The use of we by Allah in the Quran is an expression of majesty and not pluralism. Example is when a President is talking, even when it is a fact that he is the one that has taken a decision, he would usually come out and say ' Our Government has decided '. That is not say there are two Presidents in the country. This true for all languages of the world. So contrary to your assertion, the Quran is clear on the fact that there is only one Allah.

"We" "Us" "Our"...and Allah

nuru:

The use of we by Allah in the Quran is an expression of majesty and not pluralism.
Example is when a President is talking, even when it is a fact that he is the one that has taken
a decision, he would usually come out and say ' Our Government has decided '. That is not say
there are two Presidents in the country. This true for all languages of the world. So contrary to
your assertion, the Quran is clear on the fact that there is only one Allah.

The use of analogies is appreciated; but even when a President says 'Our Government', it is clear that he would not be speaking alone but in concert with several others besides him. Only in dictatorial systems of governance do leaders stand alone, and in such they would say, "I have decided on this and that..," rather than "Our Government has decided." Divine realities often cannot be illustrated sufficiently with temporal things.

When you stated that, "The use of we by Allah in the Quran is an expression of majesty...," it seems you agree, at least, that Allah was indeed the speaker in those verses. Assuming that Allah speaks as a single being, how should we understand his direct use of the plural pronoun "Us" when he says, "...Us (alone) did they serve" [Sura 21:73]? At face value, it is difficult to connect with this when Allah alone is to be worshipped and served, and there should be no "Us" about Allah in Islam.

Please note carefully what I'm pointing out: someone takes it upon himself to call my faith "laughable and ridiculous" simply because he could not understand the Trinity; I only asked if he would do the same at Islam if he only knew that Allah also spoke as "We", "Us", and "Our". You explained (while admitting it was Allah speaking as "We", that it was 'an expression of majesty and not pluralism.' Granted. The same could be said about the Trinity, which is not 'plural Gods' or 'three Gods.' It is one God who has revealed Himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is not just a New Testament doctrine of Christianity. Infact, in the beginning, we hear this same God saying:

"Let Us make man in our image and after our likeness." [Gen. 1:26].

This does not mean that there were three Gods in that verse, and one needs only read carefully the other scriptures in the Bible that consistently bear out the unity of the ONE and only true God.

The Qur'an states that Allah alone is the creator and none can be associated with him. While I refrain from interpreting the Qur'an for Moslems and respect whatever views they hold of their faith, I did not make any categorical "assertions" that there were more than one Allah. I believe the Bible proclaims only ONE true and living God in both the Old and New Testaments, and the doctrine of the Trinity is not ridiculous in as much as Moslems view the "We", "Us" and "Our" of Allah as simply pointing to majesty.

M.

Malik, one good thing about your post is that you agree with me that the Supreme Being, the Creator of the Universe is One and Eternal. If you believe this sincerely, it means you have said '' Lailaa ila lau''. '' there is no other diety beside Allah''. This is one leg of the muslim creed and you are not far from Islam.

My dear Nuru, I sincerely believe that God the Supreme Being, the Creator of the Universe is One and Eternal - and He is not Allah! My confession of God does not derive from the Islamic deity. Why? There is only One Eternal, loving God who loves me without measure as to provide redemption in the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever
believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [John 3:16]

I do not deride Islam just because I don't believe in it; but my faith is anchored in the God of love revealed in the Bible - and Christianity really makes sense only by faith in Jesus Christ.

M.

Allah is the name of the Supreme Diety in Arabic. Jesus spoke aramaic and i can still remember that in the Bible that i read as a lad, the sentence ''Elli, Elli lamosabaqtani '' which means My God My God, why have you forsaken me'' used to be prominent in the Bible class. Dont know if its still there . Jesus called God, Elli and not any other name. Now look at it, arabic and aramaic are both semitic languages and if you compare Allah with Elli, you would see that Jesus practically called God by the name Allah. Why wont any other person that claim to believe in Jesus.

