A Little Note About Theology

[**Rowland Croucher**]

A little note about theology: it's essentially the expression of
*affirmations* about our personal commitment to the living God. It's not
primarily about *assertions* - which tend to be dogmatic and exclusive
('we have the truth because we tick these boxes; you don't, so off to
hell!'). Theology is about clarifying what it really means to respond to
the moral/spiritual challenge of personally affirming Jesus as Lord.

Rowland Croucher: posted as a Facebook 'status thought' on 230609.


Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

[DKleinecke]

On Jun 22, 6:46=A0pm, **Rowland Croucher**

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Theology is about clarifying what it really means to respond to
the moral/spiritual challenge of personally affirming Jesus as Lord.

I beg to differ. Theology is about God. Just as its etymology says.

Theology is a branch of philosophy (which is about anything and
everything). Christian apologetics are a branch of theology. And
"affirming Jesus as Lord" is one sub-branch of Christian apologetics.

I am what you might call an "ecumenical theist". I believe all genuine
religions are directed to one and the same deity (whom the Christians
call "God"). Theology MUST be expanded at least far enough to examine
the question of whether the Christian "God" and the Muslim "Allah" are
the same deity. I believe there are several more similar questions
like that which are prior to any discussion about the ministry of
Jesus.

[Jani]

Post by DKleinecke
On Jun 22, 6:46=A0pm, **Rowland Croucher**

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Theology is about clarifying what it really means to respond to
the moral/spiritual challenge of personally affirming Jesus as Lord.

I beg to differ. Theology is about God. Just as its etymology says.

Does that mean that a polytheistic faith can't have 'theology'? Or just that
it should have a different label?

Jani

[DKleinecke]

On Jun 22, 6:46=3DA0pm, **Rowland Croucher**

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Theology is about clarifying what it really means to respond to
the moral/spiritual challenge of personally affirming Jesus as Lord.

I beg to differ. Theology is about God. Just as its etymology says.

Does that mean that a polytheistic faith can't have 'theology'? Or just t=

hat

it should have a different label?
Jani

I think I should say Oops.

What happened is that I forgot that I had not mentioned my belief that
there are no polytheists. Of course, polytheism is right in there in
theology. Theology is the study of God (no number implied, zero being
possible as well as infinitely many).

But I think the record shows that so-called polytheists are really
worshipping a single one of their possible gods. A polytheist culture
(classical antiquity, for example) presents a cafeteria of gods and
each worshipper chooses one for real worship. A person in a public
position might well get mixed up in public rites for many gods. But
these liturgical exercises were/are not real worship in the religious
sense. Note that I make a sharp distinction between liturgy and
worship. In a polytheist culture a person can be a real scatterbrain
and change gods daily. But at any one time each worshipper is
worshipping one god.

But, of course, it is branch of theology to make sense out of this god
soup the polytheist cultures present. There are still polytheist
groups around, most notably in India.

From my point of view all these gods are versions of the same God.

This impinges on the question I mentioned - is Allah the same as the
Christian God? I would answer YES, as are Zeus and Vishnu and
Quetzelcoatl and so on. I see God as big enough and transcendent
enough to enclose any image that people can invent.

But other people are offended at such an irenic approach and define
God, meaning their own personal God - the one they worship - in a
narrow way.

This leads people to split God apart - into mine and thine. I would
deplore this if I thought it had any effect on God. Several posters to
this group have stated that Unitarians do not worship the same God as
Trinitarians. I liken that to asking if worshippers of Thor are as
good as worshippers of Odin.

Looking at things this way our present culture, at least in the United
States, is just as polytheist as ancient Rome was - only now all the
different gods are denominations rather than names. I believe that
Islam is just as fragmented, although along different fault lines, as
Christianity is.

I don't think it matters. I think God, if human emotions could be
imputed to God, is laughing at our petty little quarrels.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by DKleinecke
But I think the record shows that so-called polytheists are really
worshipping a single one of their possible gods. A polytheist culture
(classical antiquity, for example) presents a cafeteria of gods and
each worshipper chooses one for real worship. A person in a public
position might well get mixed up in public rites for many gods. But
these liturgical exercises were/are not real worship in the religious
sense. Note that I make a sharp distinction between liturgy and
worship. In a polytheist culture a person can be a real scatterbrain
and change gods daily. But at any one time each worshipper is
worshipping one god.

