Islamic God Allah - must we believe it is the same as the God of Christianity?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Does your dad come from the Middle East or did he grow up here?

doesn't this make sense to anyone but me?

my dad comes from a Muslim background and Islam has brought me nothing but pain. it's no wonder that this issue bothers me.

 

[Lady Bug]

he was born in Pakistan. he came here in 1968.

 

[gracefullamb]

Jews don't believe in the Trinity either yet I can't imagine many of us claiming they worship a wholly different god? And St. John of Damascus, whom I pointed out earlier, thought Islam to be a Christian heresy.

I really happen to see Allah as a bastardized, muffed-up vision of God and possessing a false salvation history he thus means nothing to me. But I do like to look at this from all angles. I happen to NOT like the Catholic Church's statements on Islam one bit. It's one of the many things that caused me to scratch my chin about them.

Well I posted that article because I agree with it, I also agree with the others who have already stated those who deny The Son deny The Father and thus don't worship the same God as us. Wholly different, hmm well it isn't ours since their is no Son, no Trinity and I'll leave it at that.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think those folks who believe that Allah, the Jewish 2012 understanding of Yaweah, and the Christian God are all the same God is not through exactly parallel salvation histories or revelations. I think the argument goes that they are essentially the same historically-rooted God. They all are Abrahamic, biblical to some degree, and monotheistic, differing from Hindu gods, pagan gods of Europe or Africa, different from bodhisattvas or the pantheon of gods in myths and other such ideas. They are gods with different details but essentially the same roots in the Middle East with a similar semitic approach to the godhead to some degree.

Personally, I see Allah as more of an "idea" and definitely not a real god in any way, shape, or form. He isn't real. The stories related to how Allah interacts with humanity are very different and contradictory, even dangerous, compared to the God I know and worship. Allah is a hodge-podge of stories no doubt that Muhammad heard in his caravan treks with his wife, Kadijah, interacting with Jews, heretical Christians, real Christians, and everything in between. It's like my wife's filipino Tagalog language---a bit of Spanish, a lot of Malaysianish dialects, all thrown together.....Muhammad got God right in some respects, WRONG as heck in many others. And hearing about a god from someone and trying to piece him together like a puzzle coming to very wrong conclusions creates a problem...is this the god we worship or only a piece of him? For the Catholic Church, they see Allah the other way. I see him as false.

I agree with what Rus said about Arianism and how Arians worshipped a false god. But the problem is, Jews essentially have the nuts and bolts of God wrong as well denying His only-begotten Son and the Trinitarian nature of our Lord, yet we don't reject the God of the Jews today either? We just see the Jewish God of 2012 as incomplete. One could make the argument for Allah as lacking, incomplete, but the same. I'm not saying I am. That's just the argument.

doesn't this make sense to anyone but me?

my dad comes from a Muslim background and Islam has brought me nothing but pain. it's no wonder that this issue bothers me.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Was your mom Muslim also or Christian?

he was born in Pakistan. he came here in 1968.

 

[Lady Bug]

she was Catholic. but she left her faith when she married dad.

 

[rusmeister]

doesn't this make sense to anyone but me?

my dad comes from a Muslim background and Islam has brought me nothing but pain. it's no wonder that this issue bothers me.

Well, it makes sense to me, though I don't think it the most important point.
The people suggesting that we are worshipping "the same God" are not Orthodox, but only considering it, or 'on the way'. But there, it's not the formal label that matters, but the regular exposure to Orthodox theology, which is a matter of time and experience, not intellectual achievement alone. When you get who God is through our praxis, especially the Liturgy, you get that what Jews and Muslims describe is not that. And so an "ignorant" babushka in the countryside can know more than a highly educated city-slicker, simply because she's been getting the truth for so many decades in that practice of the faith, and the intellectual has been trying to get truth from all angles, rather than from the source of truth.

Personally, I come here bringing Orthodox assumptions, certainly my best understanding of them. When there is conflict, it does tend most often to be with visitors who don't accept those assumptions. Here I don't want to have to defend the Faith; I want to take it for granted. If I wanted to debate here, I'd spend more time in St Justin's.