just wanna add my 2 cents b4 yall remove this very delicate and fragile topic,i just wanted to say this,hebrews say Elli,arabs say Allah,Igbos say Chneke,Yorubas say Olorun we cud go on and on,so whut wud non muslim arabs call GOD,they will still use the term ALLAH so whats the fuss about....some peeps r takin it the wrong way...lets stop b4 we commit a sin we knoe nuthing about...sallam,shalom.

nuru:

Allah is the name of the Supreme Diety in Arabic. Jesus spoke aramaic and i can still remember that in the Bible that i read as a lad, the sentence ''Elli, Elli lamosabaqtani '' which means My God My God, why have you forsaken me'' used to be prominent in the Bible class. Dont know if its still there . Jesus called God, Elli and not any other name. Now look at it, arabic and aramaic are both semitic languages and if you compare Allah with Elli, you would see that Jesus practically called God by the name Allah. Why wont any other person that claim to believe in Jesus.

The verse in the Bible you're asking about is [Matt. 27:46] - "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Nuru: "Jesus called God, Elli and not any other name."

As to the question of Jesus calling God by any other name, the Bible shows indeed that He called God "Father" - "He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." [Matt. 26:42]; He called God "Abba" as well - "And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt." [Mark 14:36]. More than any other name by which Jesus addressed God, He called Him "Father". Arabs - whether Christians or Moslems - commonly use "Allah" in speaking of God; yet we know that in their concept and understanding, they are not referring to the same "Allah" or God. Why? The true test of our worship to God is the name by which we call Him: it is only Christians (Arabs, Aramaic, English or whatever) who know and address God as "Father" - and that is the very name that Jesus Christ asked us to recognise in our praying to God:

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name." [Matt. 6:9]

Just calling God the Supreme Deity does not establish saving faith in a person's life. The "Allah" of the Islamic faith is not the "Father" and therefore not the same as the "God" whom Jesus came to preach. We know salvation and worship only when we confess that God is our Father by faith in Jesus Christ -

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." [John 4:23]


M.

teckman:

...i just wanted to say this,hebrews say Elli,arabs say Allah,Igbos say Chneke,Yorubas say Olorun we cud go on and on,so whut would non muslim arabs call GOD,they will still use the term ALLAH so whats the fuss about. some peeps r takin it the wrong way...lets stop before we commit a sin we knoe nuthing about...sallam,shalom.

Malik, you've done a good job. Nuru, you sef, I admire your sincerity. But teckman, I wonder who u're refering to as some peeps...??!! If U wan learn, do so. If not, don't throw block - e fit land for ur backyard!

Me sef...em,..er.. I've been wondering if they're all the same - God, Allah, Chineke, Chukwu, Olorun, Aten and ...

Anyway, folks, keep it up - I'm not a free-thinker, but I'm grateful for the insights of those who have made inputs to get me thinking a bit more seriously.

Na me, ... or otherwise, 4get me

Surely, Allah does not sleep, he begets not, nor is He begotten. He is quite unlike the god in the Bible that forgets, regrets and gets tired. (Exo 31:14),( Gen 6:7). jESUS SAID ' Hear O Isreal, the Lord our God is One Lord (Mark 12, Vs 29 ) Note this is a reply to a questioner that sought to know the very foundation of Jesus ministry. No reference to father, none to son and none to Holy Ghost. Direct from the mouth of Jesus. Noe God, Allau Wahid.

typo:

One God, Allau wahid

they are the same , just as different tribes call him  in their own tribes

Nuru, in Exo.31:14, there was nothing to suggest your claim that the God of the Bible "forgets, regrets and gets tired." All it said was that the Israelites were to keep the Sabbath. Second, I don't see your point in quoting the Bible if you don't believe in it. If Jesus reiterated the doctrine of ONE God in Mark 12:29 by quoting Deut.6:4, would you also believe Him when He called God "Father" and "Abba" in [Mark 14:36]? If only you had been patient, you would have seen indeed that Jesus made reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - see Matt.28:19. Third, you finally made my point that Allah and the God of the Bible are not the same when you said...

nuru:

Surely, Allah does not sleep, he begets not, nor is He begotten. He is quite unlike the god in the Bible...

