I think Bill is making a good point. The main reason I'm seeing for people arguing that Muslims are not worshiping the same God is that Muslims don't believe in the Trinity and don't see Jesus as divine. But, Jews don't believe those things, either. So, if that's the basis for Muslims worshiping a different God, then Jews worship a different God, too. So then the argument has been made that Christianity is a further revelation, built on Judaism. So, it's the same God. But, Jews don't see it that way. They don't see Christianity as an extension of Judaism, but an entirely different religious system (and one that has historically been quite hostile to them). Muslims, AFAIK, see their faith in relation to both Judaism and Christianity in the exact same way, as a further revelation, building upon what came before. But, Christians don't see it that way, any more than Jews see Christianity in that way. Which I guess boils down to my saying that I agree with Bill that there's really no way to say that Jews and Christians worship the same God without saying that Muslims also do, or that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same God without saying that Jews also don't.

It's hard to know how to get answers to these kinds of questions. My son asked me, a couple of years ago, why some Muslim women wear burqas. I didn't know the real answer, and I didn't know how to find the real answer. I don't have any close Muslim friends, and I didn't feel comfortable asking any of the Muslim women I know (at the time I had a few Muslims students and my OB is Muslim), because I wasn't sure if it was appropriate and I didn't want them to feel like they had to be the spokespeople for Islam. But I didn't want to just go online because I figured that I'd probably be getting a lot of biased information, and I wanted to know the Muslim perspective on it, not what non-Muslim people thought the practice was about. I do think it's a shame that it's so hard to ask these questions without worrying about people wondering about your intentions or feeling uncomfortable.

DD (almost 18 months) goes to bed between 7 and 8, usually closer to 7. She's usually up around 7:30. DS (7) goes to bed between 9 and 10. He wakes up any time between 7 and 9. The baby (5 weeks) goes to sleep and wakes up whenever he feels like it. ;) Usually he settles in for the night around 10, gets up for good around 8 or 9, and wakes up twice in between then for a quick nurse.

It's my understanding that it's not just your family's religious beliefs, either, but also how you homeschool. You can have beliefs that align perfectly with the HSLDA's statement of faith, but unless you homeschool in the way they like (a very "school at home" type of thing), they won't represent you. You just aren't guaranteed legal representation by being a member; for any number of reasons, the HSLDA can and will decide not to represent a family.

:iagree: I really don't get the paranoia, honestly. Thirty years ago, sure. But not today. I was just reading an article in the paper about how Detroit school officials would be going door-to-door trying to get kids enrolled in school, because attendance is so low. I'm not concerned. If somebody comes to my door, I'll tell them we're homeschooling. If for some reason they were to send CPS after me--something I think there's basically no chance of happening--I'd tell CPS we're homeschooling. I decided that I probably will send the district a letter saying we're homeschooling (in MI reporting is voluntary, and I generally don't do it), but I'm just not at all worried about CPS. Are there any recent cases where a child has been removed from their parents home simply because the parent was homeschooling? (I'm not talking about situations where there was an allegation of child abuse.) I'm not aware of any. AFAIK, all of the cases where a parent has been forced to send a child to school have involved custody disputes, and the HSLDA will not get involved in those. So, basically, the only time you might be in a situation where your right to homeschool will be genuinely threatened legally, they will not provide you with legal assistance.

Christians have always disagreed on what exactly is necessary for salvation. A number of people have argued that universalism was the default belief of the early church, and it wasn't until Constantine that it became a minority (and later heretical) position. I'm not sure if there's sufficient evidence to warrant that, but it does seem like there wasn't a definitive set of ideas about exactly who would be saved and how in the early church (not that there is now, either), and that universalism was one position that has always been held by at least some Christians, based on their interpretation of the Bible. FWIW, here are some of the verses people point to in support of universalism. Personally, I think that you can find support for a variety of positions on the means and extent of salvation in the Bible, so I don't think "proof-texting" is very effective. But, I guess some people disagree and compile webpages like that one. ;)

I think it depends on what you mean by "non-exclusive." Sure, not all religions can be right. But, that doesn't mean that God will necessarily reject people who believe wrong things. I think the idea that "many/all religions lead to God" gets misconstrued. The idea isn't, I don't think, that many/all religions are equally true and so the paths they put forth do an equally good job of earning people's way into heaven. The idea is that God is so good that he will, in his goodness and mercy, in some way welcome all (or some variation of "all"--all who seek him, all who've lived a good life, all who have tried to do right--although I personally think it's "all" as in every single person) regardless of their religion. For one take on this (I don't personally agree with it entirely, but I think it presents a good case), there's a good book called The Evangelical Universalist. The author has a much shorter piece here that lays out some of the major points of his argument. The Inescapable Love of God is also very good. I don't think anybody actually believes that "all religions are equal" in the sense that "all religions are exactly the same" or "all religions are equally correct." Although some would say they are all equally wrong. ;) I think the sentiment being expressed is either that all religions should be treated equally in society and/or that God is at work in all religions and/or that people from all faith backgrounds can and do have access to God.

Most Jewish people do not consider Messianic Jews to be "real" (i.e., practicing/observant/religious) Jews. Now, I'm not saying they are right or not, but their own self-definition would exclude those who accept certain theological claims about Jesus.

I don't think Muslims are worshiping a false God; I think they have a different understanding of the one God. So I'd say there's no such thing as a literal false God. There's only one God, so a "false god" would be nothing. Figuratively, of course, a "false god" is different, and I'd say it would be referring to a material thing (money, success, power, beauty, etc.) that somebody puts first in their life.