The Orthodox faith is complete and needs nothing from Judaism or Islam. Eclecticism is un-Orthodox. There are certainly many problems in the Church, namely its members, even and especially me. The only reason I can defend Orthodoxy is because it is NOT my opinion.

So if we're using the language "the same God", the operating understanding must be that "same" means "described by the same theology". Strictly speaking, that means only Orthodox, and once you've stepped outside the Nicene Creed you lose what common ground we have even with heterodox Christians. The Catholic God is juridical. Ours is not.

In their favor, we can say that all are trying to reach out to God, and I think God will have mercy, the great mercy we ask for ourselves, on all, and do whatever can be done for each of us. But we mustn't say that we worship the "same" God, for there begins the fuzzy thought that confuses doctrines and essence. For heaven's sakes, at least be aware that the word "same" is a largely undefined land mine!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great points all, Rus. We definitely should take the "what can Islam and the Jews learn from Orthodoxy?" not the inverse.

Well, it makes sense to me, though I don't think it the most important point.
The people suggesting that we are worshipping "the same God" are not Orthodox, but only considering it, or 'on the way'. But there, it's not the formal label that matters, but the regular exposure to Orthodox theology, which is a matter of time and experience, not intellectual achievement alone. When you get who God is through our praxis, especially the Liturgy, you get that what Jews and Muslims describe is not that. And so an "ignorant" babushka in the countryside can know more than a highly educated city-slicker, simply because she's been getting the truth for so many decades in that practice of the faith, and the intellectual has been trying to get truth from all angles, rather than from the source of truth.

Personally, I come here bringing Orthodox assumptions, certainly my best understanding of them. When there is conflict, it does tend most often to be with visitors who don't accept those assumptions. Here I don't want to have to defend the Faith; I want to take it for granted. If I wanted to debate here, I'd spend more time in St Justin's.

The Orthodox faith is complete and needs nothing from Judaism or Islam. Eclecticism is un-Orthodox. There are certainly many problems in the Church, namely its members, even and especially me. The only reason I can defend Orthodoxy is because it is NOT my opinion.

So if we're using the language "the same God", the operating understanding must be that "same" means "described by the same theology". Strictly speaking, that means only Orthodox, and once you've stepped outside the Nicene Creed you lose what common ground we have even with heterodox Christians. The Catholic God is juridical. Ours is not.

In their favor, we can say that all are trying to reach out to God, and I think God will have mercy, the great mercy we ask for ourselves, on all, and do whatever can be done for each of us. But we mustn't say that we worship the "same" God, for there begins the fuzzy thought that confuses doctrines and essence. For heaven's sakes, at least be aware that the word "same" is a largely undefined land mine!

 

[rusmeister]

What you noted gets to the heart of the issue...for it is true that theology can intersect/match up on various things--and indeed be the same. But it has never been the case that it is exactly the "Same" God that is worshipped at all points and realizing that is the purpose behind why there's a need for education/evangelism. I don't think anyone here has said, to my knowledge, that those in Islam worship the same in all ways as Christians.

As it concerns seeking the Lord, I do think there's something to be said about the mercy of the Lord--and taking into account the hearts of those truly going after Him. Sadly, I've often heard it accussed of Orthodoxy (by non-orthodox)that there's support of universalism on certain levels when it comes to not making statements about the fate of all who may not know of Christ....and not saying that all who may perish without a knowledge of Christ may be lost in the end.

Well, Easy, the main thing I can say to your posts in general is that all questions of truth must be referred to the Orthodox Church. It's no use discussing or promoting ideas outside of the truth of that Church here. The Orthodox Church HAS worshiped the same God continually for 2,000 years, with issues being clarified, but not changed, over the first millennium.

No one has said they worship the same, but it has been suggested numerous times that they are the same God. They are NOT the same God. There are correct and false understandings about God, and it is those understandings that we speak of when we say "the same God".

