GOP friends. They are always up on ways to jigger the voting process so voting twice this time shouldn't be difficult. In 2000 my vote for Gore, due to the still ongoing irregularities in Florida, wasn't counted. By rights I should get two votes.
It would be something of a hat trick. W.Bush leaving office, McCain being kept out while Obama goes in and, as a bonus, God's reputation gets taken down a notch. Sweet.
Posted by: Art | October 13, 2008 12:35 PM
DaveL,
OK, I'll whine on the form of a one-act play:
Act 1. Scene 1. Curtain opens. Jesus is standing by the well, talking to a woman. A few feet away stand heddle, a Muslim, and Dave L.
heddle: (To Moslem) There's stands Jesus. He is God. Creator of all things. Everything in the universe is under his authority.
Muslim: No, my Man of the Book friend, I must disagree. He is a fine man indeed, but he is no God. Only Allah is God, and Allah is not three persons of one substance.
Dave L. No, no no! You guys must agree to agree! You have the same God!
Muslim: (To DaveL) I am sorry sir but I must respectfully disagree. My friend here (indicates heddle), he says that God is that man named Jesus standing there. But that is not Allah, the one true God!
Dave L. No, no no! You guys must agree to agree! You have the same God!
Muslim: (Now annoyed) Who is this pesky infidel?
heddle: Don't mind him, he's harmless. He also gets upset at Indian nicknames for sports teams too, even though most actual Indians do not. It's one of our favorite sports in America, to make victims out of groups you don't even belong to.
Muslim: Let us retire to my humble home, for some figs and grape juice. The streets, they are filled with--what's your American phrase--screwballs.
Fade to black. As curtain closes, we hear a mournful cry: No, no no! You guys must agree to agree! You have the same God!
Posted by: heddle | October 13, 2008 12:40 PM
Heddle - Finally given up on the inPalinator's interview with Katie Couric then?
Actually Heddle you missed by an iota.
Jesus isn't god, or even a god, he is just made up of the same stuff as god.
Christians setted this (sort of) 17 centuries ago. You still haven't got the memo?? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 13, 2008 12:53 PM
heddle, I've seen you use this example ('there stands Jesus') at least twice now to assert that your god is different than Jews or Muslims. Doesn't your play change if we start with:
heddle: "There stands 'The Father'" or "There stands the God who spoke to Abraham." He is the one true God.
Muslim: I agree.
Or do you dispute the Muslim's response in this case also?
Posted by: Spartan | October 13, 2008 12:55 PM
It's one of our favorite sports in America, to make victims out of groups you don't even belong to.
I don't have the energy to put a dog in this particular fight today, but I did think that this line was f-ing funny.
Posted by: Josh | October 13, 2008 12:59 PM
Everybody knows that Allah is just Xenu in blackface. P.T. Barnum would have killed to have him on display.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 13, 2008 1:00 PM
Heddle, which of the following is false?
1. Jesus is the same god as the God of Abraham.
2. Allah is the same god as the God of Abraham (Ibrahim).
As I said, the two are directly traceable to the same character in a shared narrative. The fact there are other narratives where that character's attributes start to differ is irrelevant. They are the same god in ways that other god-characters like Baal, Thor, and Vishnu are clearly not.
I suppose when Hannibal came out, you were shocked and thought "That isn't Clarice Starling! She looks entirely different from how she looked in The Silence of the Lambs!"
Perhaps you think Santa Claus and Sinterklaas are entirely different characters, since one spends his off-season at the North Pole and the other in Spain.
If you have a substantive argument, then present it and drop your juvenile antics.
Posted by: DaveL | October 13, 2008 1:00 PM
heddle, in all seriousness, do you think Jesus is the same as the god of the OT? If you do, then rewrite your silly act with you taking the place of Dave L., a Jew taking the place of the Muslim, and an alternative Christian who insists his man-god messiah is not named Emmanuel. If you're going to insist they are the same god, then for FFS, show a little consistency and grant the same for Islam. Islam is clearly derived from the theistic tradition of Abraham and refers to the same god, albeit differs in detail about what this god does. Drop all this hair-splitting over how your god is different because of all this minutiae you can conjure up or admit you are engaging in special plead.
Posted by: AL | October 13, 2008 1:05 PM
Here's another refutation of your "There stands God" argument:
Imagine two young children go to the mall to see Santa Claus.
As they leave, the younger one exclaims how excited he was to have met Santa Claus in person.
The elder replies that Santa's beard was fake, and his belly was obviously padded with a pillow. Surely this was one of Santa Claus' helpers, but not the real Santa.
Nevertheless, the younger child remains undaunted and maintains his firm belief that the man at the mall was Santa Claus.
Now my question: When these children write their wish lists out, are they writing to the same Santa Claus?
Posted by: DaveL | October 13, 2008 1:07 PM
Bob O'H wrote:
Well, it depends who you ask about Buddha. As far as I know, most Hindus consider Buddha a deity even though the Buddhists generally do not.
Minor nit, I know.
Posted by: Leni | October 13, 2008 1:10 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake. Is it so hard to acknowledge that the matter of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same god depends entirely on the sense in which you mean "same"? It's possible for the correct answer to the question to be both "yes" and "no."
1. I hear rustling in the bushes, and I am afraid because I think it is a bear. It turns out that my friend Bob is in the bushes, causing the rustling. Does that mean I think my friend Bob is a bear? Yes in one sense, no in another.
2. Jill hates the person who wrote her an anonymous love note and dropped it in her locker, because she thinks it was a jerk named Chad playing a joke on her. In reality, it was her shy friend Bill. Does Jill hate Bill? Yes in one sense, no in another.
3. Mary comes home early from work one day to find that her husband Chad is having sex with some other woman in their bed room. Mary says to Chad "You're not the man I thought you were." Does Mary actually think that Chad is another man? Yes in one sense, no in another.
This is not a difficult concept. It is a really dumb thing to argue about.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2008 1:14 PM
"Now my question: When these children write their wish lists out, are they writing to the same Santa Claus?"
They're writing to the Great Pumpkin who is manifested by Santa Claus.
Posted by: Bill in NC | October 13, 2008 1:20 PM
Scene two:
DaveL: (Leaning through the window) Heddle, which of the following is false?
1. Jesus is the same god as the God of Abraham.
2. Allah is the same god as the God of Abraham (Ibrahim).
heddle: Who are you really, Charlie Gibson? Anyhoo, that would be number 2. The God of Abraham is a triune God. Allah is not.
Muslim: Him again! The audacity! Why I oughta... (Sighs. turns to heddle) Bzzt. Sorry that response is incorrect. How much did you wager? Oh no, you bet everything! Now you will not be eligible for Final Jeopardy. The correct response is number 1. Jesus is not Abraham's God. Allah is the one true God.
Dave L. No, no no! You guys must agree to agree! You have the same God!
Muslim: (Shoves DaveL out and closes the window) By the way, who was that woman your Jesus was talking to?
heddle: Oh her? Her name is Sarah.
AL,
Yes of course. God is immutable. He cannot be Jesus in the NT and not-Jesus in the OT. That simply won't do. That would be too--mutable.
