(I'm still reading, top of page three, but...)
Brillinant question from Angry Hill Troll:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angry Hill Troll
Digressing a little bit, here's a philosophical question to ponder (I don't really have an answer for this one  ): If two religions both believe in a single, omnipotent and omniscient God, do they necessarily believe in the same God (with differences of opinion of His characteristics, actions, and expectations of humans), or do they believe in different gods whose existences are mutully exclusive?
This doesn't strictly apply to the poll question, since worship of Eru and reverence for the Valar aren't (to my knowledge) religious practice in our world. |
My opinion is this: It depends entirely on the religions in question.
For example, if comparing the Jewish God YHWH, and the Trinitarian Christian God, in my opinion, the two religions worship one and the same God, although they perceive him differently and have different expectations. Still, they may speak with each other regarding God and still be talking about the same person. The two understandings share fundamentally similar aspects and so are very compatible. Using the analogy of perspective, the two religions can be described as seeing/ viewing/ observing/ understanding the same God from different angles. The understandings are not incompatible, especially in terms of expectations (God's expectations of man.)
However, this does not apply to all religions. Even different monotheistic religions do not express their understanding of God in the same, or similar, or compatible ways, nor do the expectations (that God has of man) turn out to be similar. Fundamental differences include a man's freedom of conscience.
For example. Jews and Christians, by and large, may disagree vigourously with one another, but ***if*** each of the two religions is faithfully followed (big if, I know) differences of opinions do not (perhaps I should say, Should Not) result in violence. Conversions by the sword are not in accordance with the
founder's principles, and therefore with the religion's perception of God's expectations. An individual is free to choose or reject God, and he is responsible for his own choice. However, other monotheistic religions are not this way: differences of opinioin can, and do, result in violence ***within the accepted framework of that particular faith***-- conversions at swordpoint are not at variance with the
founder's principles, and therefore with the religions's perception of God's expectations. To me this implies a fundamental difference in the God being considered.
This is a large part of why I do consider Eru to be both YHWH and the Trinitarian God-- the expectations and values placed on men are similar. Men are percieved as being "in control of their own destiny", having free will and making their own choices, their actions having true consequences. However, they cannot (by deciding and acting ) ultimately change the will and plans of Eru, any more than Melkor could. This has a similar feel to both the Christian Trinitarian God, and the Jewish YHWH. But it is quite different from many other religious concepts of God. I think that percieved personality is a large part of this whole consideration.
Another for instance: whimsy isn't a part of this picture, as it would be for Jove, Zeus, and other "primary" gods in some panthestic religions. Both the Christian Trinitarian God and the Jewish YHWH act consistently with their own plan. Man may or may not understand some part of this plan, and this confusion may result in mannish accusations of God or YHWH being whimsical; but it is not so; we simply do not understand, do not see "the entire music." Eru is similar.