I note that you are a Messianic Jew. I can understand why you might be interested in reconciling the faiths - you haven't accepted Orthodoxy to my limited knowledge! - but here in TAW, Orthodox truth is affirmed as the complete whole, needing nothing from other traditions. Revelation is defined by the Church; that is, some revelation is accepted as genuine, some is treated with agnosticism (meaning it is NOT affirmed as truth), and some is condemned. The jury is still out on toll houses, the revelation of Fr Zosima about St Mary of Egypt is accepted as true revelation,, and claims made from outside Orthodox tradition are not accepted as valid revelation at all.

Can the Lord reveal things? Yes. But can they ever be used to clarify Orthodox doctrine? Not unless the Church agrees that it does, which hasn't happened in, um, over a millennium.

 

[rusmeister]

Russ, others may disagree..but it is semantics, IMHO, when saying that claiming others worship the same is not the same as saying they worship the same God. On many things, they are EXACTLY the same--but only Christianity has the most accurate view when it comes to all points with those within Islam having an inaccurate viewpoint on other things that is fulfilled in Christ. That's something other Orthodox have noted, inlcuding St.John of Damascus..and I'll go with that if I'm going to be honest with the information.

As it concerns Orthodoxy, in general, the theme that I agree with is what numerous other Orthoodox have noted when saying that they may not know where else the Lord is--but they know where He is at....specically meaning that not all truth is found solely within Orthodoxy since the Lord has worked in multiple camps throughout the existence of the church. And I agree with those Orthodox who note the early church in Orthodoxy must be considered and yet it is also to be remembered that the church itself was in a state of change at many points. Bradley Nassif has noted this among other Orthodox Bishops and branches--and it is where I stand.
Who said that I was a Messianic Jew? At any point? WHat was noted, to my knowledge ( here, #1, #21 , #35, #98 ) was that I go to a Messianic Jewish fellowship within the Eastern Christian tradition (in light of how leadership was involved in Eastern Orthodoxy within the Monastic monk style) and that I live life with Jews, be it Messianic Jews or Byzantine Jews (i.e. Eastern Catholics) or Hebrew Catholics. As a Messianic Gentile. Working with Orthodox believers, paticularly in Coptic Orthodoxy, it is not a problem with connection being present--and I was just ordained within the Eastern church not too long ago by one who was an ordained priest within it.

​

As there are numerous others within Orthodoxy who've been about reconciliation/noted it on the simple basis of having accuracy, accepting Orthodoxy isn't really the focus (IMHO).


And with that said, who said that I did not accept Orthodoxy? As in I didn't agree with it or reject it? Again, there is a reality that people are connected with Orthodoxy and yet working in other groups. Not going to debate the matter extensively here in light of how other Orthodox have brought it up before already, as it concerns ecumenical work with groups outside of Orthodoxy/presenting properly to groups that do not like Orthodoxy. Be it with Eastern Orthodox like Bradley Nassif, Thomas Oden or G.K Chesteron or C.S Lewis---often brought up/referenced frequently here (by others as well as yourself...#19 , #78 , here, here, here, here, etc ) as if he's Orthodox when he never claimed to be and was a Devout Anglican who appreciated differing traditions in the faith---and many others, there's the reality of working with others in a myriad of camps. Orthodoxy is affirmed and it has nothing to do with those not within it since even others in Orthodoxy do the same when it comes to noting where the Lord works and affirming that.
IMHO, that statement would need to be renconciled with what other Orthodox here in TAW have noted before in numerous discussions in saying things they learn/share from other traditions....not counter to the early church they support but in addition to it. The fact that C.S Lewis and GK Chesteron--both outside of Orthodoxy and within differing traditions--are referenced frequently others and pointed to in order to support points by others in Orthodoxy seems to display the thought that one can say there's nothing needed from other "traditions" (if others say Orthodoxy can learn from those outside of it) but then use those traditions to support Orthodoxy when it may suit the times. In accepting others outside of the faith/referencing them, the explicit message is that others inherently believe that others in differing traditions meet a need within Orthodox worlds....