Posted by: heddle | October 13, 2008 1:21 PM
Ed:
The logic of the prayer isn't as screwy as you think, though it's so nakedly pragmatic that I'm surprised the preacher would say something like this in front of raw meat.
Essentially he's looking at the election as a missionary tool -- if McCain wins, YHWH gains credibility and this preacher (at least in his own hyperparochial mind) can point to it as evidence that YHWH is actively protecting his interests on earth. If McCain loses, he thinks that it gives people his missionaries are preaching to have an excuse to point at the Jesusbots and say "Your 'all-powerful God' can't even get his candidate into the White House, so why should we follow him?"
Like I said, sound, if overly simplistic, logic. But so shamelessly mercenary that the preacher who said it deserves to be laughed at for blowing the gaff.
Posted by: Brian X | October 13, 2008 1:25 PM
True. No true
ScotsmChristian would ever do such a thing.Posted by: noncarborundum | October 13, 2008 1:27 PM
Gretchen - you hear a noise in the bushes. Thinking it may be a bear, you investigate carefully, only to find out it's Bob. Now you believe that the noise was definitely caused by Bob.
First you subjunctively thought it was a bear, then you investigated and found it was absolutely Bob.
At no time did you think it was a hybrid bear-Bob creature.
A few verses of "Eric the half a bee" for you! -DJ
PS: What's with "Chad"? Had a bad experience with one?
PPS: You and Heddle are still missing an i. Guess it's a case of an "i" for an "i", eh? [sorry]
Posted by: DingoJack | October 13, 2008 1:30 PM
Thank you Empress Obvious; the correct answer to every question like this is 'yes' and 'no' depending on the sense in which the words in the question are used. Heddle gave a specific instance of why his god is not the same and I wanted some clarification on what he means by 'same' and what clarifications he uses for the God of Abraham.
I'm not fucking 'arguing' with Heddle regardless, and you sure managed to spill a lot of cyber-ink for something that's a 'really dumb thing to argue about'. Lighten up.
Posted by: Spartan | October 13, 2008 1:30 PM
No one seems to have made this point yet, but if Obama wins the election, none of the blame will be ascribed by the religious right to God.
They will assert even more strongly that "God is in control" and that Obama's victory is "all part of God's plan" even if they don't understand it and, inevitably they will blame the rest of America for not being righteous enough to deserve another Republican president at this time.
When you believe that the object of your worship is infallible, then you don't even begin to ascribe it the blame when things go wrong. It's really like an airtight feedback loop designed to strengthen belief at a time when doubt should be at its highest --- the beauty or tyranny of religion, depending on your viewpoint.
Posted by: tacitus | October 13, 2008 1:36 PM
How divergent from the One True God does a god have to be (in his/her purported attributes and historical narrative) for his adherents to be breaking the "No other gods before me" commandment? Are Muslims breaking it? Mormons (also not Trinitarian)? Episcopalians?
Posted by: countlurkula | October 13, 2008 1:40 PM
Now we're really getting ridiculous. At what point in Genesis does God reveal a triune nature to Abraham? Does Judaism embrace a triune God? On the subject of Abraham your scriptures and theirs are one and the same. It is patently ridiculous to go back to the same character in the same story and say "This is actually two different characters because I believe something different about them than others do."
I readily acknowledge that the attributes and narratives about the Christian concept of God and the Muslim one start to diverge at a certain point. It's well past time for you to acknowledge their common root.
Posted by: DaveL | October 13, 2008 1:43 PM
Spartan said:
You're welcome, and I wasn't talking to you-- obviously.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2008 1:46 PM
Spartan,
We must complete your scenario:
heddle: "There stands 'The Father'" (or "There stands the God who spoke to Abraham.") He is the one true God.
Muslim: I agree.
heddle: Yes, he spoke through the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah,...
Muslim: Mohammad.
heddle: Say what? No, he never spoke through a prophet named Mohammad. Nor did the other members of the Godhead, of the same substance and of equal deity, with whom the Father made a covenant before the foundation of the world. He would choose a people, God the Son would redeem them, Got the Holy Spirit would sanctify them.
Muslim: (looks off stage) Woman, come! Take these figs away, they must have fermented.
(Off in distance, barely audible) No, no no! You guys must agree to agree! You have the same God!
Posted by: heddle | October 13, 2008 1:47 PM
DaveL,
But that is irrelevant. The point is that Christians believe in a triune God, and that was the God who spoke with Abraham. Even if, for the sake of argument, Abraham had no concept of a triune God, he was still, according to Christians, speaking to one. He just didn't know it. Therefore, according to Christians, the God Abraham spoke to is not the same as Allah. No matter how you spin it, you can't be a triune God and not a triune God. Mulims and Jews understand this--they accuse us of being polytheists.
Posted by: heddle | October 13, 2008 2:01 PM
But, but, but, Huddle, Allah *is* the triune God -- the Muslims just don't know it.
Posted by: countlurkula | October 13, 2008 2:07 PM
Sorry I meant Heddle, not Huddle. I got your attribute almost correct, I hope that counts. :)
Posted by: countlurkula | October 13, 2008 2:12 PM
Heddle - let try again, shall we?
Jesus is not god or even a god, he is simply "made of similar+ stuff" as god.
Officially we are all (supposedly) children of god* therefore are we god too?
The god of Muslims, Jews and Christian is the same god, because they all are based on the SAME Semitic mythology.
You might like to think your god is special, sadly that don't make it so. -DJ
+Sorry before I said 'the same', but actually it is 'similar'. How heretical of me, quick prepare the pyre!
*Remember: "Our father who art in heaven..."
Posted by: DingoJack | October 13, 2008 2:13 PM
lmao, as if god has time to get involved in the election, what with all the sports teams he's been called upon to monitor. and the races. and hockey games. ...and getting me a pony...
(threw that last one in, just in case god's paying attention...)
Posted by: arin | October 13, 2008 2:25 PM
Heddle,
What utter nonsense. You may believe different things about the character in the story, but it remains the same character because it's the same story. By your standards it would seem you do not worship the same God as Mormons (not triune), Christian Scientists (unless you accept their prophet), and most likely Catholics (differences on graven images, whether the veneration of saints is idolatry, besides which you would probably disagree with the divine inspiration of church doctrine). You might even worship a different God than non-Calvinists.
By the same token, right-wingers who believe Obama is an Arab Muslim don't just hold some mistaken notion about Barack Obama- they in fact believe a true thing about an entirely different person!
I'll bet a lot fathers do through a phase where they are unaware of their daughters' existence, believing instead in an unrelated version that retains her virginity.
It certainly must make theological argumentation easier. No one ever holds mistaken notions about God. They simply believe in a different one.
I never claimed that the Muslim God and the Christian God matched in every particular, but I maintain that this is a ridiculous standard for recognizing the substantive equivalence of the two characters.
Posted by: DaveL | October 13, 2008 2:26 PM
Gretchen,
Uh yea, that's obviously why you started your post by quoting my comment. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you Gretchen, especially since I usually enjoy your comments, and if you weren't actually talking to me, fine.
