[ndigila]

You keep avoiding this question and I'll keep asking it.

Do all Christian denominations worship the same God?

[KENNETH MATIBA]

Originally Posted by ndigila

You keep avoiding this question and I'll keep asking it.

Do all Christian denominations worship the same God?

Christianity Defined: A faith based on the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to earth to save mankind from the punishment of sin.

It is also the belief that every person has been given an opportunity through Jesus’ death and resurrection to enter into a personal relationship with God on earth and for eternity. The result of making a commitment to Christ is a changed life. Believing that the Bible is the living breathing Word of God and without error, Christians use it as a guide book to instruct the way to live.

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true One. We are in the true One – that is, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20)(HSB)

What makes Christianity different?

1. It is a spiritual belief system open to all, regardless of age, religion, sex, or economic status.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16) (NAS)

2. It is a religion that answers the problem of sin. Freedom from sin is not based on our works, but on our acceptance of God’s grace.

Other faiths believe that salvation is based on good deeds or keeping certain laws. Christianity recognizes that "There is none righteous, not even one" (Romans 3:10) (NAS). The Bible clearly says that “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy.” (Titus 3:5) (NAS)

3. Unlike Buddha, Mohammad, and other religious leaders, Christianity accepts that its Messiah, Jesus Christ, is still alive today. Jesus died for our sins, and was resurrected after 3 days. His resurrection was witnessed by many, and proves His victory over sin and death.

Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. (Romans 8:34) (NIV)

Christianity is faith that Jesus Christ paid the price for sin in our stead. It is an acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God, and the practice of love and obedience that follows.

[ndigila]

You still didn't answer the question. But i'll work with what you've written.

Let's analyse your statements and compare them with the current state of the church.

Originally Posted by KENNETH MATIBA

Christianity Defined: A faith based on the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to earth to save mankind from the punishment of sin.

So Jesus Christ is the son of God. Which Jesus?
The one who loves Christians irregardless of their sinful ways (the Jesus of the emergent church) or the one who detest sins (the Jesus of the ancient faith)?

The preterist Jesus, who fulfilled all the prophecies written in Revelation in 70 A.D. or the futurist Jesus, who'll fulfill the prophecies written in Revelation sometime in the future?
The Jesus who was born the son of God (the Jesus of most churches) or the Jesus who became the son of God upon his baptism (the Jesus of Creflo Dollar)?
The Jesus who'll rapture the saints before the tribulation or the Jesus who'll let his believers endure the tribulation?
The SDA Jesus, who's not okay with our Sunday worship, or the Jesus who doesn't mind us worshipping on Sunday?
The Jesus who differentiates the church and Israel (the dispensationalist Jesus) or the Jesus who replaced the Israelites with the Christians as his chosen people (the covenant theology Jesus)?
The Christus Victor Jesus, who saved Christians by conquering death or the Satisfaction Jesus, whose death was a substitute for the death that humans deserved under the wrath of God?

Tell us, which Jesus?

Originally Posted by KENNETH MATIBA

Believing that the Bible is the living breathing Word of God and without error, Christians use it as a guide book to instruct the way to live.

Christians, (both pro and anti-apostolic tradition) and even non-Christians agree that the oldest writings of the New Testament are the epistles to the Thessalonians. A quick study of the Book of Acts will reveal that Thessalonica was not the first church established. There were already Christian churches set up in Jerusalem, Ethiopia (possibly), Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe etc. Given that Thessalonica had already a functioning church by the time 1 Thessalonians was written (Paul didn't write any corrective measures the church needed to take, he just wrote to encourage them to keep the faith), then it follows that there were already fully functioning churches throughout the region even before any of the New Testament was written down. Were these churches Christian since they didn't have a Bible?

Originally Posted by KENNETH MATIBA

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true One. We are in the true One – that is, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20)(HSB)

So who is the true God?

The trinitarian God who exists in three persons (the God of the ancient Christian faith) or the God who manifests himself in three different forms (the God of T.D. Jakes and Bishop Weeks) or the God who exists as three triune beings (the God of Benny Hinn), or the unitarian God (the God of the oneness Pentecostals)?

Most Christians hold to the belief in the trinitarian God. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
Which Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit who gives people personal private prayer languages that the devil doesn't understand (the Holy Spirit of the Pentecostals, the Charimastics, the Assemblies of God, and the emergent church) or the one who reveals to his people that tongues is human languages (the Holy Spirit of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists)
The monergist Holy Spirit who's irresistible grace doesn't give you a choice into accepting the Gospel (the Holy Spirit of Reformed Theology, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon etc) or the synergist Holy Spirit who leaves the decision to accept/reject salvation to the human being (the Holy Spirit of Arminius, the Methodist Church etc)

Note that I've just dealt with very few Protestant denominations and there is a significant disagreement on who God himself is. If I take into account all the 30,000+ denominations, the discrepancies may be more and increasingly contradictory.

So I ask again, do all Protestant denominations believe in the same God?

[KENNETH MATIBA]

Multiculturalist ideology, i.e. the blind tolerance of any culture or tradition, is destroying Europe and standing in the way of any positive development of Islam. Such ideology has been condemned by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali intellectual and parliamentarian who, having received death threats from Muslims for her defence of women’s rights and tired of European multiculturalism, left Holland to go work in the United States at the American Enterprise Institute. She accused Holland of excessive acquiescence, of encouraging the immobility of Muslim communities and even of letting itself be conquered by Islam and Islamic law.

In making room for Sharia, there is the risk of conflict with European constitutions. An interesting thing is taking place in Denmark, a country which is at the forefront of multi-culturality. The SIAD Party has recently been founded and it proposes the following: anyone who cites Koranic verses contrary to the Danish constitution must be punished because the constitution is superior to all other laws.