What I've seen in other Orthodox is that they accept the Church/appreciate it, but never do they say that truth is ONLY found there. Others differ, of course....and the differences come out in discussion all of the time when there are mini Orthodox skirmishes on what is "Orthodox" (one of them being on politics/the best kind of government, another one of them being what the church fathers say on the subject of evolution, another being what the early church felt on sexual relations...with other Orthodox having immense disagreements on what level the Fathers should have been accepted in views that went counter to the adominitons of the Word---or corrections given when Orthodox may give commentary about movements on groups OUTSIDE of orthodoxy that are nowhere close to representing what those groups even believe. That has happened often whenever there has been discussion and others had to address things akin to false scenarios or heresay when claiming what a Protestant (or Catholic ) group was doing and assumed that simply because an Orthodox person was saying it/was in agreement with the early Church means that all things stated were correct. Sister MJK has shared on that often, as seen in #29 and #34.
Indeed.
Not certain as to why this is brought up, but cool


Goes right back into the debate on things like evolution and the debates that have happened where the Church changed...and things utilized within Orthodoxy that the church didn't have, from technology to media and environmentalism a host of other things (within the past 5 decades alone)--factors that many in Orthodoxy noted were traits they saw outside of it/began to follow suit when it hit the shores of orthodoxy And others used them to clarify.

Well, first of all, some things would have to be taken to the debate forum. Some of what you affirm is decidedly NOT Orthodox, so I'll ask you to bear in mind that, by your own admission, you accept at least some teaching from non-canonical Orthodox sources, which means you can't really be floating those ideas here in the main forum. Nor do I wish to debate them with you here. That's what St Justin's is for.

The length of your posts makes even mine to appear the soul of brevity. The trouble I have in reading yours is that everything that is inconsistent with Orthodox teaching discourages me from looking to what you say as a source of truth. A non-Orthodox Christian like G.K. Chesterton is completely different, for he does not, in general contradict, but supports Orthodox theology - even if he thinks it Catholic - and points to the necessity of Church authority to correct us, which is precisely what WE say.

"Christianity" is a post Reformation concept in the West. To us, the truth is NOT in a nebulous "Christianity", but in the Church of Jesus Christ, what we call the Orthodox Church, and no other faithfully represents the fullness of the Faith. So the CHURCH has the correct view, NOT "Christianity", and we must submit ourselves to it. The first thing it will tell you is to drop the Messianic icon (which is how you say you are Messianic Jew) and accept Holy Chrismation into the Orthodox Church, and to accept its authority to tell you what Truth IS. The "Eastern Christian Tradition" is Orthodox - anything else is a copy, an unlicensed pirated version - some truth, certainly, but not that which will survive the Final Update.

If you will not accept Orthodoxy, what is there to say? What would you teach us with your posting?

All the truth you need IS within Orthodoxy. We do not need "other camps" to help us. This is where we must part ways, and most fellowship. Certainly I agree that non-Orthodox people can say Orthodox things. But when they say un-Orthodox things, I must tell them, including Lewis and Chesterton, where to get off.

ACCEPTING ORTHODOXY IS ABSOLUTELY THE FOCUS!!! What are you doing here if it is not? Are you trying to tempt Orthodox people to un-Orthodox positions?

Listen, I admire Chesterton more than any human of the modern world - and yet he WAS mistaken - he did the best he could, and so, with what he knew, via his decidedly Catholic sources, correctly concluded that there must be an existing Church that has maintained Holy Tradition, and incorrectly assumed that it was the Catholic Church. But a person who is steeped in St John of Kronstadt or Seraphim of Sarov really does NOT need Chesterton. He already has what he needs. Chesterton is valuable in the modern world for pointing to the Church, but once you're there, you don't NEED Chesterton to grow in the Church. And if you can accept other sources, you don't even need him there. A brilliant modern heterodox Christian can show us the nonsense of the modern world. But that is not the same as leading us into all truth. I personally think and hope I am the kind of person described by Lewis in "The Great Divorce", a Spirit who would go back to help others. But I could get along without Chesterton, even though he has much to offer about the modern world and thought.