Heddle, thanks for the clarification. If we 'must complete the scenario', then we can do that with you and people from your own church or other Reformed Bapterians; surely everyone disagrees on something concerning God's nature. Ultimately, you worship Heddle's God which is not the same as any other Christian's God, which I do agree with. Or do Arminians and Calvinists for instance worship the same god (named Jesus) in your view?
Posted by: Spartan | October 13, 2008 2:26 PM
DJ,
I can't figure out what you are arguing. Perhaps some bad Vegemite? First of all, I don't think that you are really arguing that, for Christians, Jesus is not God. That would be just too ridiculous. As best I can tell you are simply asserting: Jesus is not God, therefore, ipso facto, y'all worship the same God.
But the very fact that you must, in order to make your, um, point, declare "Jesus is not god or even a god" refutes your claim, because Christians do worship Jesus as God, and so we do indeed have a different God from Muslims and Jews.
Posted by: heddle | October 13, 2008 2:26 PM
Sparta,
Yes they do. If you can affirm the Nicene creed, then you worship the same god as I do. In my view. (That would include Catholics, DaveL)
Posted by: heddle | October 13, 2008 2:35 PM
heddle - If you and the Muslim in your scenario are arguing about which prophets god spoke to, you're no longer arguing about the nature of god, but about whose sacred text is more correct.
Just for the fun of it:
"I heard Allah and Buddha were singing at the Savior's feast
And up the sky an Arabian rabbi
Fed Quaker oats to a priest.
Pretty good, not bad, they can't complain
Cause actually all them gods is just about the same."
- John Prine
Posted by: Taz | October 13, 2008 2:39 PM
Sorry Heddle - Early Christians had a bit of of punch up (literally in some cases) over the nature of Jesus in the 4th Century CE.
Some said Jesus had two parts, one was 'god' and the other 'Man', others thought there was only one nature, the 'divine', yet others thought Jesus was a man who god entered into. This was complicated by persecution and the seizing of holy books, and whether priest gave them up or not. Further, some believed god created Jesus at some time, others thought that Jesus was around before the universe was created.
Which of these is true?
This form of Christianity won out due to politics, skulduggery and violence. Had another form won out, the Christian Church would be totally different.
However all this is window dressing since we don't even know if Jesus existed (there's no evidence, however that doesn't preclude the possibility of existence), but if he did, we don't know what he actually believed, since he never wrote it down, his followers did c30 years after his 'death'.
The Christian, Jewish and Muslim gods, however, DO share the same mythological frame-work, and so could be considered, from a sociological point of view, to be the same god.
I'm sorry I don't buy your "I think my god is different, therefore my god must be different" argument. I use a (marginally) more objective standard of comparing the salient features of the belief systems.
Apologies if I was unclear (it's late, you might have noticed the diminished posting capacity on my part) =DJ
PS As it is 5:25 AM I must go to bed, but I enjoyed this pointless, fascinating thread. If you come back late tonight (your time) I'd love to keep hearing your thoughts.
Posted by: DingoJack | October 13, 2008 2:52 PM
Spartan,
I heartily apologize (this is what I get for trying to argue in a thread while stressing out over my dissertation!). I will confess, too, that I honestly don't understand what you and DaveL are trying to get heddle to admit. Even if he and Muslims worship the God of Abraham, they certainly worship different depictions of that god, meaning that it's rather disingenuous to say that they worship the same god without a great deal of qualification. What's the end goal?
Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2008 3:20 PM
I think George Harrison beautifully demonstrated through song that there are far more than one "Hindu" gods/goddesses.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | October 13, 2008 3:43 PM
If Christians were really concerned about god's reputation, they would stop acting like idiots.
But then nothing they do wrong is EVER their fault.
Posted by: Blue Nine | October 13, 2008 3:43 PM
i believe that Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ben Kenobi are the same god.
Posted by: sdg | October 13, 2008 3:58 PM
At least the Nicene Creed is a better God-fingerprinting criterion than whether one votes for McCain.
Posted by: countlurkula | October 13, 2008 4:02 PM
It would be more fun, and as close to reality, if y'all discussed whether My Friend Harvey was the same wabbit as the Easter Bunny.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | October 13, 2008 4:51 PM
Harvey is a semi-divine being that is in person distinct from, but in substance the same as, the Easter Bunny. The former is a prankster, the other nurturing and generous. Also, an elusive Wabbit Spirit emanates from one or both of these, I forget which, and is the third person of the Leporine Trinity. So they are the same wabbit, actually.
Okay, I'm trying, don't know how long I can sustain this...
Posted by: countlurkula | October 13, 2008 5:10 PM
No apology needed, Gretchen, and sorry if I got a little defensive with the 'Empress Obvious' crack (and good luck with the dissertation!).
In response to your question, I at least wanted to understand from Heddle where he draws his line, which he indicated is the Nicene creed. I personally think that is rather arbitrary, but there'd be too much to qualify to get to a point where his view could be disputed in any depth. If Jesus silently appears to heddle and a mormon, they both will worship him. If Jesus then speaks and affirms the Mormon faith, it seems silly that to say that Heddle hasn't been worshiping Jesus; he just misunderstood who he was. Just as most if not all Christian denominations also have misunderstood.
Let me put it this way: if the main religions are correct and he exists, the God of Abraham does not become different gods based on the mistaken beliefs about him or his purported prophets. If we go to Jupiter and find out it's actually made of various flavors of ice cream, it's still the same planet it's always been.
Posted by: Dave L | October 13, 2008 5:49 PM
Dave L,
I would think it depends on how important it is to heddle that the real Jesus would not, in fact, affirm the Mormon faith. If it's very important, heddle might just say "Imposter! I want to meet the real Jesus, the one I've been worshiping!" That's just the problem with gods-- there's no way to check and make sure that you've gotten it right. How much can you misunderstand about a god and still be said to be worshiping that god?
I seem to be venturing into "no true Christian" territory here, though....
Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2008 6:44 PM
Oops, that Dave L comment was by me.
Posted by: Spartan | October 13, 2008 7:30 PM
Oh, okay. I was really confused but I figured if Dave L was taking credit for your post, then you must really be him. ;-) I got it precisely backwards.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2008 7:32 PM
heddle: Don't mind him, he's harmless. He also gets upset at Indian nicknames for sports teams too, even though most actual Indians do not. It's one of our favorite sports in America, to make victims out of groups you don't even belong to.
Ummm, evidence to support this claim? I don't recall this being decided at the meetings. [/sarcasm]
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 13, 2008 7:39 PM
Harvey is a semi-divine being that is in person distinct from, but in substance the same as, the Easter Bunny. The former is a prankster, the other nurturing and generous. Also, an elusive Wabbit Spirit emanates from one or both of these, I forget which, and is the third person of the Leporine Trinity. So they are the same wabbit, actually.
Okay, I'm trying, don't know how long I can sustain this...
