Trying to understand what God wants from us can seem confusing, and often in conflict. On the one hand we each seek a deep and sincere faith and trust in God, and I recognise this in many of my Muslim brothers and sisters on this forum.
Beyond a doubt we are all created by the same God, and it seems strange that God should give you a deep and sincere faith through Islam and me the same through Christianity. Why would the same God do this?
As to our atheist, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh friends, they are still created by the same God, but why?
Absolutely brother. I have lost my temper too many times on a few thread such as this.
Let the Muslims here take a step back for a second and look to the Quran.
Call people to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and best advice, and reason with them, if you have to, in the most courteous manner: for your Lord knows best who strays from His Way and He knows best who is rightly guided.
Now, with this guide, lets continue to reason with our cousins on this board!
Your list of "numerous" versions continues not to be different versions, but different translations, just like there are Yusufali, Picthal and Shakir translations of the Qur'an. That list of course goes on and on as well. Does that mean that there are "numerous versiions" of the Qur'an. No, there is only one Qur'an. There is only one Bible as well, but since we don't insist that people must read it in the original tongue, we feel very comfortable in reading it from any of the numerous translations you often post and know that it is still the same* Bible.
* -- I will admit that there is disagreement between various Christian groups as to whether or not the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees should or should not be considered part of the canon. But then there is disagreement between Muslims regarding which Hadith are or are not authentic. Since the Hadith are considered sufficient as a guide to faith and practice (the very definition of what it means if a book is in the biblical canon), it seems both Muslims and Christians are left to ponder why they can't agree amongst themselves as to what does and does not belong in their respective sacred texts.
As for the list of groups you published which you listed as Christian, your definition of Christian is different than mine, for I would not include the following that you listed:
Branch Davidian
Christadelphian
Christian Identity
Christian Science
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Church of the New Jerusalem
Church Universal and Triumphant
Family, The (aka Children of God)
Gnostic
Jehovah's Witnesses
Living Church of God
Local Church
Nation of Yahweh
Rosicrucian
Spiritist
True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
Two-by-Twos
Unification Church
Unitarian-Universalism
Unity Church
Unity Fellowship Church
Waldensian Church
Way International, The
Worldwide Church of God
These above are groups that are actually antithetical to Christianity -- declaring that Jesus is not the Christ (hard to be a Christian if you don't accept the Christ), say that Jesus is nothing more than a special enjoy from God, are accepting of all religions as equal, using other revelation subsequent to the Bible as authoritative, deny the value of Jesus sacrifice or the reality of his resurrection, and in other ways seperate themselves off from historic Christianity. Some of them think that it doesn't matter what you believe -- hardly a Christian concept. And others think that they are the only one's who are right and thus deny that anyone else other than them could be Christian -- obviously thereby isolating themselves from the predominant Christian culture as not a part of it. And therefore, given those views and those practices, I do not include them as a part of the mix of denominations and churches (which is a large number) that are Christian.
As for the remaining list, of literally hundreds of Christian bodies from large denominations like the Catholic Church right down to individual community churches, I submit to you that we are one body in Christ just the same as the Ummah views itself as a single community. This is what we mean when even groups like Methodist, Presbyterians, Lutherans and other proclaim "we believe in the holy catholic church". We don't mean Catholic as in the church led by the pope; we are using the term "catholic" in its other sense, meaning universal. We believe that there is one universal church to which all Christians belong, no matter what the name above the door where they happen to worship reads. And this universal Church is composed of many different groups (some you listed and some you didn't) who don't all agree with each other about sources of authority in Christian lives today any more than Sunni and Shia agree about such authorities. Many of these groups have other unique beliefs that are not shared by all other Christians. But the membership of them all (or at least their official teachings) do share a oneness in their understanding of the person and work of Jesus. And that makes us one body in Christ, a universal church, just as unified as the Ummah that I find present here.
(Note: Not being a member of both the Umman and the Church, I can't say for sure that one community is more or less or exactly the same in their "oneness" or "universality" than the other. I'm making my assessment based on what I know of the Church from having been in it for more than half a century, and from the little bit of the Ummah I have experienced in 2 years of being on LI and a little less than a decade of regular intermingling with members of the Ummah in my daily life.)