People like Lewis and Chesterton have nothing to do with Orthodox theology, but only in regards to apologetics - WHY we believe in the face of the uncommon nonsense of the modern world. But when you talk about learning from other traditions, you are indeed talking about theology - so I'd have to tell you where to get off at the same places I tell Lewis and Chesterton and Belloc.

We DO say that everyone has SOME truth - but if you have found the source, what the heck need is there to go looking anywhere else???

When you say "where the Church changed", I don't know what you mean by "changed". NOBODY had the internet five decades ago. We're ALL trying to use it in the service of what we believe to be the Truth.

The upshot - that if you DON'T accept the Orthodox Church to be the thing with the genuine power to correct everyone else - including yourself - we don't have all that much to talk about.

 

[MKJ]

St John was right. (I got the idea from someone you don't like me mentioning)

The trouble with the Arians was that they really were creating a different God, a non-Trinitarian religion. That heresy nearly tore the Church apart in the first centuries.

Using the language "the same God" is part of the general problem here. Any understanding if God that falls outside of the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of faith, is already not "the same God". That's why Mormons can't (legitimately) be called Christians, though they pronounce the name of Jesus.

Perhaps its an aside, but I see Jews openly defending things condemned in ancient Judaism (such as on sexual morality) so I think some of them decidedly worship a God, not only different from ours, but different from that of their own ancestors. So I don't see a problem with Joseph's analogy.

But what the heck does "the same God" mean anyway? Identical in every way? Totally different? Something else?

I agree that Mormons can't really be called Christians, nor would I say they worship "the same" God - what they call God has pretty much nothing in common with what any Christian does - even some of the really far out there sorts. To use Joseph's method, it is like one guy said "Do you know Rupert?" and the next guy replies "You mean the fat dude who lives with his six brothers and two wives over on Main Street?" And the first guy says, "No, he is thin, has no wife, and lives on Shore Rd". Clearly they are not talking about the same person.

Muslims (and Jews) are a bit different. They say "Sure, I know the Rupert on Shore - he built his house himself and has a cousin Marco and a mullet." "Right" says guy 1. "Well" says guy three "He is a terrible man. He beats his dog, and is head of a major motorcycle gang." "What are you taking about? He works in the soup kitchen and volunteers on justice issues. He almost died rescuing a kitten from an oncoming car!" says guy 1. "Poppycock" says 3, "he even seduced my buddy's sister".

And guy 1 is :o

It doesn't seem right to say guy 3 is talking about a different person in the same way 2 clearly is - he has the physical description and address right and those are unique characteristics - no one else is like that. But the rest is increasingly all messed up.

I don't think it is really possible to give a yes or no answer to a question formed the way this one is.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Any post that has a guy named Rupert, mullets, Mormons, and two wives must be worth reading!

But what the heck does "the same God" mean anyway? Identical in every way? Totally different? Something else?

I agree that Mormons can't really be called Christians, nor would I say they worship "the same" God - what they call God has pretty much nothing in common with what any Christian does - even some of the really far out there sorts. To use Joseph's method, it is like one guy said "Do you know Rupert?" and the next guy replies "You mean the fat dude who lives with his six brothers and two wives over on Main Street?" And the first guy says, "No, he is thin, has no wife, and lives on Shore Rd". Clearly they are not talking about the same person.

Muslims (and Jews) are a bit different. They say "Sure, I know the Rupert on Shore - he built his house himself and has a cousin Marco and a mullet." "Right" says guy 1. "Well" says guy three "He is a terrible man. He beats his dog, and is head of a major motorcycle gang." "What are you taking about? He works in the soup kitchen and volunteers on justice issues. He almost died rescuing a kitten from an oncoming car!" says guy 1. "Poppycock" says 3, "he even seduced my buddy's sister".

And guy 1 is :o

It doesn't seem right to say guy 3 is talking about a different person in the same way 2 clearly is - he has the physical description and address right and those are unique characteristics - no one else is like that. But the rest is increasingly all messed up.

I don't think it is really possible to give a yes or no answer to a question formed the way this one is.