You simply forgot the third rabbit, Bugs, the great teacher of wisdom and knowledge, together they are the holy trinity of rabbit-dom. Rabbit-ianity? Rabbit-ism? Hmmmm
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 13, 2008 7:55 PM
He doesn't really seem to get the whole polytheism vs. monotheism thing, either, does he?
If your god is the only one, why should he be jealous of the other ones?
Posted by: scrabcake | October 13, 2008 7:59 PM
Wouldn't that make it even worse, if people were snubbing you to glorify some god who doesn't even exist? That's like your wife cheating on you with her imaginary friend.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2008 8:43 PM
. . . and in other unsurprising news, Olberman has just proclaimed our hapless shepherd as "The Worst Person in the World."
Maybe just a little bit harsh?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 13, 2008 8:53 PM
Then either they never were worshiping the real God, or once Jesus came along they began worshiping a false God.
Neither one of those scenarios makes sense, heddle, but I don't think you'll find many Jews affirm the Nicene Creed.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 13, 2008 9:18 PM
As the Old Testament makes clear in a number of spots, the god of Moses was not Allah, but a volcano: he shakes the pillars of the earth, smoke issues from his nostrils, his mouth is a consuming fire, etc etc. There's also the pillar of cloud by day, and pillar of fire by night. I call volcano-worshipper on Moses.
Posted by: Paul Murray | October 13, 2008 10:44 PM
You simply forgot the third rabbit, Bugs, the great teacher of wisdom and knowledge, together they are the holy trinity of rabbit-dom. Rabbit-ianity? Rabbit-ism? Hmmmm
I'd think there was such a religious group out there already:
Hare Krishna.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Posted by: Aquaria | October 14, 2008 12:15 AM
Gretchen wrote:
This is why the idea of polytheism makes a lot more sense to me. (well, not that it makes a lot of sense, just more than some of other notable options.)
Nevertheless, I would think that for a monotheistic person, it would be an all or nothing deal. If you think only one god exists, what other god is there to worship? Particularly if you are talking about closely related religious traditions that use the same texts and tradition as a beginning point.
What I find so strange about Heddle's argument is that he seems to think that the way one worships a god defines that god. As you said before, there's a yes and no way to answer the "different gods" question and neither are necessarily wrong, or both may be right.
From my perspective: of course that's true. I don't think any gods exist, so it is natural for me to think that a god is defined primarily by how people worship it. Similarly, it's easy to see why a polytheistic person might think it's true that they are indeed different gods.
But I find Heddle's assertion that they are different gods a bit baffling, mostly because he is arguing from a monotheistic perspective. Wouldn't you either be worshiping The God (by definition, since there is only one God), or some mistaken idea of that God (false idols)?
Or, as I usually hear, worshiping the same god in different ways. It seems to me that Heddle's little play should have a background chorus, rather than a singular voice (DaveL). It would no doubt include the voices of a great many Jews, Muslims, and Christians themselves, Despite their difference in opinions.
As they say, I guess the devil is in the details. Anyway, good luck on your dissertation and if it's any consolation I god a good laugh out of your snippy "For fuck's sake!" (Not to be mean or for schadenfreude or anything, but you usually don't lose your patience that quickly. It was completely understandable and a little entertaining.)
Posted by: Leni | October 14, 2008 1:16 AM
DaveL: They are the same god in ways that other god-characters like Baal, Thor, and Vishnu are clearly not.
Actually, Ba'al *is* the same god, as is El.
Posted by: Graculus | October 14, 2008 1:35 AM
You gotta love posting this late on a thread. Who the hell is going to read this??
Also, if no one else has said this (because God [he he he] knows I didn't read this far), Allah is just Arabic for "the God." If the good Rev was a missionary in an Arab nation--a commission that carries with it great risk to life and limb--he would call the God of the Bible "Allah" as well.
That being said, whenever I hear the excessively ecumenical say that "Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same god" I just about gag. So the triune God incarnated in the flesh of Jesus Christ is the same as Yaweh of the Old Testament who will have no graven images or gods before him? And these two are the same as the God of Muhammad? Nonsense.
I seem to find myself liking the orthodox and conservative believers far more than the convenient and liberal. Suppose this has to do with my own background in Calvinism...
Posted by: Andrew Dobbs | October 14, 2008 4:50 AM
Andrew - in answer to your initial question - ME.
I'm a little disappointed how little history of Christianity Christians seem to know. Your 'triune' god is, in fact, the SAME god as Jews, and Muslims because of the structural similarities of the underling Semitic mythology.
Your god is not as truly 'triune' as you think.
Jesus never claimed to be god or even a god. His followers (around 30 years after his 'death') claimed he was the 'son of god' (a kind of demi-god, much like Heracles), but then again Jesus himself (allegedly) claimed all humans were the 'children of god', so that blunts Jesus' special status somewhat. Later various Christian worthies decided that Jesus was NOT god, merely made of similar stuff to god, although they weren't sure if god created him or not.
Thus Jesus' status is really not relevant, since 'god' is a separate and distinct object, 'triuneness' [not sure about the spelling, or even if this is a real word] is a red herring, clung to by Christians who need to view their god as being better than others, as opposed to the more liberal who can accommodate the existence of gods of others.
Just my $0.02, I've no dog in this race. -DINGO
Posted by: DingoJack | October 14, 2008 5:18 AM
DJ,
Well, we all have our little disappointments. One of mine is people who seem to get their church history from Dan Brown, and then claim that claim that Christians don't know church history.
The truth is that Jesus either is God, or he is a blasphemer. There are many passages one could look at. To pick just one, examine the so-called the Great Commission:
Note that it is not the case that Christ is, at this point, risen that speaks of His deity, for God can (and will) raise men as well. Nor is it that He has been given authority, for God could bestow authority on whomever He chooses. What speaks of Christ's divinity is the Trinitarian reference. His disciples would know from his earlier teaching that he meant himself when he refers to "the Son", and here he brackets himself between the Father and the Holy Spirit. If He were not God, then He just spoke blasphemy.
Now at the end of the great commission we see another testimony to Christ's divinity. If Christ were but an exalted creature He could say nothing stronger than: and I expect to be with you always, to the very end of the age. Instead he speaks with a certainty and authority that comes from a deific omnipotence.
This is just one passage--there are many more that testify to the same point: Jesus certainly claimed to be God. So he either is God, or a shameless blasphemer, or perhaps insane.
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 7:49 AM
heddle stated:
There goes heddle flat out lying again. The fact is we have many choices not just two when it comes to Jesus' self-proclaimed divinity. Here are two possible choices: A historical Jesus Christ might never have existed, and the Gospel writers/editors' quotations of him were fabrications. The historical Jesus might have been a Nazerite preacher, and the Gospel's quotations of him might be some combination of fabrications to mis-quotes. There are several other possible explanations, none of which require Jesus be either divine or lying about himself.
The two choices heddle presents us with have no physical evidence supporting them nor are they even rational choices relative to other possible choices like the two I used as examples.
I am not trying to make an argument here that Jesus existed or did not exist, nor am I making an argument regarding Jesus' belief in his own divinity if he did exist, merely pointing out heddle is once again misframing the context within which we should consider an argument.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 14, 2008 9:11 AM
> You simply forgot the third rabbit, Bugs, the great teacher of wisdom and
> knowledge, together they are the holy trinity of rabbit-dom. Rabbit-ianity?