I have never believed the "Allah" of Islam and the God of the Bible were the same. You would do well to balance your views by not making selective quotes from the Bible: such an exercise would only confuse you the more. The whole tenor of the Bible is that there is ONE true and living God who loves everyone enough to reveal His mercy in Jesus Christ. I never read it in the Qur'an that Allah "loves" anyone, simply because he does not!

M.

Allah is the Creator of Heavens and Earth and He loves the pious. Jesus was clear when asked a direct question, that God is One. If you see anywhere in the Bible athat He is refered to as Father, it is a later addition to the message of Christ. Compare what was reported Jesus said openly in the gathering of many men to what somebody claimed he said when he was alone, afetr discharging the two closest companions in other to pray alone and even coming back to find them asleep. So, who witnessed or heard what he said. You would do well to believe an open declaration and throw away a secret report in as much as its in variance with other Truths.

Jesus' Open Statements

nuru:

...If you see anywhere in the Bible athat He is refered to as Father, it is a later addition to the message of Christ. Compare what was reported Jesus said openly in the gathering of many men to what somebody claimed he said when he was alone, ... You would do well to believe an open declaration and throw away a secret report in as much as its in variance with other Truths.

Later additions? Islam loves that propaganda so much that you can't afford to tell it as it is. What part of the Bible do you believe anyway? Nuru, spend time reading the Bible if you would come through with a good statement, not bias and half statements. Jesus indeed made open statements that God was His Father. See the following -

1. At the onset of His ministry, Jesus openly called God "Father" before the listening crowd -
   "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you."[Matt. 6:14] 
   "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father
    which is in heaven." [Matt. 10:32].  "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man
    knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he
    to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." [Matt. 11:27] (Please read Matt.11:7 and see that He
    was speaking this openly to the multitudes).

2. He spoke openly in His preaching to a very hostile crowd about the very fact that God was His "Father" -
  "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." [John 5:17]. "And the Father himself,
   which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his
   shape." [John 5:37] "Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which
   of those works do ye stone me?" [John 10:32].

3. He was questioned openly by the Jewish religious council as to who He was. Before everyone present, He
confessed that He was the Son of God: "But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest
asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye
shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." [Mark 14:61-62].

4. He prayed openly on the cross for forgiveness for His executioners, calling God "Father" -
  "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment,
  and cast lots." [Luke 23:34]

All these and several more were clear statements that Jesus made IN THE OPEN, not in secret as to be passed for "later additions." Notice also that it was on this very confession that He was the "Son of God" that the Jewish council condemned Jesus to death. [Mark 14:61-64]. Even secular history bears out the fact that Jesus was put to death on the cross - the very thing that Islam denies and tries to hide. It is not only Islam that postulates that the Bible has been changed or is in error; several other religious movements make that claim, yet they just don't know what the original message of the Bible was so they can tell it to the world as it is. If you believe the texts you quote in the Bible as to what Jesus said openly, what's wrong with believing the other open statements He made? Afterall, you posited that ...

nuru:

...You would do well to believe an open declaration and throw away a secret report...

I wait to see you follow your own advice to believe the "open declaration" in the 'open' Bible quotes above; and I bet your bias would prove too strong for you to accept these 'open' truths. Both openly and in secret, Jesus indeed called God "Father."

Warmly  ,
M.

The reason Jesus is the son of God is because He came from the very Word of the father. You cannot seperate a man from his word. The word, according to the bible,in the book of John 1 is God.

For this reason He is not seperate from the father. For this reason also, anyone who will recieve the Word of God according to the bible is actually recieving God Himself.

The father, the Word and and the Holy Spirit(the Spirit of God) are One.

I do not expect my muslim friend to understand this because it is only revealed to those who have been chosen for salvation.

Watch CNN and see the demonstration of the Character of the God of Islam...demanding for the heads of those cartoonists. See the violence..see the hatred...see the destruction.

