TheWay wrote:So your argument is that because the religions have shared some common history and have some similarities that they in fact interchangeable or in some way the same. This logic escapes me as the points I made clearly draw strong distinctions between these three religions and I these suggestions as an attempt to undermine the sovereignty of any one belief system thus relegating them to a discussion of semantics.
You mention that the Muslims have Jesus as their third profit but lapse in pointing out two huge differences one they don’t believe he is God as the Christians do and two the fact that the Jews hung him as a false profit. Also if you would like to understand the debate on Jesus better look into C.S. Lewis' argument Lord, liar, or lunatic.
Let me also address the historical as that was one of your foundations for the argument. The Jews History in Old Testament literature is indeed the same as the Christians, however the interpretation of the Christ (AKA coming Savior Jesus) is completely opposed to each other, and there view of salvation is also diametrically opposed to the Christian interpretation. I would be happy to site the scriptural interpretations and applications that lead to these differences but i am sure you can understand my points without that extra baggage. As for the Muslim History it is very simply a revisionist approach to the old testament, most clearly understood in the story of Abraham and his two sons Isaac and Ishmael. In the Jewish scriptures Isaac is the true son and Ishmael the ba$tard (this is not profanity but the correct use of this word) child. Isaac becomes the nation of Israel and Ishmael the nation of Islam. In the Muslim scripture this is reversed as Isaac is the ba$tard child and so on.
In all these three religions differ in every facet of doctrine and two compare them would be like saying Obama and McCain are the same because they are both American and both male running for president
You manage to both get and completley miss my point at the same time heh.
Nowhere did I claim religions are "interchaingable". I claimed they are evolutions of a same basic idea that is a monoistic diety and a set of beliefs that factually go back in time to Zarathustra and beyond. Fundamentally basic ideas but, as you point them out, varying
interpretations and doctrins that are then a base to disqualify other interpretations as "false" or "heretic". You cannot possibly deny this most basic and common nominator of them. God of Abraham. A monotheistic god.
The rest are "details" in the grand scheme of things, atleast to one detached from fully identifying with one of the religions in question. These divisions in interpretations are by rule of the thumb mostly political, as far as we know. Christ was one of the cults cropping up in judeia, one of several "messiahs" in that particualr period of roman occupation when people cried out for a savior. He to a degree got "lucky" so to speak. I wont even mention the obviousness of it in the case of sunni&Shi'a schism.
And yes it is like comparing McCain to Obama. In the aspect that they are both running for the same office - but have different values, different policies and different notions on what is right in certain cases - different interpretations of the job. The
objectivly same job. Ulitimatly they both covett the same.
By your reasoning, because youre a republican, Obama must not be running for presidency since the way he envisions his presidency is "false" ergo the only presidency is a McCain presidency, the other one is a lie and/or does not exist. (and vice versa)
You have an annoying tendency to evoke "facts" wich are nothing more than your particular *beliefs*. It is not a fact that christian god is trinitarian ergo it is different from the god if islam/judaism. It is one of many
conceptions of the particualr diety Abraham called his god (we limit himself to this point in time since we have no intimate knowledge of the evolution of belief of his ancestors). Tied to those conceptions are the criteria by wich certain "heralds" of this god are "true" and certain are "false".
Conceptions interpretations and beliefs are NOT facts, they are subjective. I`m analyzing these three religions from a detached, objective point of view. And the crossection of history tells me they are an evolution of notions we may or may not have pointed an origin to with zarathustra. But we are certainly able to track them through the debated 3 religions to one common originating point - as opposed to having a divine intervention/relevation at a set point (set points) in time ushering them in induvidually.
Names differ yet the notions are fundamentally in its bare core the same. And you cannot, simply cannot, dismiss them as mere similarities or coincidances.
Wether these notions were planted into us by some power or are they just a continuation of the ancient need to atribute and somehow "explain" certain phenomenons is a question I`m not getting into at this stage. As far as I know someone might have kicked off the big bang.
For Rome!