> Rabbit-ism? Hmmmm
No, no, Bugs is not the third rabbit. That is a hare-isy promulgated by the aforementioned Hare Krishnas. The true third person, the Wabbit Spirit, has no humanly recognizable face, but is made manifest solely through the colored eggs, which the Easter Bunny delivers to the whole world, flying through the air in her "fiwey, fiwey chawiot" (if you've ever sung Mendelssohn's Elijah, you may get the reference) once a year. Depictions of this Spirit in bodily form are forbidden by authentic "Rabbis."
Posted by: countlurkula | October 14, 2008 9:28 AM
I notice heddle skipped my question. Heddle, you said anyone who affirms the Nicene Creed worships the same God as you. So I asked, what about Jews? Are you saying they don't worship the same God as you?
And if not, were they always worshiping a false God? Or did they only start worshiping a false God after Jesus came along (even though Jews' beliefs didn't change at that point)?
Come on, don't duck the tough ones.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 9:46 AM
Has anyone else seen the video (I don't have the link, but CNN taped it and I saw it on youtube). If so, please tell me those are not U.S. Soldiers on the dais.
Posted by: democommie | October 14, 2008 10:10 AM
To piggy-back on what Michael mentioned, I think the most likely factor that confounds Heddle's choices is that it assumes that we have a near-perfect transcription of Jesus' words; the quoted point above relies on it. It shouldn't be surprising that the followers of Christ who were writing the gospels didn't waffle, and didn't use words like 'perhaps' or 'maybe'; do any holy books? Further complicating this is the fact that Jesus used parables extensively, we are dealing with a translation of translations, and even Heddle admits that the text uses significant amounts of 'figurative language'. It seems to require a lot of faith, not in God, but in one's own ability to tease out exactly what is meant by the text and what is figurative and what is literal, in order to base arguments on the specifics of the translation we have today.
Posted by: Spartan | October 14, 2008 10:17 AM
Heddle - Nope, wrong again. I read three pages of a Dan Brown book then threw it away in disgust - the writing was childish, cliched and riddled with grammatical errors than even I could pick up (which gives you some idea!).
My interest in the Arian Controversy and the crisis in the Christian church during the 4th Century came from studying the life of Claudius Flavius Julianus for a history project at school. I began to wonder how the Christian church might have been different had the dice rolled a different way.
This in turn led me to wonder who it was that all the so-called Christians worship and, further, what conditions led to the creation and development of the Christian mythos. A fascinating subject which, sadly, I'm not qualified to answer except in a very limited fashion. :( DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 14, 2008 10:31 AM
James Hanley,
I only skipped over your question because I have answered it multiple times. If Muslims are worshiping a different God that Christians, then Jews are too.
Michael Heath,
There goes Michael Heath again, missing the boat. The question at hand is not whether Jesus is real, or God, or a myth, or a fraud. The question is: do Christians worship a different God than Muslims or Jews? The answer, I say, is obviously yes because a god cannot be a triune god and, at the same time, not a triune god. Even DJ's point, which he is making poorly, is irrelevant. Even if we grant that a triune god is not taught in Christian scripture it doesn't matter: that's the god Christians worship--and he does not resemble the god of Jews or Muslims, as they'll be more than happy to affirm. It may indeed be that we all, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, worship imaginary gods, but if so they are different imaginary gods.
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 10:37 AM
The question that I want to ask is:
If a god cannot be a triune god and a "single" god at the same time, than are christians polytheistic? Or is it that a god can be both a triune god and yet be a "single" god?
I'm guessing the answer is, no christians aren't really polytheistic, because the triune god isn't really 3 gods... but it also isn't really a single god either ;).
Ah, the joys of religion.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 14, 2008 10:44 AM
Heddle, I think you're missing Hanley's questions. Did Moses worship a false God? I would think not given the miracles that occurred. Were the Jews in 1 BC worshiping a real god and then in 1 AD not?
Posted by: Spartan | October 14, 2008 10:51 AM
Heddle also skipped my question about where he gained his evidence for Native Americans not being "upset" by "Indian" mascots. I'd love to know where he got that, aside from the horrendous SI poll done nearly a decade ago, I haven't seen any evidence to support such a claim.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 14, 2008 11:03 AM
heddle stated:
I don't believe you have ever caught me "missing the boat", certainly not this time. I am perfectly cognizant on what the question was. My point, continuously, is how flawed your arguments are because you continuously fail to frame them on accurate assumptions. You were the person who used the old C.S. Lewis false choice "The truth is that Jesus either is God, or he is a blasphemer." assertion, not me. I'm merely pointing out, again, that you continue to build your arguments on weak or flat-out incorrect premises.
So heddle, isn't it true that divinity claims for a historical Jesus include more arguments than your limiting them in absolute terms to only two, i.e. "Jesus either is God, or he is a blasphemer." ?
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 14, 2008 11:35 AM
Micheal - I guess that is really my point. This 'Triune" god thingy was a later invention, designed by Christian worthies for POLITICAL reasons, thus it is irrelevant to the crux of the argument, which is about god itself.
Heddle - How would you FALSIFY your belief that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in different gods? -Curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 14, 2008 11:44 AM
Michael Heath,
There are no relevant alternatives in the context of this discussion. If the parameters of the discussion included the question of whether Jesus existed, then there would be more. But this discussion was: is God, as worshiped by Christians, different from God, as worshiped by Muslims. The question of Jesus' self-proclaimed divinity, or lack thereof, is very relevant. The question of his existence, for purposes of this discussion, is put aside--lest the whole question be rendered intractable.
dogmeatib,
I have no interest in tracking down proof of that statement. I do recall reading many anecdotes of native americans saying they are not bothered by, most often as I recall, the name Seminoles for FSU. I don't care to back it up--it was a comment, you'll recall, by a person in a play. Lighten up. If it is important to you go research it.
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 11:49 AM
You're assuming here that none of the above groups could have a mistaken or at least different belief about the same character. You never answered my previous examples - do the two children believe in different Santa Clauses? Does our hypothetical father no longer accept his daughter's existence?
Since the meteoric rise of the Harry Potter series, all manner of knockoff versions have arisen in places like China. The central character in these books retains the name and a great deal of shared history with J.K. Rowling's hero, but obviously diverges from Rowling's storyline. Is this character Harry Potter or not?
Now, I never pretended that there weren't differences between how the different Abrahamic faiths conceptualize their deity. Its common narrative roots, however, remain and should be acknowledged, rather than drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and screaming that no relation exists across it.
Posted by: DaveL | October 14, 2008 12:05 PM
Thank you, Spartan. You understood my question, even if heddle didn't.
Heddle, please answer my question, which you have not answered previously. Spartan phrases it more succinctly than I--were Jews worshipping the real God in BC1, then a false God in AD 1?