What does it mean for a god to be false, though? I don't mean to be pushy, and this honestly isn't facetious; I just do not get it. Is a false god just nothing? They're worshiping air? Is a false god an entity of some sort that really exists but isn't god? Is it a demon? Is it actually a god that just doesn't happen to be the big, in-charge god?

If you are worshiping a false god, what are you worshiping? Or, more specifically, if you believe that when Muslims talk about Allah, they aren't talking about the same God Christians are talking about, what is Allah, in actuality?

Most semesters I teach remedial writing, and even when I don't, I encounter a lot of really, really bad writers. Really, I think at a certain point you develop an immunity to bad writing. I always find myself perplexed when people get so worked up about grammatical errors online; I barely notice them. I think, as a defense mechanism, you get to the point where, unless you are getting paid to notice and respond to errors, your brain just stops acknowledging them. ;)

I guess this is where I'm getting lost in this. Are we talking about there actually being numerous tribal gods, as people in the OT believed? So that Christians worship the God of Abraham, and Muslims worship a God named Allah, and both are gods? Or are we saying that there's a big-G God and then little-g gods, and Muslims are worshiping a little-g god? Or are you coming at this from an atheistic perspective, that there is no God, all conceptions are wrong anyway, and Christians and Muslims are talking about two different made-up gods? I'm not really sure how a monotheist could believe that Muslims are worshiping a different God, though.

That would mean that Jews aren't worshiping the same God, either. I can see saying that a non-triune understanding is a false understanding of the one true God. But, again, I'm not seeing why it follows that it's a different God. Historic Unitarians didn't believe that God was triune. AFAIK, nobody accused them of worshiping a different God. Accuse them of heresy? Sure. Say they were wrong? Yup. But the idea was that they were heretical in their understanding of God, not that they worshiped a different God. I'm not sure why people wouldn't see Islam in the same way.

In fact, we could compare the way that Muslims see themselves in relation to Christianity to the way that Christians see themselves in relation to Jews. Christians think they are an extension/fulfillment of Judaism, but that is NOT something that Jewish people believe. And, Muslims think they are an extension/fulfillment of Judaism and Christianity, but Christians don't believe that.

This is probably not something I should ask, but I'm genuinely curious, because I don't get it: if you don't think Christians and Muslims worship the same God, what do you think Muslims are worshiping? A different God? A demon? Nothing? I guess, as I said above, the way I see it, if there's an Ultimate Reality/higher power, then that's what sincere seekers are worshiping. (I'm not talking, for example, about a satanist who says they are worshiping Satan; obviously they aren't worshiping the same God that other religions are worshiping.) So I might not agree with the Hindu understanding of God, but I think they are attempting to know and access the same God (the one in whom we live and move and have our being, who is over all) that I am. I might even think they are totally wrong, but I'd have to think they are wrong in their understanding of the same deity that I am seeking to understand. If we're monotheists, I guess I don't understand how we could think that sincere seekers aren't seeking after the same God. Again, that's not making a claim that all religions are the same or all equally right, but just that they are all seeking to understand the same thing, whether they are going about it the right way or not. If they aren't worshiping the same God, then what is the object of their worship?

Jewish people do not view the NT as scripture. And, Muslims view the Torah and other parts of the OT as sacred scripture.

Five girls. I love my boys, and I'm happy to have them. But, if I had to choose, it would be five girls. Thinking long-term, I've read studies indicating that the presence of daughters is a key factor in how close siblings are (and apparently you only need one daughter to get that effect, but that's not relevant to this poll). Five daughters would likely be closer, as adults, than five boys.

Beautiful post.

Wonderful article. I love the section about your daughter.

I turned 18 in early November of my senior year. If my parents had expected me to live independently upon turning 18, unless I could have found a friend or other family member to let me stay with them while I finished school, I don't know how I could have. I don't think there's any way I could have finished high school and worked enough to support myself.

Without getting into the question of salvation and who it is or isn't extended to, I'd say that there's a difference between worshiping God in a wrong or incomplete way or having a wrong or partial understanding of God, and worshiping a different God. Muslims don't believe that Christians worship a different God, and most Christians also don't believe that Muslims worship a different God. Each group might believe the other is doing it wrong, but they're wrongly worshiping the same God, if that makes sense.

I'm not sure the issue of whether Jesus did or didn't exist eternally (although I do think the traditional Christian answer, based on the creeds, would be that he did--the Nicene Creed describes Jesus as "eternally begotten of the Father") really has much to do with the issue of whether Muslims worship the same God. Traditionally, Christians have believed that Jesus existed eternally but, as noted by others, that Jewish people worship the same God, and that the God worshiped in the OT--before people had knowledge of Jesus--is the same God they worship. I can understand saying that Muslims lack full knowledge of God (and I'd say they do, but I also believe that I as a Christian lack full knowledge of God, but I can understand somebody believing that Christians have a full knowledge of God but Muslims only a partial knowledge) but I'm not sure what the basis would be for saying that they worship an entirely different God, especially if somebody doesn't believe that Jewish people worship an entirely different God.

But the NT indicates that all people have some knowledge of God. I can understand the belief that that knowledge is incomplete, but I don't see any NT basis for believing that all non-Christians are worshiping a different God.

I will absolutely not be requiring my children to move out. Assuming the economic situation is anything like it is today, I can't imagine doing it. Even if the economic situation was such that it was easy for a graduate to get a job paying a living wage, I'd still not force them to move out until they were financially and emotionally ready to do so. And I recognize those things may happen at very different times. They might be emotionally ready to leave home at 18 but not have the material resources to do so. Or, they might have the money to leave home, but not be emotionally ready. In either case, we'd be happy to have them at home. We've said that they and their spouse will be welcome to live with us after they marry, especially if they marry when they are younger (late teens or early 20s) and need some time to get on their feet.