That is definitely not my God...the one who gave his only begotten Son to die a shameful death on the cross just for me.

yes donnie, it's not your god. Your God is the Christian God, the one that sorts out things for his followers such as the good Christians did during the crusade against the Cathars.
In 1209, during the "Albigensian Crusade" against the Cathar heresy in Southern France, the forces of Orthodox Catholicism had been besieging the city of Beziers, defended by the Cathar heretics, for some time. Finally they breached the walls of the city and prepared to storm it. The commander of the crusade, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, pointed out that not everybody in the city was a heretic, some of them wer good Catholics, so how should they treat the inhabitants when they captured the city? A monk who was actually present at the siege recorded the answer of the Papal Legate to the Crusaders, Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, as "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet." ("Kill them all. God will know his own." ) So the Crusaders followed his advice and killed everybody they could find in Beziers.
The Abbot presumably said it in everyday French, and the account we have is in Latin, but there seems no reason to doubt that he really did give that advice. (http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/42/messages/1003.html)

Truly, a different God than the one of the Muslims

When i talk about God, i talk about him as revealed in His Holy Word.

I am aware that violence and force (jihad) are actually doctrines of Islam and not just some group of fanatics.

Look at this, the christian is saved by the death of Christ and he lives in this conciousness while still on earth. For the muslims, you do not know of salvation until death; When they hope their good deeds will supposedly secure for them a place in heaven. There is however no assurance of that salvation. The only way they can be sure of going to heaven is by Jihad. Is that not true?

No wonder...

May I ask something, nferyn? What really is your faith or philosophy of life?

4get_me:

May I ask something, nferyn? What really is your faith or philosophy of life?

I'm a moderately left wing humanistic weak atheist and I adhere to a not too strict utilitarian approach to life and social problems.

Questions again:

1. How do you define Humanism, Atheism, and Utilitarianism?

2. What's your attitude towards Christianity?

Many thanks.

And em...er..., Seun, I don't know how it happens, but the time counter on my 'user info' banner seems to be faulty. I had barely spent 5 mins online when the cybercafe manager asked me to log out because I had spent over an hour online! Katakata nearly burst for here O! Abeg adjust the 'kini' or remove am kpatakpata! Or... just 4get_me!

Donnie,

Your view of Jihad is not true.

Well nuru, why dont you just tell us the right view/perspective on jihad cause I seem to have almost the same view of it as donnie.

1. Definitions:
1. Humanism:
Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values—be they religious, ethical, social, or political—have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny. • The Humanist Magazine (from http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/definitions.htm)
There are many different definitons of humanism, but I fully suscribe to the one above
2. Atheism:
Lacking the belief in a supreme being, nothing more, nothing less
3. utilitarianism:
A practical philosophical stance whereby you consider the correct mode of action as the one that produces the most intrensic good for the highest number of people. A more ellaborate explanation can be found here: http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/utilitarianism.html

2. Attitude towards Christianity
At best Christianity provides comfort to it's practitioners, even though their time could be used more productively. At worst, it leads to bigotry and evil acts. If you have the stomach and are not too easily offended, you can read Dawkins' article on religion which I posted on the board: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6509.0.html
I fully agree with his position

Malik, let's for a moment assume that Jesus called the Supreme God Father, it is clear from the Bible that that father is One and that He has has no partner, nor associate either as a son or as a spirit. Now lets look at what Jesus called himself ' the son of man ' just like the Quran referred to him as 'Son of Mariam' . The Lord, the Originator of Heavens and Earth is One. If you like call Him Eledumare, or Chukwu or Allah, or even say Father, this does not remove the fact that He will never share His Glory with anybody, Almighty God, The Most Excellent, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the Powerful, the One and Only God. If you accept this of God, then you make my day.

Now, lets look at Jihad, it means to strive in the course of Truth. It does not mean killing to attain paradise. The struggle for truth starts with ones mind, to ward off all devilish and wicked temptations. The second level is to dislike devilish tendencies of others. The next is to speak against sins and propagate the truth. the next level if you are pushed is to defend your stands in actions. The ultimate level is to lay down your life for the Truth. Every level of Jihad is rewarded and the Ultimate reward is the Pleasure of Allah, not even paradise.

Nuru, please answer this question for me: Is Allah the very same God as Eledumare?