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 12:28 PM
I think Heddle understood the question, James, but has chosen not to answer it. To be fair, Heddle is IMO very rational when it comes to his religious beliefs; he can usually say why he believes something and give evidence (accepting his assumptions about his sources) for it. I believe he's built a very sturdy structure on a foundation of mud and sand, but that's besides the point.
This is admittedly a slippery topic and as Gretchen noted very early on, at some point we get into definitional disputes about the word 'same'. It seems obvious that within the Christian framework, that the Jews were worshiping the same God prior to Jesus. AFAIK, Jesus never corrected them and notified them that they had not been worshiping the correct God, and again the miracles are tough to explain if they had not been worshiping the one God. Heddle has a point in that today, Jews don't worship Jesus so they do not worship that part of the Trinity and to him are not worshiping the same God. If God is immutable as Heddle asserts, it's a little odd then that, by changing nothing in their beliefs or practices, all of a sudden the Jews were worshiping the wrong god when Christ was born. Did God just not reveal his true nature to the ancient Jews, but we can safely assume that he has now?
Posted by: Spartan | October 14, 2008 1:02 PM
DaveL,
That's because I assumed that an answer along the lines of "Muslims actually worship Jesus, they are simply mistaken with the attributes they ascribe to Allah" would be (a) an argument stopper and (b) offensive. I assumed that the argument was: are Allah and the Christian God, as worshiped by their respective followers, fundamentally different? The answer to that, I say, is yes.
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 1:32 PM
"The truth is that Jesus either is God, or he is a blasphemer"
I'll take....blasphemer!
(except that its all imaginary..my god can beat up your god)
Posted by: kevin | October 14, 2008 1:37 PM
Heddle,
Surely, some very different attributes are imputed to the god-concepts of the various Abrahamic religions, but are still traced to the same character in a shared narrative, and origins are a rather important point when answering the question of whether two characters are the same.
I noticed you still didn't answer my questions.
I'm sorry if you find it insulting to suggest that people may be grossly mistaken about the nature of things beyond mortal ken. Surely the worldwide variation in religious belief implies that most people must be mistaken, the sincerity of their faith notwithstanding.
Posted by: DaveL | October 14, 2008 1:54 PM
Not to defend the pastor, but if McCain loses, the reputation of Sarah Palin style Christianity probably will suffer, not just among non-Republicans, but among Republicans as well.
Posted by: llewelly | October 14, 2008 2:01 PM
DaveL,
Why don't you, if interested, enumerate what questions I have not answered, and I'll give it a shot. (Later, I have an Astronomy class to teach in 25 minutes).
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 2:06 PM
Spartan,
A nice analysis (or at least, right along my own lines of thought--so it must be right, right?).
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 2:21 PM
heddle,
Why are you asking DaveL for an enumerated list of the questions you haven't answered, when Spartan and I are trying to point out that you haven't answered mine?
DaveL, please put my question (as phrased more eloquently by Spartan) in your enumeration? Please, pretty please? Maybe heddle will pay more attention to you than he is to me (I'm so distraught, he won't even look at me anymore!).
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 2:24 PM
Why not? If a god can be 'one and three' at the same time why not 'triune and not triune'? The negation is just not spelled out in the first statement.
Posted by: windy | October 14, 2008 2:26 PM
This is admittedly a slippery topic and as Gretchen noted very early on, at some point we get into definitional disputes about the word 'same'.
Yes indeed. Let me try!
Here's our question: how should the Christian describe (what he sees as) the Muslim blasphemy? There are two ways:
1) In speaking of "Allah," the Muslim refers to the God of Abraham, but is mistaken about him (believing falsely that He is not consubstantial with Jesus when He is, and that He spoke to Muhammad when He did not, etc.). Blasphemy!
2) In speaking of "Allah," (a supposedly divine entity who spoke not only to Abraham, but also to Muhammad), the Muslim is using a word with no real referent (like "Sherlock Holmes"). So he worships something which does not exist. Blasphemy!
Some people, including President Bush, have claimed that Muslims and Christians worship "the same God". Saying this allows one to emphasize the shared monotheistic heritage. But it also seems to brush the differences under the rug. That's why a natural response is to insist on (2); on this understanding, what the President says comes out as (safely) false, rather than as true but misleading.
But I don't see why, as English speakers, we are required (as if by the nature of the world-in-itself) to render the Christian belief as (2) instead of (1). As has been pointed out, to stick with (2) only can lead you to say some awfully funny-sounding things about Jews and Moses. But instead of sticking with (2), we can simply describe that important difference between Christians and Muslims another way. Maybe Muslims worship the same (or, as philosophers say, "numerically identical") entity. But their understanding of Him is ("qualitatively") different. That is, they get Him wrong. (I don't see how this is any more or less offensive than that their deity "doesn't exist".)
Look at it (for a moment) as a purely semantic issue: how should a Christian translate the Arabic sentence, spoken by a Muslim, "Allah [spoke to Abraham]" (let's take the predicate of this sentence as given)? Is it:
a) "Allah spoke to Abraham" (which is true in the way that "Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker St." is true, but in no other way)
or b) "God spoke to Abraham" (which is straightforwardly true by Christian lights)?
I think context is probably what makes one rendering better than another, and this will of course vary. (This is made more complicated (and seemingly, if perhaps not actually, more empirical) by the existence of non-Arabic-speaking Muslims and Arabic-speaking Christians.)
So I think heddle is guilty of conflating numerical and qualitative identity here (he keeps saying "same" and "different" without distinguishing the senses of those words). But I also think that if you want to, you can construe a qualitative difference (which we clearly have here) as a numerical difference: the Muslim worships a different God. So what heddle says can be okay, and you can't force him to abandon (2) for (1) (as if (1) were the "correct" thing to say). It (2) is just not required, and in some cases it sounds mighty funny (and here's the important part) for no good reason.
Notice I'm not saying our issue here is "merely" semantic. Semantics and metaphysics (ontology) are more closely related than people think. But don't get me started on that.
Sorry to go on like that, but if biologists can go on and on about evolution and whatnot, surely philosophers can too!
Posted by: Dave M | October 14, 2008 2:33 PM
Here's #1:
#2:
#3
I suppose I could rephrase a few of my unrebutted examples as questions...
Are Santa Claus and SinterKlaas the same character?
Is the Clarice Starling in The Silence of The Lambs, as played by Jodie Foster, the same character as the Clarice Starling in Hannibal, as played by Julianne Moore?
Do people who believe Barack Obama is an Arab Muslim hold mistaken ideas about the Democratic presidential candidate or do they hold true ideas about a fictional character who happens to share the same name?
Look, the fundamental problem here is that any attempt to binarize the question of "the same" vs. "not the same" necessarily requires that a line be drawn somewhere along a continuum of similarity. I just want you to admit that the continuum exists and that you don't have any particular authority on where that line should be drawn.
Posted by: DaveL | October 14, 2008 4:35 PM
DaveL,
1) There is no Santa Claus, so I don't know how to answer. Again, my assumption was that we set aside the question of the existence of the Muslim/Christian god and just ask--accepting them as their believers accept them, are they the same? I stand by my claim that they are not.