I disagree Seeker. The differences between the Sunnia and Shia ( who use the exact same book) are trifling compared to the massive theological differences between different branches of christianity.
One thing to consider. Sunnias and Shias use the SAME mosque and SAME book. But different christian denominations hole themselves up in seprate churches with varying names and many Bibles.
I disagree Seeker. The differences between the Sunnia and Shia ( who use the exact same book) are trifling compared to the massive theological differences between different branches of christianity.
One thing to consider. Sunnias and Shias use the SAME mosque and SAME book. But different christian denominations hole themselves up in seprate churches with varying names and many Bibles.
The unity is clearly not the same.
You know, I appreciate the way you disagree. There are points that one could actually discuss and that is very helpful if we are to better understand each other.
I agree that there massive theological differences between various denominations. But Christians of different sects can and sometimes do share the same church as well. Just this past Tuesday, I participated in a worship service that included a Roman Catholic priest, a United Presbyterian pastor, a pastor of an independent community church, a Free Methodist pastor, and 2 United Methodist pastors. We do this because we consider our theological differences to be trifling compared to what we hold in common with one another as Christians. That is why I say that despite our many differences there is still unity in the Body of Christ.
On the point you make with regard to the Bible, I need some more information. Other than the fact that Protestant bible's dispute the above mentioned books as not being canonical (thus reflecting the official Hebrew canon used by Jews today) while Catholic and Orthodox allow for them (thus reflecting the unofficial list of books included in the Hebrew canon at the beginning of the Common Era), what "many Bibles" are you referring to?
You know, I appreciate the way you disagree. There are points that one could actually discuss and that is very helpful if we are to better understand each other.
I agree that there massive theological differences between various denominations. But Christians of different sects can and sometimes do share the same church as well. Just this past Tuesday, I participated in a worship service that included a Roman Catholic priest, a United Presbyterian pastor, a pastor of an independent community church, a Free Methodist pastor, and 2 United Methodist pastors. We do this because we consider our theological differences to be trifling compared to what we hold in common with one another as Christians. That is why I say that despite our many differences there is still unity in the Body of Christ.
On the point you make with regard to the Bible, I need some more information. Other than the fact that Protestant bible's dispute the above mentioned books as not being canonical (thus reflecting the official Hebrew canon used by Jews today) while Catholic and Orthodox allow for them (thus reflecting the unofficial list of books included in the Hebrew canon at the beginning of the Common Era), what "many Bibles" are you referring to?
Hi Seeker,
That interchurch meeting sounded wonderful. But isnt that the exception rather than the rule?
Im not a Bible expert but just the fact that there is the NIV, NAS, RSV, LB, NLT, and NKJV Bibles among others is a direct cause of controversy and hence disunity.
The more similar a community is, the more unity, right? Various churches even have different forms of service.
Thats all I was getting at really, Alot of Christians I talk to immediately identify themselves as Catholic, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian. Why not Christians first? Off the top of my head I cant remember ever meeting another Muslim who immediately said " I'm Sunni".
That interchurch meeting sounded wonderful. But isnt that the exception rather than the rule?
Depends on what you mean by "the rule". It is a regular event. And is just one of several such regularly scheduled events that we have not just in this community, but in every community in which I have ever had the privilege to live and serve. In fact, where I am now, we get together at least once a month. But if you mean is it every Sunday? No it is not. I'm afraid that Sunday morning remains one of the most divided day of the week. And that is something that needs to be changed.
Im not a Bible expert but just the fact that there is the NIV, NAS, RSV, LB, NLT, and NKJV Bibles among others is a direct cause of controversy and hence disunity.