@Nuru: In the Qur'an, did one Allah or several Allah create mankind? It should have been easy to answer that if the singular pronouns ("I"or "Me" were used when Allah speaks as the creator in the Qur'an, but rather he speaks with the plural pronouns:

"O mankind! We created you from a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other." [Sura 49:13].

Let's just be clear about one thing: The God of the Bible is not the same as the Allah of the Qur'an (you said so yourself) - and that is what I have tried to maintain. I never said that the God of the Bible had "partners" or "associates," and you only need to read my previous posts to see that I have been consistent in maintaining the Bible teaches only One true and living God.

Meanwhile, I don't "assume" any statement Jesus made in the Bible: I don't "for a moment assume that Jesus called God Father." I truly believe in my heart that what He declared is authentic and authoritative, and He most definitely called God "Father."


M.

One true and Living God: Yes, that is Allah for you. Eledumare is a yoruba word for God, the Creator of all Creatures.
I have explained the use of languages majestically for you and you seemed to agree with the explaination. Whether you acknowledge that you believe in Allah or not, He is the One True and Living God, Al Haq, Al Hayyu, Al-Waheed. He has no partner nor associate.

Nuru, you still did not answer my question. I suppose you tried to dribble round it. However, I respect your faith and would look forward to further posts of interest.

Warmly ,
M.

@ m4malik,
It looks like you have been enjoying a free ride so far; you're definitely relishing in your contumacy. I've been so busy, otherwise, I would have woken you up from your slumber of ignorance. Anyway, Nuru seems to be enough for you, for now.

N.B.
How come you're Malik? Or, you are an apostate like Layi? Maybe, you're one of those Nigerian christian northerners with a  Muslim name? Why will a kufar like you bear a mumin's name?

@nferyn: Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer my questions. Actually, there was nothing new in your definitions - I just wanted your own statement as to what you think of life and faith. Every worldview - religious or secular - have had grey shades in their history. As an individual of atheistic leanings, you cannot deny the fact that some atheists have been directly involved in the most dastardly and inhumane actions known to mankind (I don't mean any offences). I respect your right to subscribe to Dawkins' ideas, but he does not prove anything to the effect that religion alone is responsible for his complaints.

However, I find it a bit worrisome that you have misrepresented Christianity. I define the Christian faith based on what it teaches in the Bible rather than on the opinions of people; and that is why I think that Dawkins misused words that confused matters rather than foster understanding. For example, he seemed to have narrowed the goal of scientific investigation to just one premise - attack. "Now, the invention of the scientific method... rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked." (reference from your thread of Dawkins, third paragraph, accessible here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6509.0.html). Eminent and astute scientists of more worth would strongly disagree with that premise, for science is not about attacking ideologies, but rather seeking to better the cause of humanity.

Another point to this bane of misrepresentation is your statement that Christianity "...leads to bigotry and evil acts." I suppose you take that stance based on the ugly events in history like the Crusades. However, please bear with my pointing out that Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, was not quoting the Bible or stating Christian doctrine when he gave his advice to the religious armies to kill the inhabitants of Beziers. Why do I point this out? If you had read in the Bible that Christianity actually is bigotted and evil, I would patiently wait for you to quote the references. In the same vein, may I offer to quote what Jesus Himself said to His followers:

'But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.' (Mat 5:44).

That surely doesn't sound like bigotry or evil, does it? It is on Jesus Christ that Christians base their life and faith, not on any Abbot. Please look closely into your claims and ask yourself if indeed Christianity is what you think it is, especially when you haven't given it a fair hearing based on the Bible itself. I trust that you'll be better able to appreciate the fact that human dignity is not in ferreting people of other ideologies or worldviews that differ from your own by using uninformed prejudices. Although I'm not a philosopher or astute scientist, I do agree with the following statement:

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely re-arranging their prejudices." William James (US Pragmatist, philosopher & psychologist c.1842 - 1910)

As regards what I think about the points you raised, I'll share my thoughts with you on this forum as amicably as I can, without prejudices or biases, hoping to warmly invite you to consider the raison d'etre of the Christian faith, not loosing sight of the main question of this thread as to if God and Allah are the same.

Very warmly yours,
4get_me.