2) The father's daughter exists whether or not he accurately knows the state of her virginity. You might say, however, that if in the same time and place a father loves his pregnant daughter and his daughter who is not pregnant, then he is loving two different daughters because those attributes are incompatible. As are the attributes of the Muslim and Christian gods.
3) No, it is a different character.
No--there is no continuum between a non-triune God and a triune God. There are not gods that are a "wee bit" triune, or 72% triune. There is no continuum between a god who used Mohammad as a true prophet, and one who didn't. And I don't need any authority. I simply argue, from the evidence, that the overwhelming majority of Christians proclaim a triune God who had no prophecy spoken through Mohammad. Muslims do not.
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 4:59 PM
Once again, heddle ducks my question.
Heddle, at what point did Jews begin worshipping a false God?
If you don't know, just say so. That's a respectable answer.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 5:41 PM
Heddle, your argument is the same as the following situation.
My best friend thinks I'm a great guy, my worst enemy thinks I'm a total asshole. Can my friend honestly say that my enemy is not talking about me? He could say "Well, he's not talking about the guy that I know". But that's just a figure of speach, and no one takes it literally. What you seem to fail to understand, or at least refuse to admit, is that you don't get to choose reality. Whether you like it or not, Muslims worship the same God as you. You can argue that they do it wrong, but they are doing it. If you agrue that they don't worship the same God, then the Jews don't either, which means that Jesus and his disciples didn't, because they thought of them selves as devout Jews. You might as well argue that the Brits don't really drive because they do it on the wrong side of the road.
For an outsider, this is like listening to nerds (and boy I am one) arguing about Star Trek Canon.
Posted by: Sam Lewis | October 14, 2008 5:55 PM
Heddle, where I at least disagree with you (with a caveat below) is that you are focused on the differences but not on the similarities; namely that the prophets from all these religions are connected to the the God of Abraham. You say, aha, Jews and Muslims don't worship Jesus, they're obviously different, and I say, aha they all worship the God of Abraham, it's obviously the same. So yes, whether or not you prefer the continuum, there are similarities that are not there when comparing to Quetzlcoatl for instance.
As an aside let me ask also, is there any indication in the Old Testament that God is a triune God? You don't seem to want to address whether the Jews were ever worshipping the same God Christians do, which hey, your prerogative, but Jesus sure seemed to make a lot of references to what must be the same God as the Jews he was preaching to; they all knew who 'The Father' was.
I had thought that the only consistent position is to say that everyone actually worships a separate God since no one agrees on all the particulars, and you have just arbitrarily chosen your dividing line (Nicene creed); I'll draw it at the God of Abraham and you draw it there, and the issue is pure opinion. If I can play Heddle's Advocate though, I may see a certain logic in your dividing line. If we say that if one accepts the Nicene Creed they are saved, then we must be talking about the same one God, even if the specific Christian denominations are so different. If the rule is only, 'accept Jesus as your savior and you are saved', then that implies that of course there will be significant differences, but the God that saves based on this is certainly the same God.
Posted by: Spartan | October 14, 2008 6:10 PM
I have to disagree with Heddle here, because I do think the God of the OT is the same as the God of the New, and how that bears on the further problem of Islam. No, the Jews have not started worshiping a false God; rather they have continued to worship one aspect of the Triune God, rejecting the further revelation of Jesus. That situation is relatively straightforward in that the revelation to Abraham, Moses, etc preceded the later revelation through Jesus.
Mohammed, on the other hand, is a different case, because he comes later, after most Christians believed that revelation had ceased. If that is correct, then Mohammed was not receiving revelation from the God of Abraham. But there were Montanists and others who did believe in further revelation who might listen to Mohammed. I personally don't know what type of revelation Mohammed received. It might have been a demon, or outright fraud, or YHVH doing with the Arab population what He had earlier been doing with the Jewish: Preparing them for the idea of a Savior Messiah. So my answer has to be: I don't know if the two Gods are identical. I do know that even after the revelation of Jesus I do not fully understand the aspects of God that have been revealed, much less the entirety.
And why are there lots of folks here who question the existence of Jesus -- who was included in books less than twenty years after his death -- whereas the earliest documentary sources for Mohammed are almost two centuries after his death -- and none saying that there was no Mohammed? Just curious.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 14, 2008 7:01 PM
Heddle,
I have no interest in tracking down proof of that statement. I do recall reading many anecdotes of native americans saying they are not bothered by, most often as I recall, the name Seminoles for FSU. I don't care to back it up--it was a comment, you'll recall, by a person in a play. Lighten up. If it is important to you go research it.
What that tells me is that you made a BS comment and I called you on it. I don't need to look it up since I've seen numerous polls conducted by Native American periodicals, universities, etc., that found massive evidence to contradict your claim. The range is roughly from the mid 60% to over 80% who find these mascots to be offensive. You mention Florida State, of course leaving out that the university pays the Seminole nation for the use of the name, that only half of the nation benefits from this arrangement and therefore only half of the nation is "fine with it," and finally, that the vast majority of the Seminole, while they don't have a problem with the name/mascot, etc., do have a problem with the antics of the fans, the "chop," the "war chant," etc.
The fact is Native Americans, myself included, have more important issues than the mascots, but that doesn't mean we don't find them offensive and aren't "just fine" with them. The vast majority support elimination of these mascots.
So again, I call BS. Stick to astronomy, your knowledge of history, social studies, and other social sciences appears to be extremely flawed.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 14, 2008 7:23 PM
James Hanley,
For the Jews of the past, it is impossible to make a blanket statement, given there was incomplete revelation. Clearly many Jews worshiped a false God--the garden variety Pharisee worshiping a non-existing legalistic deity boxed in by man made rules. All the OT Jewish saints, we presume, worshiped the true God.
Today, however, given more complete revelation, we see clear differences in the attributes of god as espoused by the three great monotheistic religions. That's been my point all along.
Of course, as a Calvinist I don't think this means that a modern Jew (or Muslim or even an atheist) could not be saved. The guiding verse for Calvinism, in my opinion, is "God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy." All people are saved, OT and NT, by a saving faith in Christ. That does not mean that they necessarily acknowledge it--although that appears to be normative. Abraham was saved the same way I was saved. Dead infants who are saved are saved by the same saving faith in Christ. A saving faith in Christ is a gift--the gift being that you are justified before God by Christ's righteousness. God can grant this gift to whomever he pleases, he doesn't need our approval or to work within parameters we define. The most we can say is that if you do not make a credible confession and display fruit, then I am commanded to judge you as if you are not a Christian, even though I might be wrong.
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 7:30 PM
dogmeatib,
And why is the 2002 SI poll flawed?
And why is this one flawed?
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 7:38 PM
Heddle,
Thank you for answering,
Spartan and Kehrsam, I enjoyed your answers as well.
James
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 7:52 PM
A pointless evasion. Why not just set aside the question of the existence of Santa Claus? Do the two children believe in the same Santa Claus in the same sense?
Then could you not claim God exists whether or not you are aware of his triune nature (or that claims of his triune nature are false)?