I'd be interested in knowing what your understanding of liturgy and worship
is.

It seems that "worship" means many different things to different people, and
this can cause problems in communication -- see this blog post for some
examples:

http://khanya.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/what-is-worship/

Post by DKleinecke
But, of course, it is branch of theology to make sense out of this god
soup the polytheist cultures present. There are still polytheist
groups around, most notably in India.

Though, as you say, many practise the cult of one god at a time. There are
Vaishavites and Shaivvites, for example.

Post by DKleinecke

From my point of view all these gods are versions of the same God.

This impinges on the question I mentioned - is Allah the same as the
Christian God? I would answer YES, as are Zeus and Vishnu and
Quetzelcoatl and so on. I see God as big enough and transcendent
enough to enclose any image that people can invent.

I wouldn't disagree about Allah -- after all, to Arabic-speaking Christians,
Allah *is* the name of the Christian God. I don't know enough about
Quetzelcoatl to comment, but Vishnu, no.

While some Hindus are monists, others are polytheists, and really do believe
in many gods. This is more in line with the Christian conception of angels,
though Christian temples dedicated to St Michael and All Angels are not
exclusively devoted to the cult of the angels.

[DKleinecke]

I'd be interested in knowing what your understanding of liturgy and worsh=

ip

is. It seems that "worship" means many different things to different peop=

le, and

this can cause problems in communication

I have had to forge my own vocabulary - that is, the words mean what I
say they mean. To me worship means inward creative prayer and
meditation leading to (and usually, but always, reaching) an
experience of contact with God and, in so far as it is possible,
communion with God. To me liturgy means a ritual - a set of proscribed
actions or words - that one does or says in a routine robotic way.
There is some overlap in that a mantra (using that word broadly) is
liturgy - but done correctly it can lead to worship.

I think you might label my position as extreme Protestant. But I was
heavily influenced by the Quakers in my youth. Simple is better.

While some Hindus are monists, others are polytheists, and really do beli=

eve

in many gods.

Do you see the Hindus as having multiple gods the same way normative
Christianity has three gods? Or, like me, do you see them as
functional atheists dealing with a horde of (imaginary?) supernatural
beings? I have no tolerance for the idea of any supernatural beings
except God - no Devil, no angels, no demons. Real monotheism.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Steve Hayes

I'd be interested in knowing what your understanding of liturgy and worsh=

ip

is. It seems that "worship" means many different things to different peop=

le, and

this can cause problems in communication

I have had to forge my own vocabulary - that is, the words mean what I
say they mean. To me worship means inward creative prayer and
meditation leading to (and usually, but always, reaching) an
experience of contact with God and, in so far as it is possible,
communion with God. To me liturgy means a ritual - a set of proscribed
actions or words - that one does or says in a routine robotic way.
There is some overlap in that a mantra (using that word broadly) is
liturgy - but done correctly it can lead to worship.
I think you might label my position as extreme Protestant. But I was
heavily influenced by the Quakers in my youth. Simple is better.

I've quite recently discovered that for some (many?) people worship means
musical entertainment.

To me liturgy means "the work of the people", something offered to God by a
community, by which the people become something together that they were not
individually -- the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. So liturgy
is holistic worship rather than private devotion (which may also be worship).

Post by Steve Hayes

While some Hindus are monists, others are polytheists, and really do beli=

eve

in many gods.

Do you see the Hindus as having multiple gods the same way normative
Christianity has three gods? Or, like me, do you see them as
functional atheists dealing with a horde of (imaginary?) supernatural
beings? I have no tolerance for the idea of any supernatural beings
except God - no Devil, no angels, no demons. Real monotheism.

I don't see Christianity as having three gods. We worship the undivided
trinity.

Some have seen a triad in Hinduism comparable to the Christian Trinity --
Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, but they are in fact three gods, not an undivided
trinity. Or, if one's Hinduism is of the monistic variety, three
manifestations of the One.

One problem is that people have tried to squeeze Hinduism into a Western
mould, because of the Western Enlightenment understanding for religion and
religions. The book to read is

Harrison, Peter. 1990. "Religion" and the religions in the
English Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
ISBN: 0-521-38530-X
Dewey: 291.0942
The origin of the modern idea of religion can
be traced to the Enlightenment. This study
shows how the concepts "religion" and "the
religions" arose out of controversies in 17th
& 18th-century England. The birth of "the
religions", conceived to be sets of beliefs
and practices, enabled the establishment of a
new science of religion in which the various
"religions" were studied and impartially
compared. Dr Harrison thus offers a detailed
historical picture of the emergence of
comparative religion as an academic
discipline.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Steve Hayes
I don't see Christianity as having three gods. We worship the undivided
trinity.

Christianity, per se, does not have three gods. I say that as a
Unitarian Christian.

But normative Trinitarian Christianity presents three gods. And some
denominations of it seem to have more (the Virgin Mary in Catholicism,
for example).

This is a clear fact clearly seen by a majority of mankind.

Denying it wont make it go away.

Oh course, just like polytheists everywhere, particular Christians
actually worship one or another of the alternative gods that normative
Christianity offers.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by DKleinecke
Christianity, per se, does not have three gods. I say that as a
Unitarian Christian.
But normative Trinitarian Christianity presents three gods. And some
denominations of it seem to have more (the Virgin Mary in Catholicism,
for example).
This is a clear fact clearly seen by a majority of mankind.
Denying it wont make it go away.
Oh course, just like polytheists everywhere, particular Christians
actually worship one or another of the alternative gods that normative
Christianity offers.

Okay, you free to express your opinion. The Trinitarian doctrine
is not only difficult to understand, it is impossible to fathom.
Every
5-7yrs I revisit the doctrine, usually because I realize that I am
over accenting one member of the Godhead to the exclusion of
the others. For instance, in my prayer life, my object is almost
always Christ, rarely the Father and even less often, the Spirit.
But I've long since come to the resolution that the Godhead is
perfectly understanding of Their incomprehensibility. In fact, if
it wasn't for the either the doctrine of incomprehensibility or the
Tri-Unity itself, I wouldn't be a Christian and I doubt very much
if I would be much beyond a lukewarm agnostic.

You here express your position as being unitarian. Well I simply
can not accept a monotheistic singularity. Why? Because it
doesn't fit the constructs of the universe, it doesn't give an
adequate basis for love, law, society. What is divine love if
it doesn't have an eternal object? How can there be a true basis
for law if there is not mutual submission? And where is there
any reasonability for society, partly based upon the lack of the
previous two, but also where is the archetypical?

There is also the small matter of Scripture. The OT clearly
teaches a uni-plural Godhead. The names of God are all
plural often used with singular verbs. Only one verse obviates
this: Deut 6:4. All the nouns are plural, the verb is singular
and the noun yachid, which we translate "one," specifies a
uni-plurality. "Man and woman shall be come yachid, one."

There is also the linguistic argument for the Hebrew has
a rather unique qualifier. We have first person singular
and first person plural while Hebrew not only has that but
also has duality. Hebrew can specify two in relation to
being plural. It never uses this form in Scripture when
speaking of God.

So Scripture teaches that God is uni-plural but the Godhead
must be more than two. Isa 48:16 and 63:9, 10 paint a
Trinitarian uni-plurality.

On and on and on I could go. The proof of the "invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been
clearly seen, being understood through what has been
made .... so_that_they_are_without_excuse!" Rom 1:20

Unitarianism has no answer for the unity and diversity
of the uni-verse. The many and the one, the great
dilemma that no other religious or philosophical school
has ever answered. Only Biblical Christianity and its
Trinitarian Godhead gives an adequate answer for this
and love, law & society.

If Christ is not God, then how was infinite God's
offended holiness judicially satisfied by a finite
death? How was a finite Christ's blood different
than that of bulls & goats? Yet the NT epistles
clearly teach that God was satisfied and that
the elect are eternally secure because of the fact
that the Messiah was Divine, i.e. infinite God,
the very representation (Heb 1) and exegete
(Jn 1) of God. And speaking of John 1, how
much more clear would have John express the
Divinity of Christ? "The Word was God." You
cannot place a definite article there for in the
Greek it would then be an expression of exclusivity,
as in Jn 14:6. The Logos is only one member
of the Godhead and therefore to write "the God"
in 1:1 would be to exclude both the Father and
the Spirit of their Divinity.