I thought that might be what you were referring to, and this is not the big deal that people outside of the faith think that it is. (BTW, it isn't just Muslims who are confused by this abundance of translations.) Most Christians would actually see this as a plus. I can go into it further is you want to understand more of why I see a multiplicity of Bibles as a plus. But in short I just encourage you to think of the value of having more than just one English translation of the Qur'an available for those Muslims who don't speak Arabic. If you had only one translation, then any mistake in the translation of the text would be magnified by those who were dependent on it not knowing that there was another way that the passage could have been translated and perhaps getting the wrong idea. For instance, think how some misunderstand those passages that say that a Muslim should not be friends with non-Muslims. Multiple English translations of the Qur'an help those who speak English but not Arabic understand that the meaning behind the translation isn't identical to what most people think of when they see the word "friend" in English. Therefore, based on all that I have read, as most Anglo-phones perceive the connotations of friendship, it is OK for a Muslim and a non-Muslims to be friends, even though it seems at face value to be in direct contradiction to passages like 5:51 "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." If this was the only translation available in English those who only spoke English would be actually misguided by reading it. In similar ways having multiple English translations of the Bible is helpful to those who wish to understand it, but only speak English and not the native tongues in which the Bible was written.
The more similar a community is, the more unity, right? Various churches even have different forms of service.
I submit that there is also value in diversity. For instance, though I got through school with just a basic 8-pak of Crayola crayons, those who were true aritsts wanted the 64-pak so that they could have access to many different shades. It wasn't enough to draw an orange sun at sunset, they also needed multiple reds, pink, magenta, violets and colors inbetween to express what they saw of God in just a single simple sunset. So, too, we in the church often offer up worship in different forms, but it is all to the same God and we who utilize one style in my church don't pretend that it is better than a different style used in another congregations. Differences don't occur just between denominations, they can occur within a single denomination as well. And this is not bad, this is a good thing as it allows people who are each made differently to find the a place that most closely fits the way that God has created them to offer him the praise he is due. Does that make any sesne to you?
I see our diversity in styles and forms of worship as an expression of the bigness of God, so great is he that no one form can capture all that there is to say and do to praise him. So let there be many forms, just as God created us each as a unique individual. In my community, there are not only many different denominations, there are many different congregations of my own United Methodist Church. Some are small family type churches, some are larger congregations, mine is large enough we actually have 3 different services and each of them has a different style to it, and yet we are just one church. So, are we experiencing disunity or diversity? Well, actually there is a little bit of both. Having more than one service makes it difficult for our congregation to know each other as well as if we only had one larger service, but it also give opportunity for those who do better worshipping in a more formal environment to attend one service and those who are better able to worship using informal forms to worship in another. And yet all understand themselves as belonging to just one church.
That's all I was getting at really, Alot of Christians I talk to immediately identify themselves as Catholic, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian. Why not Christians first? Off the top of my head I cant remember ever meeting another Muslim who immediately said " I'm Sunni".
I lot of New Yorkers I talk to immediately identify themselves as from the Bronx, Brooklynn, or Staten Island. Why not as New Yorkers first? Does that mean that they really aren't all part of one city? I note that you list your location as New York and I list mine as USA. Does that mean you are less American than I am? I hope you get my point, and actually I do get yours. I wonder if that experience which you shared changes depending on whether or not Christianity is or is not the dominant religion in the culture. See, I know that in the US what you say is exactly true. But I have been other places in the world where the reversed is true.
I recently interviewed with a church in Hong Kong, and there they didn't distinguish between the various branches of Christianity, accepting them all as one and the same. In Mexico where Catholicism is dominant, all of the Protestant churches share so much with each other, that I had been there for a couple of weeks before I realized that of the 3 people leading the service at the Methodist church I was attending only one was actually a Methodist the others were Presbyterian and Lutheran and they shared all things with one another.
Even in the USA denominationalism is dead. The new people who come to my church don't bother to read the label on the building. They care more about their own personal relationships with the people they meet on the inside. Several years ago the Catholic church in the small town I served closed down, and because my people at the Methodist Church had done so many things cooperatively with them over the years, they actually gave us some of their most precious objects which we continued to use in our church's worship life.
So, while I do accept your point that there is a lot of brokenness in the Christian Church, I do so with modifications that there is also a lot of unity. Certainly more than might be apparent to you at first.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 11-30-2008 at 03:20 AM.
I have done Bible studies where the leaders ask you to bring the so called different Bibles. It is most certainly a plus- a greater depth to the message is revealed.
GOD loves diversity- Look at al the different creatures he created, different landscapes, heavenly bodies, people, etc.
People holding the same basic tenets of faith, but with a different way of expressing that faith is a thing of beauty!!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks