What I don't see is the *pope* himfuckingself explaining how they worship the same God given the entirely different characteristics of their two opposing versions of God.
Woaw! Back up, back up. You mean the pope isn't falling on his knees to justify to you his assertion that his god is the same one as that of the muslims. Who does he think he is!? Some sort of final authority figure for a billion and a half christians!?
The two versions are simply not compatible, not semantically, not logically and not actually should either form of God exist. It cannot be both, regardless of what the *pope* himfuckingself has said.
So what? They don't have to be compatible to just be two different versions of the same god. For that matter, Jesus can't be both god *and* the son of god, those two qualities are not compatible; semantically or logically... that doesn't seem to stop you or the christians who believe it from making a big deal about it.
dystopian, you can settle this dispute simply by reconciling the two opposing versions by explaining how a God can be both a Triune God, composed of The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost and not composed of The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.
Again; you haven't demonstrated why this is relevant. You need to establish why the fact these two versions lead to them being fundamentally different gods,
instead of just two different versions of the same god. So far you haven't done that, and seem incapable of understanding the concept.
Nothing arbitrary about it, it's the point of this thread.
Sigh. Yes, it is completely arbitrary to decide that "These two versions of god (Muslim/Christian) are too different to be called the same god"; but "These two versions (Protestant/Catholic) are NOT too different."; saying that the two different versions have mutually exclusive traits doesn't help you because the same damn thing is true for the protestant version versus the catholic version; it's just that you have *arbitrarily* decided that "this" difference is more important than "those" differences.
1 - Christians believe Jesus is God.
Except for all the ones people have pointed out to you don't...
2 - Jews do not believe Jesus is God. Muslims believe Jesus is only a prophet and Allah is the only God.
Which; I remind you again; has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the discussion.
The point of contention being that both propositions cannot be true. If one is true, the other must be false, regardless of what the *pope* himfuckingself said.
Which then means protestants and catholics don't worship the same god either. In fact, no two christian sects do; because they ALL assign traits to god that are different than the traits assigned to him by *other* christians. They can't all be right, therefore none of them actually worship the same god and the term "christian" means jack s
If the Pope has reconciled the contradiction, show me the argument.
He doesn't have to because you're the only one who thinks this contradiction is relevant to whether or not muslims and christians worship the same god. Historians, theologians, "final authorities on matters of religious faith", they all say that the god of the muslims is the same god as that of the christians and jews. But because you can't grasp the fact that two groups of people can worship the same god while having different ideas about him, I apparently need to convince the pope to show you his math.
No, it's logical contradiction related to the very nature and makeup of two versions of God. This is what needs explaining.
In other words, no true scotsman. "Your god is different from ours, you're not a christian!"; this is the logical outcome of your argument.
Clearly they do not. The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost is not recognized by Islam. Mere Lip service does not resolve the contradiction.
First of all, why are you responding to a sentence in which I state that the *christian* sects that do not recognize the trinity do worship the christian god by bitching about how islam doesn't worship the trinity? And secondly... no true scotsman fallacy.
Yes I have:
It is a logical contradiction that God can be both The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost (christianity) and not be The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost (Islam, Judaism) and that this contradiction needs to be reconciled in order say that both versions are indeed one and the same God.
Once again, this isn't an argument showing why it matters. All you're doing here is repeating the assertion that it matters; not WHY it matters. From an outside and objective point of view, it doesn't matter one iota that the two groups have different views of god. If we both visit the empire state building, it doesn't matter if I see it as a skyscraper and you see it as an oozing tentacle sprouting from the ground... we still visited the same fucking building.
Does that mean that God may have mutated from the God of the Israelites/Judaism into the God of Christianity, from the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost to Alllah the God of Mohammad where the Son has been demoted to mere prophet with the Holy Ghost given the boot and therefore it is one and the same God...is that it?
When have you ever been given the impression that people think there's anything else going on? People's views evolve. Different groups adopt different views. Ideas and representations change. Nobody (except you, it seems) has ever said that these groups worship *identical* versions of the same god, but rather that they worship divergent views of what is essentially; at its core/origin; the same fictional god.
The op, and indeed the point of this thread (contrary to what you've said), has been to ask where this idea comes from. That has already been answered; the idea comes from the fact that these different views are all traceable to the same source, and that each view is just a modification of the views that came before it, rather than representing an entirely new view (or god). Or, to give you an analogy you might actually understand (despite the many perfectly serviceable analogies you seem to have been unwilling to try and understand); the city of London and the city of Londinium are both the same city; despite having many differences. Londinium was founded by the Romans in 43AD. Since then, it has been added to, and parts rebuilt, so much so that it is no longer recognizable as the Roman settlement it started as. Even so, Londinium and London are the same city; London is NOT a separate city. We regard them both as the same city; even though Londinium and London are far more different from each other than Allah and Yahweh are from each other.
If this isn't enough to make you understand what's actually being said, then I think we're done.