Unitarian singularity simply doesn't answer the
questions of life. It certainly doesn't answer nor
provide salvation of the lost.

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by DKleinecke
But normative Trinitarian Christianity presents three gods. And some
denominations of it seem to have more (the Virgin Mary in Catholicism,
for example).
This is a clear fact clearly seen by a majority of mankind.
Denying it wont make it go away.

Proof by vigorous assertion?

[DKleinecke]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Proof by vigorous assertion?

Nope - rebuttal by vigorous assertion. It was the Trinitarians who
first started using the vigorous assertion technique. They had to.
They had nothing else to use.

By "first" I mean Tertullian - but everybody else has followed his
line of attack.

None of these matters are susceptible of proof. The only thing that
can be established, and that by observation rather than proof, is that
there is exactly one god.

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Note that I'm not trying to prove the Trinity, just to respond to
the claim that "it's a clear fact seen by a majority of mainkind" that
it's three gods.

What "everybody knows" doesn't impress me; many non-Christians believe
a fair amount of malarky about Christianity. I've found that many
non-Christians tend to be just as credulous about criticisms of
Christianity as many Christians are about arguments for it.

But you're not an average non-Christian. Presumably you know the
background of the Trinity. That background is Jewish speculation,
which hypostasized the Logos and similar things. The background of the
NT passages is Philo, Proverbs, and similar type of thought. No Jew
intended this to challenge the unity of God, nor did any Christian.
The Logos was an attribute, function, role, or whatever of the one
God.

I think one can reasonably criticize the standard formulation. I
actually think in its original context it was an understandable
choice, but reasonable people can certainly maintain that the
terminology is badly chosen, because it sounds too much like three
gods. But there's a difference between saying that the terminology is
badly chosen and saying that Christians believe in three gods. The
former is a matter of judgement, and can be debated, but the latter is
simple misrepresentation.

Post by DKleinecke

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Proof by vigorous assertion?

Nope - rebuttal by vigorous assertion. It was the Trinitarians who
first started using the vigorous assertion technique. They had to.
They had nothing else to use.

[DKleinecke]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Note that I'm not trying to prove the Trinity, just to respond to
the claim that "it's a clear fact seen by a majority of mainkind" that
it's three gods.
What "everybody knows" doesn't impress me; many non-Christians believe
a fair amount of malarky about Christianity. I've found that many
non-Christians tend to be just as credulous about criticisms of
Christianity as many Christians are about arguments for it.
But you're not an average non-Christian. Presumably you know the
background of the Trinity. That background is Jewish speculation,
which hypostasized the Logos and similar things. The background of the
NT passages is Philo, Proverbs, and similar type of thought. No Jew
intended this to challenge the unity of God, nor did any Christian.
The Logos was an attribute, function, role, or whatever of the one
God.
I think one can reasonably criticize the standard formulation. I
actually think in its original context it was an understandable
choice, but reasonable people can certainly maintain that the
terminology is badly chosen, because it sounds too much like three
gods. But there's a difference between saying that the terminology is
badly chosen and saying that Christians believe in three gods. The
former is a matter of judgement, and can be debated, but the latter is
simple misrepresentation.

Post by DKleinecke

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Proof by vigorous assertion?

Nope - rebuttal by vigorous assertion. It was the Trinitarians who
first started using the vigorous assertion technique. They had to.
They had nothing else to use.

I am delighted that you finally admitted you consider me a non-
Christian. I don't admit to being a non-Christian. I say I am a
Christian and that nobody has the authority to read me out of
Christianity.

Do you consider ALL Unitarians non-Christians?

You have to take my comments in context. It is my belief based on
unsystematic observation that almost all people who claim to be
Trinitarian Christians are, in fact, modal Monarchists. The test is to
ask them to explain what they mean by the Trinity. I would guess that
about 70-80% will answer that in ways equivalent to "they are three
different names for God". Which is the precise meaning of modal
monarchism.