You might say that, but it would be gibberish. There is only one daughter in question and she is either a virgin or not. If her father is ignorant of her sex life it certainly doesn't negate his knowledge of her very existence.
I'm sure J.K. Rowling's attorneys would heartily disagree.
Yes, yes, and either God's salvation is limited or unlimited, either he transforms the Eucharist into his literal flesh and blood or he does not, etc. etc. These are both equally binary claims, yet both from the side of the arbitrary fence which you claim as your God.
So once again you arbitrarily draw a line through a sea of various claims about the nature of God, and claim your line isn't arbitrary after all, since you downplayed the differences on one side and emphasized those on the other.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Posted by: DaveL | October 14, 2008 8:01 PM
And why is the 2002 SI poll flawed?
And why is this one flawed?
There are a number of reasons why the SI poll and the linked poll are flawed or potentially flawed. First, we have no idea how they phrased the question or even what questions they specifically asked. Second we have no idea what blood quantum or tribal membership details they established to know what they classified as an "Indian." In addition their ability to find, contact, and interview "Native Americans" is questionable based on the expertise of both poll takers. In addition you have a general tendency for Native Americans to be rather reluctant to share their real opinions with Anglos. To be quite honest between land deals, BIA agents, archaeologist, and ethnographers, you haven't exactly given us much reason to be very trusting. Also, I've personally known a number of old timers who enjoy screwing with poll takers.
Neither poll has ever responded to the questions regarding their methodology. Also, both poll samples were quite small. How did they contact them? Travel to each and every location? Highly unlikely. Did they account for the natural tendency for telephone polls to be more conservative? Did they account for the fact that the poorest Native Americans don't have phones?
Far too many problems in a pair of small sample polls. The added problem is that it flies in the face of numerous polls conducted by the Native community itself. As I said, most of the polls I've seen conducted by native organizations show somewhere between 2/3 to 3/4 and even 81% (Indian Country Today) find that the mascots are offensive, degrading, not "honors," etc.
If they interviewed 400, or 700 Christians and they found that 91% agreed that Allah is the same God as the Christian and Jewish God, would you not question the veracity of those polls?
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 14, 2008 8:27 PM
dogmeatib
Yes I would.
I'm not being a pain, I genuinely wanted to know on what basis those polls were flawed. I have no reason not to defer to your expertise, and so I'll no longer use that particular illustration.
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 8:41 PM
From heddle's answer:
This is not a critique of heddle or his beliefs, just a comment on how odd this phrasing strikes my ears. I was raised in a very different tradition (Wesleyan), but with an indirect infusion from the tradition in which my mother was raised (Mennonite). Any approach that doesn't put free will front and center--that is, the individual's conscious decision to accept God--just seems to miss something essential.Not saying it's wrong, since I don't really expect we'll ever be sitting around in heaven together getting the straight dope from God, just that, for being the same religion, it's an awfully foreign concept to me.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 8:42 PM
DaveL,
Sorry, I don't care. I saw only the thinnest of connections between your questions and the discussion at hand. But I promised to answer them so I did.
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 8:45 PM
James Hanley,
But in fact Calvinsim has the most libertine view of free will imaginable. It says you always choose what you want most at any given moment. No puppet master God. No self denial. You always get to do what you want.
Posted by: heddle | October 14, 2008 8:49 PM
heddle,
I get it, and as a libertine, it's rather appealing in that way. But I still would like to have some say in my salvation. That is, not that I get to tell God what to do, but that he's a good enough guy to let me make the choice.
For those interested in unusual arguments, Steven Brams, in his book Biblical Games has a great game theoretic analysis of this issue, which supports the idea that God would grant us free will.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 14, 2008 9:24 PM
Theologin #1:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Theologin #2:
Did they take their lessons at an Arthur Murray or Fred Astaire Studio?
Posted by: democommie | October 14, 2008 9:37 PM
kehrsam wrote I personally don't know what type of revelation Mohammed received. It might have been a demon, or outright fraud, or YHVH doing with the Arab population what He had earlier been doing with the Jewish: Preparing them for the idea of a Savior Messiah.
If all of those senarios are possible, then shouldn't the possibilities that Mohammed didn't receive any sort of relevation at all be included in the list? If it's possible that the revelations came from a demon, then it should also be accepted as a possibility that Mohammed lied about them happening in the first place (I'm not all that familiar with the text, but I think it's accepted that there weren't witnesses?). Alternatively, it should also be possible that Mohammed suffered from delusions.
Posted by: Josh | October 15, 2008 9:03 AM
"If all of those senarios are possible, then shouldn't the possibilities that Mohammed didn't receive any sort of relevation at all be included in the list? If it's possible that the revelations came from a demon, then it should also be accepted as a possibility that Mohammed lied about them happening in the first place (I'm not all that familiar with the text, but I think it's accepted that there weren't witnesses?). Alternatively, it should also be possible that Mohammed suffered from delusions."
The same can be said for every religious figure who claims "revelation" from some supernatural entity. It is very easy, especially in a superstitious world, to claim "revelation" from this god or that, and thousands have done so. What makes a claim more believable, if you take away prior commitment to the religion? They all look idiotic to an outsider.
I forget who mentioned that nobody questioned Mohammad's existence, but that isn't true (there are some scholars who do) - for most people, it is irrelevant. Mohammad isn't supposedly the son of/is the same god that people worship (although that can certainly appear to be the case with some Muslims). However, there has been recent interest in higher criticism of Islam in the recent past, and more scholars are starting to look at the Quaran with the same skepticism (and more, as there seem to be less apologists for Islam) as they evaluate the Bible. I suspect that eventually there will be a historical/mythical debate, unless there is overwhelming evidence discovered or uncovered. That's just a guess on my part, though.
Posted by: Badger3k | October 15, 2008 11:45 AM
The same can be said for every religious figure who claims "revelation" from some supernatural entity.
YES.
I was trying to rub a little salt into the wound because whereas the context and source of the revelations was being speculated upon, the speculations were written as though there was no doubt that they actually happened.
Posted by: Josh | October 15, 2008 11:52 AM
I forgot to add this, and finally remembered it after a long day at work -
Heddle also confuses the old fatally flawed Trilemma of CS Lewis (and others, IIRC the argument is older than that), especially by making it even more limited and flawed by positing only two answers instead of the multitude that actually exist.
Posted by: Badger3k | October 16, 2008 3:26 AM
Heddle also confuses the old fatally flawed Trilemma of CS Lewis
Well here it is:
Is it really as fatally flawed as everyone seems to think it is? CS Lewis said that it applies only to people who say: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God."Posted by: 386sx | October 16, 2008 3:53 AM
Is it really as fatally flawed as everyone seems to think it is? CS Lewis said that it applies only to people who say: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God."
I don't even know if he ever even (allegedly) claimed to be god. Did he? I don't think so! I'm not sure though.
Posted by: 386sx | October 16, 2008 4:01 AM
386sx
To my knowledge Jefferson didn't believe he claimed to be God. He edited the Bible and removed what amounted to every claim of a miracle, claim of divinity, etc.
The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 16, 2008 11:08 AM