4get_me:

@nferyn: Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer my questions. Actually, there was nothing new in your definitions - I just wanted your own statement as to what you think of life and faith. Every worldview - religious or secular - have had grey shades in their history. As an individual of atheistic leanings, you cannot deny the fact that some atheists have been directly involved in the most dastardly and inhumane actions known to mankind (I don't mean any offences).

Allright, I couldn't know that you were familiar with the terms I used, as I have met many people that have a rather distorted view on atheism and humanism. What do I think about life and faith? I see no inherent meaning or purpose to life. Life just is and you have to give it meaning yourself. As for faith, I have a fundamental problem with faith for intelligent adults. I find it a willful regression into a childlike state of mind whereby you accept something on authority and do not investigate the fundamentals of what you have faith in thoroughly.

I think you really need to distinguish between on the one hand atheism, the lack of God belief, and on the other hand theism, the positive belief in a personal supreme being. Atheism is just a position regarding the belief in a supreme being, just as theism. Religions and worldviews on the other hand are constructions that allow to investigate and determine your position within society and the cosmos. They make positive assertion concerning the mechanics of the cosmos and how we should relate to it.

The fact that some atheists have done horrific things does not say anything whatsoever about my humanism. The philosophies those people subscribe to are radically opposed to secular humanism, they are actually the antithesis of secular humanism. Truth must be told though that the most heinous crimes against humanity have been cloacked under the cover of religion and this is exactly what Dawkins is referring to

4get_me:

I respect your right to subscribe to Dawkins' ideas, but he does not prove anything to the effect that religion alone is responsible for his complaints.

No, but the religious condition, the claim for absolute truth on authority, not on evidence or proof, is the ideal justification and cover to let congnitive dissonance ignore contradictory information. Only active skepticism can counter this tendency. I'll take a quote I used in another thread to illustrate my point:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." (Stephen Weinberg, Washington, D.C., April 1999)
So in summary, it is never religion alone that makes people do evil things, but religion allows people to do horrible things and still believe they're doing a good thing.

4get_me:

However, I find it a bit worrisome that you have misrepresented Christianity. I define the Christian faith based on what it teaches in the Bible rather than on the opinions of people; and that is why I think that Dawkins misused words that confused matters rather than foster understanding.

You can both find good morals and horrible morals in the Bible. It all depends on what you choose from the text. It is a huge collection of writings, after all. The fact that the language used is rather ambiguous, allows an even furter narrowing of whichevermessage you may want to find. And to think that one would need the fear of God's wrath to do the just and moral thing is an insult to the human species. We are naturally an extremely moral animal, especially if you compare us to the other animals.
What I don't understand is that Christains ignore all the language of bigotry, ethnocentrism, racism and injustice that is contained in the Bible and at the same time claim that that book is THE[/b]Guide for morality? This is a very weird position for an outsider.

4get_me:

For example, he seemed to have narrowed the goal of scientific investigation to just one premise - [b]attack. "Now, the invention of the scientific method... rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked." (reference from your thread of Dawkins, third paragraph, accessible here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6509.0.html). Eminent and astute scientists of more worth would strongly disagree with that premise, for science is not about attacking ideologies, but rather seeking to better the cause of humanity.

This is highly selective quoting from your part, only because he uses the word attack. Attack in this context refers to the process of peer review whereby, when a scientist proposes a hypothesis and presents his evidence for that hypothesis, his peers, other scientists working in the same field, are systematically going to try to find the weaknesses of that hypothesis. This process is crucial in the advancement of scientific knowledge. Contrary to religion, there are NO sacred cows in science.
Also, if you say that science is seeking to better the cause of humanity, you are incorrect. Science does not directly try to better the cause of humanity, it tries to understand the mechanics of the cosmos and by doing so, we also better the cause of humanity, but that is not the primary objective of science.

4get_me:

Another point to this bane of misrepresentation is your statement that Christianity "...leads to bigotry and evil acts." I suppose you take that stance based on the ugly events in history like the Crusades. However, please bear with my pointing out that Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, was not quoting the Bible or stating Christian doctrine when he gave his advice to the religious armies to kill the inhabitants of Beziers. Why do I point this out? If you had read in the Bible that Christianity actually is bigotted and evil, I would patiently wait for you to quote the references. In the same vein, may I offer to quote what Jesus Himself said to His followers:

'But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.' (Mat 5:44).