It is a tempest in a teapot. Nothing depends on what name you use for
God. As I pointed out most polytheism is disguised monotheism - same
God, different name.

You will perhaps argue that I should place no value on the average
Christian's opinions because they are not informed about theology. You
have already excluded the opinions of all the non-Christians. You are
turning Christianity into a sect dominated a "trained" priesthood.

I agree that Logos speculation lies behind the Trinity - but it is not
the same as the theory of the Trinity. The logos and other similar
reified attributes such as Sophia were not separate entities - they
were aspects, facets, names, ... The crucial point is "the logos
became flesh". The crucial objection is that the Logos, as it was then
understood, was not susceptible to "becoming".

It is the Incarnation that is causing trouble - not the Trinity.
Without the Incarnation Christianity would have stayed Unitarian. But
the early churchmen felt that Jesus was separate from the Father - but
nevertheless divine. It is my belief that we have a Trinity rather
than a Duality because Matthew ended his gospel in a neat rhetorical
flourish. I have not seen a better presentation of Trinitarian theory
that Tertullian's. And Tertullian was a specialist in vigorous
assertion. As I read him, all of his serious arguments hinge on the
fact that Jesus was separate from God. How such a separation can be
made compatible with a single god eludes me.

On the matter of whether Jesus was divine we are never going to reach
consensus. It all depends on what one means by divine. Is it enough to
believe that Jesus was a normal man who became filled by one version
of the Holy Spirit - the one called the Logos? Up until about 175 CE
the Ebionites (as we know from Justin) were accepted as part of
mainstream Christianity. And the Ebionites fairly clearly denied Jesus
was divine. The Trinity is not a very important dogma of Christianity
and is certainly not a Biblical doctrine.

---

[My comment on non-Christian beliefs was because you were talking about
what "the majority of mankind" believes about Christianity. It wasn't
a comment about you specifically. There are certainly Christian Unitarians,
although the few Unitarians I've known probably aren't best described as
Christian.
--clh]

[a***@joe.net]

Post by DKleinecke
Do you consider ALL Unitarians non-Christians?

I don't know . . . but it is hard enough to follow Christ even when one is
fully aware of, and accepts, what the Bible teaches about His nature,
including but not necessarily limited to His divinity. Can one deny that
nature, yet still follow Him anyway? Perhaps. It isn't my place to judge.
But I certainly can't see how.


Joe

[Steve Hayes]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I think one can reasonably criticize the standard formulation. I
actually think in its original context it was an understandable
choice, but reasonable people can certainly maintain that the
terminology is badly chosen, because it sounds too much like three
gods. But there's a difference between saying that the terminology is
badly chosen and saying that Christians believe in three gods. The
former is a matter of judgement, and can be debated, but the latter is
simple misrepresentation.

Quite.

You can say that you don't belive in the Trinity, but to say that it means
that there are three gods is indeed misrepresentation.

A triangle may have three sides, but that does not make i three triangles.

[Jani]

Post by DKleinecke

On Jun 22, 6:46=3DA0pm, **Rowland Croucher**

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Theology is about clarifying what it really means to respond to
the moral/spiritual challenge of personally affirming Jesus as Lord.

I beg to differ. Theology is about God. Just as its etymology says.

Does that mean that a polytheistic faith can't have 'theology'? Or just t=

hat

it should have a different label?
Jani

I think I should say Oops.
What happened is that I forgot that I had not mentioned my belief that
there are no polytheists. Of course, polytheism is right in there in
theology. Theology is the study of God (no number implied, zero being
possible as well as infinitely many).
But I think the record shows that so-called polytheists are really
worshipping a single one of their possible gods. A polytheist culture
(classical antiquity, for example) presents a cafeteria of gods and
each worshipper chooses one for real worship.

Well, no, a classical polytheist doesn't select one god and ignore the rest,
even if some of the deities are more closely connected to one's life than
others.


A person in a public

Post by DKleinecke
position might well get mixed up in public rites for many gods. But
these liturgical exercises were/are not real worship in the religious
sense. Note that I make a sharp distinction between liturgy and
worship.

I'm not sure how you're defining 'real worship' here?

