No idea what you mean by the term ‘God’ finds common usage in Christianity. For Christianity there is known one God, who is Father Son and Holy Spirit, other religions don’t recognise Him.
Surely you're joking. You can find examples of how "God" finds common usage in Christianity, by examining any theological discussion. And just to show it, I chose to do this by Google search, and picking at random a theological treatise. What I wound up with is from the American Journal of Theology, Vol. 14, p. 197-98:
Over against the world and all that is in the world, including man and all that is in man, and all that is the product of man's highest activities, intellectual and, in the noblest sense the word may bear, spiritual, there after all stands
God; and he—he himself not our thought about him or our beliefs concerning him, but he himself—is the object of our highest knowledge. And to know him is not merely the highest exercise of the human intellect; it is the indispensable complement of the circle of human science, which, without the knowledge of
God, is fatally incomplete. It was not without reason that Augustine renounced the knowledge of all else but
God and the soul; and that Calvin declares the knowledge of
God and ourselves the sum of all useful knowledge. Without the knowledge of
God it is not too much to say we know nothing rightly, so that the renunciation of the knowledge of
God carries with it renunciation of all right knowledge. It is this knowledge of
God which is designated by the appropriate term "theology," and it, as the science of
God, stands over against all other sciences, each having its own object, determining for each its own peculiar subject matter.
Theology being, thus, the systematized knowledge of
God, the determining question which divides theologies concerns the sources from which this knowledge of
God is derived. It may be agreed, indeed, that the sole source of all possible knowledge of
God is revelation.
God is a person; and a person is known only as he expresses himself, which is as much as to say only as he makes himself known, reveals himself. But this agreement is only formal. So soon as it is asked how
God reveals himself, theology is set over against theology in ineradicable opposition. The hinge on which the controversy particularly turns is the question whether
God has revealed himself only in works, or also in word: ultimately whether he has made himself known only in the natural or also in a supernatural revelation.
Fourteen times "God" is mentioned, and not once "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," anywhere in these two paragraphs. To hear you tell it, the only time God is ever mentioned in Christian thinking, whether in church, in a theological discussion such as this one just cited, or any other venue, it is always "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." But the truth is, that is just not done, and quite frankly, it would get pretty cumbersome if it were true, rendering the above comments as:
Over against the world and all that is in the world, including man and all that is in man, and all that is the product of man's highest activities, intellectual and, in the noblest sense the word may bear, spiritual, there after all stands
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and he—he himself not our thought about him or our beliefs concerning him, but he himself—is the object of our highest knowledge. And to know him is not merely the highest exercise of the human intellect; it is the indispensable complement of the circle of human science, which, without the knowledge of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is fatally incomplete. It was not without reason that Augustine renounced the knowledge of all else but
Father, Son, and Holy Spiritand the soul; and that Calvin declares the knowledge of
Father, Son, and Holy Spiritand ourselves the sum of all useful knowledge. Without the knowledge of
Father, Son, and Holy Spiritit is not too much to say we know nothing rightly, so that the renunciation of the knowledge of
Father, Son, and Holy Spiritcarries with it renunciation of all right knowledge. It is this knowledge of
Father, Son, and Holy Spiritwhich is designated by the appropriate term "theology," and it, as the science of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, stands over against all other sciences, each having its own object, determining for each its own peculiar subject matter.
Theology being, thus, the systematized knowledge of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the determining question which divides theologies concerns the sources from which this knowledge of
Father, Son, and Holy Spiritis derived. It may be agreed, indeed, that the sole source of all possible knowledge of
Father, Son, and Holy Spiritis revelation.
Father, Son, and Holy Spiritis a person; and a person is known only as he expresses himself, which is as much as to say only as he makes himself known, reveals himself. But this agreement is only formal. So soon as it is asked how
Father, Son, and Holy Spiritreveals himself, theology is set over against theology in ineradicable opposition. The hinge on which the controversy particularly turns is the question whether
Father, Son, and Holy Spirithas revealed himself only in works, or also in word: ultimately whether he has made himself known only in the natural or also in a supernatural revelation.
So instead, Christian usage often utilizes the simple generic "God" rather than the fuller expression of our belief in the Trinity. But in doing so, they employ a term which an English speaker who professes a faith other than Christianity, may well use to refer to God when speaking of their own religion. In fact, in the very language from which we get our word "God," the Greek, Qeos is itself a generic word also. The general pattern of the Septuagint translation of the OT into Greek, was to translate "Elohim" with the generic Qeos, and "Yahweh" with the generic "kurios," or "Lord." Yet the Septuagint translators did not seem to be deterred by the fact that they were using a word which to a Greek person could actually be interpreted to mean Zeus.
My point and question to you was why call God the Father Son and Holy Spirit who is the creator of the universe ‘GATOU’ when even in your admittance Muslims will see that as Allah rather than God.
And my response to you was, and still is, I have nothing to do with how a Muslim views God. And my further response to you has been, to question why you do not criticize the Christian use of the word "God," which also "CAN" be taken by a Muslim as Allah.
So there is no analogy, it’s a deception.
The term GAOTU is a descriptive phrase of who God is, and it was actually coined by, and borrowed from, John Calvin. I have also shown you that it is biblical, because the apostle Paul used the term "architektw" in reference to God in 1 Corinthians 3:10, and the writer of Hebrews said in chapter 11 of God, that He is the "architect" of the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem.
The argument could be made, of course, that those who wrote these things had a specific God in mind, the God of the Bible. And, of course, I have cited for you the proof that the writers who introduced the term into Masonry ALSO had the God of the Bible in mind. First, George Oliver:
Freemasonry directs us to put our sole trust in the One God who dwelleth in the highest heavens, under the several names, in consecutive degrees, of Great Architect — Grand Geometrician of the Universe, and Most High or Jehovah.
And Samuel Prichard, in
Masonry Dissected, possibly the earliest notation of the use of the term in Masonry:
the Grand Architect and Contriver of the Universe; or He that was taken up to the topmost pinnacle of the Holy Temple.
Masonry's "Architect," then, is a reference to the God of the Bible, plain and simple. In one Masonic source cited, it was described as Jehovah, in another it was described in terms that can refer only to Jesus Christ. No amount of continued denial of it on your part will change that.
Any "deception" in the matter, therefore, is not on the part of Masonry, but rather, on the part of this hypothetical Muslim you keep putting before us. You cannot equate HIS concepts with Masonry's concept, for Masonry makes no attribution whatsoever to God as "Allah"; and in the few instances in which Masonry's "Architect" actually IS referenced in any manner directly attributable to any specific God, those references are, unanimously, references to the God of the Bible. Nor may you make any such claim, that even the mere use of the term is blameable, for in principle, what you claimed about the use of the term (that it is open to interpretation differently by someone of another faith), is true also of Christianity's often-used simple generic term, "God."
I'm sorry, but because of all the above reasons, your accusation fails, because it simply cannot be supported--not that you've even tried to, other than your own stated personal opinions on the matter.
You are perfectly free, if you feel you can do so, to cite from any Masonic source you may be able to locate, to show differently. And good luck. In several years of searching for such references, I have not seen even the first one.