Do you really want me to provide you quotes? Theres are so many that I wouldn't know where to start. Go and visit http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html for all the injustices, cruelties, bigotry, paternalism and anti-women passages you wouldn't like to be remembered of. Once more, the Bible is so internally contradictory that it is hard to find any moral message in one quote that isn't contradicted in another.
This makes it easy for anyone intended to do something evil to find something in the Bible that justifies his acts.

4get_me:

That surely doesn't sound like bigotry or evil, does it? It is on Jesus Christ that Christians base their life and faith, not on any Abbot. Please look closely into your claims and ask yourself if indeed Christianity is what you think it is, especially when you haven't given it a fair hearing based on the Bible itself. I trust that you'll be better able to appreciate the fact that human dignity is not in ferreting people of other ideologies or worldviews that differ from your own by using uninformed prejudices. Although I'm not a philosopher or astute scientist, I do agree with the following statement:

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely re-arranging their prejudices." William James (US Pragmatist, philosopher & psychologist c.1842 - 1910)

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that most religious people are indeed honest, warm and good and even that some need the fear instilled by religion not to do evil, but religion in itself has an ugly and dangerous aspect, especially when it is being lived in a fundamentalist way.

4get_me:

As regards what I think about the points you raised, I'll share my thoughts with you on this forum as amicably as I can, without prejudices or biases, hoping to warmly invite you to consider the raison d'etre of the Christian faith, not loosing sight of the main question of this thread as to if God and Allah are the same.

Very warmly yours,
4get_me.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration. Please believe that I'm not so ignorant about the main tenets of Christianity as you may believe, after all, European culture is largly built on Christianity. We have dealt with the ugly aspects of religion far too much in the past though. It is very important that religion remains something personal and that power and religion are never mixed.

As to the main question, the fact that some claim that they are not the same and vigorously fight for that conviction, even though it is clear in The Qu'ran that Allah is the same God as the God of Christianity and Judaism, just gives an indication that the problem rather lies with the fundamental characteristics of religion in itself.

nferyn, again I want to acknowledge your well-thoughtout philosophy. However, your position and convictions fall far short of an inclusive understanding of what religion is - let alone the Christian faith. In the first place, when a man says that the premise of scientific investigation is to attack ideas, it matters nothing to me if one accuses me of making selective and abstract quotes (need I say that is precisely what you do when dealing with matters of faith in the Bible?). By stating that premise, what it means to me is that he rests everything on one goal - that is, to attack what he does not understand or believe in; and that is something radically opposed to what is called "investigation." Even among scientists, it is commonly believed that it is not by attacking ideas that one establishes an 'understanding of the cosmos'. The American physicist Stephen Weinberg says that "Religion is an insult to human dignity," and he speaks for himself, because not many physicists would agree with him. I wonder if he counted as retarded, all physicists who were erudite in their field and still held to a religious belief. This is what Albert Einstein, the German-born physicist once said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ("Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941).

I've heard many times that the skeptic mind requires evidence and proof (usually those appealing to the physical senses) for questions of religion and other phenomena; and if the answers are not tailored to their ideologies or expectations, then the religious mind is committed to the realms of 'ignorance.' I should remind you that not everything someone questions or seeks answers to can be proven this way. Bertrand Russell, the British mathematician and philosopher often quoted by skeptics, might have attested to this when he quipped, "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this."

Religion - of whatever branch - has received a bad name from people who have given a false and ugly face to it. Yet, to generalise it in the way that Stephen Weinberg has done is to throw away the baby with the bath water. I should not belabour the point any further than to simply say that there are matters of life far beyond the methodology of science, even if denied by skeptics and atheists. You may not agree, but I share the thoughts of
another scientist in this regard: "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." (Richard Feynman, US educator & physicist c.1918 - 1988). Please note that I don't mean to be sarcastic towards your position; however, there certainly is a basis for faith that is both intelligent and genial.

4get_me.