In a polytheist culture a person can be a real scatterbrain

Post by DKleinecke
and change gods daily. But at any one time each worshipper is
worshipping one god.

Yes, at any one time - but that doesn't require changing gods. All the gods
are still there, whichever one is being worshipped on any particular
occasion.

Post by DKleinecke
But, of course, it is branch of theology to make sense out of this god
soup the polytheist cultures present. There are still polytheist
groups around, most notably in India.

Hindu theology is monotheistic, in many ways; the different deities are all
aspects of the One. As Steve says, there is an analogy with angels in
Christianity; also with venerated saints.

Post by DKleinecke

From my point of view all these gods are versions of the same God.

This impinges on the question I mentioned - is Allah the same as the
Christian God? I would answer YES, as are Zeus and Vishnu and
Quetzelcoatl and so on. I see God as big enough and transcendent
enough to enclose any image that people can invent.

Which is monotheistic, yes?

Post by DKleinecke
But other people are offended at such an irenic approach and define
God, meaning their own personal God - the one they worship - in a
narrow way.
This leads people to split God apart - into mine and thine. I would
deplore this if I thought it had any effect on God. Several posters to
this group have stated that Unitarians do not worship the same God as
Trinitarians. I liken that to asking if worshippers of Thor are as
good as worshippers of Odin.

Have you asked any Norse polytheists how *they* worship Odin or Thor? Or -
to get back to the original question - do you not see 'theology' as the
correct term to apply to polytheistic faiths?

Post by DKleinecke
Looking at things this way our present culture, at least in the United
States, is just as polytheist as ancient Rome was - only now all the
different gods are denominations rather than names. I believe that
Islam is just as fragmented, although along different fault lines, as
Christianity is.
I don't think it matters. I think God, if human emotions could be
imputed to God, is laughing at our petty little quarrels.

Well, your god must have a twisted sense of humour. Those 'petty quarrels'
have been pretty nasty and destructive, don't you think?

Jani

[d***@aol.com]

On Jun 22, 6:46=3DA0pm, **Rowland Croucher**

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Theology is about clarifying what it really means to respond to
the moral/spiritual challenge of personally affirming Jesus as Lord.

I beg to differ. Theology is about God. Just as its etymology says.
Theology is a branch of philosophy (which is about anything and
everything). Christian apologetics are a branch of theology. =A0And
"affirming Jesus as Lord" is one sub-branch of Christian apologetics.
I am what you might call an "ecumenical theist". I believe all genuine
religions are directed to one and the same deity (whom the Christians
call "God"). Theology MUST be expanded at least far enough to examine
the question of whether the Christian "God" and the Muslim "Allah" are
the same deity. I believe there are several more similar questions
like that which are prior to any discussion about the ministry of
Jesus.

If they are the same God they have very different character traits.
You would have to believe God had no idea what He wanted nor what He
intended. He would have to be insane, clinically insane, to encompass
the antithetical personalities espoused by the two religions.

Daryl

[a***@joe.net]

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by DKleinecke
I am what you might call an "ecumenical theist". I believe all genuine
religions are directed to one and the same deity (whom the Christians
call "God"). Theology MUST be expanded at least far enough to examine
the question of whether the Christian "God" and the Muslim "Allah" are
the same deity. I believe there are several more similar questions
like that which are prior to any discussion about the ministry of
Jesus.

If they are the same God they have very different character traits.
You would have to believe God had no idea what He wanted nor what He
intended. He would have to be insane, clinically insane, to encompass
the antithetical personalities espoused by the two religions.

Don't people often make similar observations about God as depicted in the
Old Testament, versus God as depicted in the New? Don't we easily refute
these observations by pointing out that God is both infintely just and
righteous, *and* infinitely merciful and compassionate? And don't Muslims
believe basically the same things of Allah?

God is who He is (indeed the first name He used to refer to Himself, JHVH,
means exactly that: I Am Who Am). Neither Christians nor Muslims see Him
perfectly, because no mere human can. All we know of Him is what He has
revealed of Himself, and we have received this revelation not directly, but
indirectly. Even if you believe as I do that the Bible is inerrant, our own
knowledge, and understanding of it are not, because they are inherently
colored by our perceptions, and tainted by the sin in our own hearts.