 

[rusmeister]

But what the heck does "the same God" mean anyway? Identical in every way? Totally different? Something else?

I agree that Mormons can't really be called Christians, nor would I say they worship "the same" God - what they call God has pretty much nothing in common with what any Christian does - even some of the really far out there sorts. To use Joseph's method, it is like one guy said "Do you know Rupert?" and the next guy replies "You mean the fat dude who lives with his six brothers and two wives over on Main Street?" And the first guy says, "No, he is thin, has no wife, and lives on Shore Rd". Clearly they are not talking about the same person.

Muslims (and Jews) are a bit different. They say "Sure, I know the Rupert on Shore - he built his house himself and has a cousin Marco and a mullet." "Right" says guy 1. "Well" says guy three "He is a terrible man. He beats his dog, and is head of a major motorcycle gang." "What are you taking about? He works in the soup kitchen and volunteers on justice issues. He almost died rescuing a kitten from an oncoming car!" says guy 1. "Poppycock" says 3, "he even seduced my buddy's sister".

And guy 1 is :o

It doesn't seem right to say guy 3 is talking about a different person in the same way 2 clearly is - he has the physical description and address right and those are unique characteristics - no one else is like that. But the rest is increasingly all messed up.

I don't think it is really possible to give a yes or no answer to a question formed the way this one is.

I already said what "the same God" must mean in intelligent discussion - it must mean UNDERSTANDINGS of the same God, the theological portrait drawn. If nothing else, mutually contradictory propositions prevent reconciliation. The alternative is to say that we know nothing at all, about God or anything else, even what good and evil are.

But it appears I'm talking to a bunch of non-Orthodox Christians on an Orthodox forum, MKJ. I'm not really interested in debating with non-Orthodox here. Questions - honest ones not aimed at converting me somewhere else or to non-Orthodox ideas, and that's all, are OK with me in the main forum - but not endless argument with non-Orthodox here.

I don't think your analogy fits the situation. The concept of the Trinitarian God vs the monophysite God runs deep - to the bone - and affects everything in an enormous way. It is literally not the same Person. The physical description and address are really different. (No one, as usual, ever gave any thought or responded to Chesterton's words - which always touch the center of the distinctions.)

So I do give a definite "No" to the question, even as formed.

 

[gracefullamb]

Hi, I am wondering if it is required belief of the EOC that we believe that Islam worships the same God as Christianity. I don't want drama to ensue on this, that is not my intent

I am really sorry if the question seems outrageous or idiotic but it didn't come out of nowhere

(I usually don't like to make another thread when I'm in the middle of another one but this issue is bothering me)

Just in case any of the guests here at TAW missed the original question posted was for Eastern Orthodox Christians to state if Islam and Christianity worship the same God and are we required to believe that! Not what does those inquring or those who are just hanging out here but not really inquiring believe based on their Christian faith. I am little confused by the non- Eastern Orthodox Christians contradicting what was already been stated several times by the Orthodox Christians here. Have the forum rules changed and we can now teach our own beliefs in another faiths' sub-forum?

 

[Lady Bug]

LOL thank you gracefullamb.

The ONLY thing I'm worried about was whether it was REQUIRED to believe this in the EOC. In the RCC, in CCC 841, it does look like it implicitly is requiring it (no matter what Catholics tell me). That was the entire crux of the matter. However, I also did enjoy the rest of the discussion and I didn't necessarily think we went off course but even *I* forgot the original theme of the thread for a split second til you pointed it out

 

[rusmeister]

Easy, your posts are so long I don't even want to quote them. And I am the LAST person to be discouraged by length. And if we measure, I think your posts beat mine in both length and quantity by a factor of three or four times on average.
I agree on content - I just don't think your content is worth it, because it doesn't defer to the Church - or even one Church, in terms of measurable authority.

other Orthodox have often said they feel neither comfortable with HIM or G.K

The whole dozen or two that say so...

I've already said where the distinction is, and am not going to repeat myself. Apologetics vs theology IS that black and white to my mind, so there's nothing to say.