And they quote articles 67-69 of the Danish Constitution which says, “We authorize freedom of worship, as long as it is exercised within the framework of Danish laws without disturbing public order.”

All this is a clear signal that people are beginning to reflect on the possible contrast that exists between the constitutions of European countries and certain laws of the Koran. In Demark too, there exist two trends: the “left”, or the “do-gooders”, who want to respect the culture of others, saying that ours is not an absolute, or suggest that we must be tolerant and give Muslims time to take this step; and those who make no allowances, and who say that if a person is not able to integrate, he is better off going elsewhere.

But the most significant and problematic case is that of Great Britain: here, after decades of multiculturalism, instead of integrating and coexisting, Islamic communities are increasingly closing themselves into ghettos, and fundamentalistic behaviours, dangerous for all society, are emerging.

State schools and Islamic morals

The most representative association of British Muslims, the Muslim Council of Great Britain, has asked that Muslims be recognized the right to apply Islamic morals in state schools. On February 21, it published a 72-page document and presented it to the government in the name of 400,000 Muslim students attending the country’s state schools. They ask that the government accept the demands of Muslim parents and youngster on the grounds of faith concerns.

Taking their cue from their concept of modesty, they say that female students:

a) have the right to wear headscarves or the hijab (there is no mention however of the niqab);

b) have the right to not take part in physical education lessons, because Islam prohibits contact between the sexes in public and because there is the risk of girls exposing bare skin, which is prohibited by Sharia.

They also demand separate classes for girls and boys; the refusal of dancing and of sex education (which is a family matter and not a topic for school); drawings and anatomy textbooks must not show genital organs. As for faith and history, they ask for a revision of the entire teaching system in the name of Islamic morals.

The Education Ministry has not yet replied officially, but has already said that these requests will be a step backwards in terms of the tolerance that already existed.

British and Muslim

The tendency towards closure – the fruit of multiculturalism! – is apparent also at another level. Last February 19, a public survey in the Sunday Telegraph shows that 40% of British Muslims are favourable to the introduction of sharia. This demonstrates the radicalization of a substantial part of the country’s Islamic community. Forty percent feels foreign to British society and deems that it is necessary and normal to lead a lifestyle in line with the most radical of Islamic ethics.

Another element which is emerging is the detachment of these people from British society. Asked “How do you feel about the victims of conflicts in the world?”, the reply was “compassion”, “solidarity” and even “anger” with reference to conflicts involving Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Simply put, they feel closer to Muslims than to Great Britain, which is directly involved in some of these conflicts.

From the sociological point of view, it should be said that they come from Pakistan, Bangladesh and India and belong to traditional families, but it is also worth noting that they have been in Great Britain for at least two generations. It seems clear to me that the reactions to 9/11, instead of creating more global solidarity around the idea of the fight against terrorism, have instead radicalized Muslims who are siding with each other to defend their brothers in faith.

September 11 created or reinforced, in the entire Islamic world, an identity crisis: Islam and Muslims are under scrutiny. Faced with this situation, there are those who stop to reflect on what must be reviewed in Islamic teaching behaviour, and there are those whose reaction is closure and aggressiveness so as to affirm more forcefully the radical diversity of Islam vis-à-vis the surrounding culture. This second kind of behaviour is typical of many young people of second or third generation, who fully recognize themselves neither in Islamic nor in Western tradition (despite having perfectly assimilated the latter).

In any case, this study and the requests regarding schools show that Muslims in Great Britain are increasingly identifying themselves with their religion, more than with local society and culture.

Modesty for males and citizenship

The problems raised by Muslims, for example those in Great Britain, are real. There does exist a problem of ethics in society, and thus also in the school system. An exaggerated liberalism which allows young people everything, especially at the sexual level, on the grounds that they must learn to make their own choices, is certainly unacceptable to both the Muslim and Christian communities, as well as to the human community tout court. But preventing contact between boys and girls, or preventing the teaching of all things related to sexuality is an entirely different matter. Here, it is not a question of ethics, but of customs and traditions, and this is no longer acceptable. In any given country, the norms of that country must be observed, not those of the homelands of a few parents!

Furthermore, one might ask oneself why, on the question of the relationship between sexes, it is always the woman who must be hidden or “observe modesty”, as is still said. If modesty is a virtue – and in fact it is – it applies to males as it does to females. And since modesty seems to be more spontaneous in females, it would seem more necessary to impose it upon males! In other terms, despite the best intentions, Muslims tend to confuse customs with ethics. Customs are tied to determined groups (ethnic, geographic, religious…) and do not apply to the national civil society. Ethics dictate principles which are valid for every human person, independent of their sex or religion, and therefore are worth defending and fighting to defend. It is time that we learn to defend ethics that are respectful of the human person, by starting to teach and practice them in schools, to everyone. As for special treatment for a particular group, in the name of their different culture, this is a deformation of what should be “authentic multiculturalism,” which learns to evaluate different cultures and improve one’s own on the basis of comparison.

The question behind this problem is: what does citizenship mean? Is it a piece of paper, useful to acquire so as to have advantages and few obligations? Or is it a profound reality, the result of a pondered choice, which can also demand even big cultural sacrifice?

And more: what is the identity of an Italian citizen of Egyptian or Moroccan or Chinese or Albanian origin? If it is Egyptian, Moroccan, Chinese, Albanian, then I ask: what is the sense of having requested and obtained Italian citizenship? It is not perhaps to enjoy the advantages that a country offers and then return to live in one’s country of birth or that of one’s parents? In that case, I am just an exploiter. But if it means a conscious choice, which implies changes in behaviour, the desire to build with other citizens a more just society etc, then, yes, I deserve citizenship. I think that society must help each person to make such pondered choices, helping and facilitating efforts to integrate.