In this life, in this sinful world that has not yet been fully redeemed,
all of us must inherently be in error to one degree or another - we see
darkly, as through a (1st century) mirror, not yet face to face. I think
that if we have enough humility to understand this, then we are thereby
empowered to dialogue with others about *their* experiences of the Almighty,
even if those experiences differ greatly from our own.

Now, having said this, I see two main differences between Allah, as
understood by Muslims, and the God of the Bible, as understood by the major
branches of professing Christianity. First, Christians believe that He is
triune; Muslims do not. Second, Christians believe in the full humanity
*and* the full divinity of Jesus Christ. Muslims believe He was a prophet
only.

These differences make interfaith dialogue difficult at best, because they
lie at the very core of how Christians understand God, and how Muslims
understand Allah. To a Muslim it is blasphemous to say that Jesus is God;
to a Christian it is blasphemous to say that He is not. On this important
topic, among many others, we probably will never agree.

But in the end, do we worship the same God or not? It is very hard for me
to say, and I suspect that it may vary from one person to the next. It
seems likely that many if not most Muslims do wish to acknowledge and to
honor the Almighty, the Creator of all things, as best they understand Him
to be. From my perspective, their understanding seems flawed; yet my own is
flawed as well. I believe it is less flawed with respect to the person and
nature of Christ. But in other areas perhaps it is more flawed. Perhaps,
for instance, God in truth is far less inclined to tolerate sins such as
adultery or fraud, which are commonly accepted today in allegedly
"Christian" societies but far less so in Muslim ones.

Also, it is my observation that Muslims tend to take their belief very
seriously. It is not a faith reserved for a few hours a week at the mosque,
or even a few times a day as they they make the salah (daily prayers). It
is inherently an integrated part of their world-view, their lives, the way
they structure their societies.

Yet on the other side it seems that many professing Christians, especially
here in the U.S. and other relatively wealthy countries, compartmentalize
their faith. They honor God with their worship and prayers and gifts on
Sunday mornings, but do not always give Him a second thought through the
rest of their lives. (Sadly I count myself as one of these, though I
continue to hope God will deliver me somehow from this wickedness.)

Who is closer to the Kingdom of God?

I think the Bible is closer to the Truth . . . for it testifies with perfect
accuracy, I believe, of the One who IS Truth (John 14:6).

But this does NOT imply that every person who professes faith in God is part
of His Kingdom, or that every person who professes faith in Allah is not.


Joe

[**Rowland Croucher**]

Post by DKleinecke
On Jun 22, 6:46=A0pm, **Rowland Croucher**

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Theology is about clarifying what it really means to respond to
the moral/spiritual challenge of personally affirming Jesus as Lord.

I beg to differ. Theology is about God. Just as its etymology says.

So are we talking about Hamlet or the Prince of Denmark?

[Leonard Abbott]

Who was Michal?

Michal daughter of King Saul was the last Israelite, to live with the
Royal family of Israel, God shut up th womb of Michal, making her
childless to end Israel's involvement with the Royal family.

When the boy David slew Goliath, King Saul gave Michal to David as a
wife at the early age of 12 or 13..

After Michal David went on to have some 30 Gentile wives, and perhaps
100 children but Michal died childless. because God had decided to
''scatter the Israelites to "the four winds of the heavens"

After David Solomon and Rehoboam 2 Kings of Israel, between them they
could have had more than 3,000 children, Although both were Kings of
Israel, All their wives were Gentiles,

Today's Jews spend a lot of effort trying to disprove what is called
"replacement theology" however the story of Michal is another "smoking
gun" proving Israel was exterminated just as God promised, while the
Unfaithful Israelites wandered in the Sinai wilderness..

Christians are puzzled as to why God did not punish David, Solomon, and
Rehoboam for having so many wives.
Solomon in particular, because Solomon had 1,000 wives. Solomon was
punished for worshipping foreign Gods, but not for having 1,000 wives.

The reason is now becoming Crystal clear, God had ended Israel's
involvement as a "chosen people" and God was rapidly replacing his
chosen, creating a new ''House of Israel" just before All of Israel
would be integrated with Syria and Babylon..