I don't think you know NEARLY enough about Chesterton to be able to say what you're saying. When you've read over half of his published works (which should take you at least five years of full-time reading), I'll be more ready to talk - and fight, if you really think he's wrong about everything, but I have zero interest in listening to criticism from people who have read at most a few books, if that, and have read more of dummies like Adam Gopnik or Philip Pullman than of Chesterton himself.
It's like someone having read Julius Caesar, Titus Andronicus and Othello and pronouncing final and strategic judgement on Shakespeare as a mediocre or unimportant English writer.

Because you don't know (or you wouldn't have said what you do), Chesterton didn't "disagree" with Orthodoxy because it was largely a black hole in his otherwise thoroughly informed mind - one of his actual weaknesses - he saw the Orthodox as basically eastern Catholics who had gone (just a little) off-base. He almost never mentions the Eastern Church at all - apart from a few fleeting references in his book on St Francis (if memory serves) and "The New Jerusalem".

No. Orthodoxy does NOT exist wherever people agree on the seven Councils. You can't take "just a little Orthodoxy" and be Orthodox. You can't break off a piece of the truth and pretend it's the whole truth.

In the end, what matters to me is that your thought is not Orthodox, and you are not willing to accept that the Orthodox Church really is the complete real Deal, that has everything you need. I am opposed to your posting teaching and ideas in our main forum that contradict our faith. Here you accept our house rules or we'll point you to the door. There is a side of Orthodoxy I'd rather not feel I had to show - the kind that is hard as nails and kicks false ideas in the butt, but it looks to me like you're selling ideas that are not very welcome here, but can go to the GH forum.

I go to a Messianic Jewish fellowship within the Eastern Christian tradition

Uh, right here you split with Orthodoxy. There is no Messianic Jewish fellowship that is also in communion with the EO. THAT'S what I was responding to.

You are not Lewis or Chesterton, and I am now quite certain that you DO contradict Orthodox teaching while giving the appearance of being conciliatory. If one is guided by the mind of the Church, one can use a great deal of things to support Orthodox thought - but one NOT guided by it cannot without the fearful risk of falling into heresy; indeed, one starts from what is essentially a heretical position. When you are submitting to a canonical Orthodox body and accepting their correction of your ideas, I'll be more interested.

I'm ready to welcome visitors that are ready to ask questions, but not ones that are trying to teach us. You and I both suck as authority - that's why we need the Church to point us correctly to Christ.

 

[jckstraw72]

Just in case any of the guests here at TAW missed the original question posted was for Eastern Orthodox Christians to state if Islam and Christianity worship the same God and are we required to believe that! Not what does those inquring or those who are just hanging out here but not really inquiring believe based on their Christian faith. I am little confused by the non- Eastern Orthodox Christians contradicting what was already been stated several times by the Orthodox Christians here. Have the forum rules changed and we can now teach our own beliefs in another faiths' sub-forum?

thank you so much for pointing this out. this has been a problem lately in our forum i think.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your posts are getting nasty, uncomfortable, and rude again, Rus....come on, brother.

 

[Protoevangel]

Just in case any of the guests here at TAW missed the original question posted was for Eastern Orthodox Christians to state if Islam and Christianity worship the same God and are we required to believe that! Not what does those inquring or those who are just hanging out here but not really inquiring believe based on their Christian faith. I am little confused by the non- Eastern Orthodox Christians contradicting what was already been stated several times by the Orthodox Christians here. Have the forum rules changed and we can now teach our own beliefs in another faiths' sub-forum?

thank you so much for pointing this out. this has been a problem lately in our forum i think.

+1

Of course we want to be welcoming to our non-Orthodox guests, but some of them have not been acting like guests.

 

[Protoevangel]

I'm ready to welcome visitors that are ready to ask questions, but not ones that are trying to teach us. You and I both suck as authority - that's why we need the Church to point us correctly to Christ.

Thank you Rus, I have been getting tired of the inappropriate liberties taken by this (and at least one other) poster as well. Your patience in dealing with him is greatly appreciated.