Islam, Christianity, and Judaism

CruddyLeper said:
Uh-huh. So how about descendants of Abraham that aren't Jewish?

I addressed that, if you noticed. The promise went though Isaac, then Jacob, then to Jacob's 12 sons. Those 12 sons were the progenitors of the nation of Israel; i.e., the 12 tribes of Israel. One of those tribes was Judah. The promised Messiah was predicted to come from the tribe of Judah. The name Judah is the source of the words "Jew", "Judaism" and "Jewish".

Now, the Arabs of the middle east also received certain promises from God, in Old Testament prophecies. But they did not receive the promise of the holy land. Neighboring lands such as Moab and Edom were given to them, but not what is properly known as Israel.
 
Religious tolerance really boils down to demographics, if you are a muslim, and rule over a 98% christian society, in let's say, egypt in the 600s, you won't persecute them, if you are a christian ruler, and rule over a 98% muslim society, in say, Sicily in the 1000s, you won't persecute them either, because they'll rebel.
 
Judaism = monotheism 1.0 - good to go
Christianism = monotheism 2.0 - requires patch to fix countless bugs
Islam = monotheism 3.0 - requires patch to fix coutless bugs

progress? ;)
 
if thats the case, then Polytheism is the Machintosh computer of the religious world; developed first,devloped better first, operates better,is good deal cooler, but isnt favored by the common market who arnt adept enough to deal with it ;)
 
Just to throw in my couple of cents,

Peace is not possible between these faiths because generally they allow themselves to become too political. If there was political neutrality in matters of belief, then things would be little conflict.

Most historical situations involving conflilcts of faith arise out of a desire for one political body to impose itself over another, using religion as justification - ie. Romans over Christianity, Crusades over Muslims, Israelites over Canaan, Spanish over Muslims, Catholic (nationalist) Irish over Protestant (Unionist) Irish, Hamas in Israel, Israel in Palestine.

If religion was seperated from politically based motives, half the problem would be removed.

Then there is a need for people to stop 'towing the party line' in their beliefs and think about things for themselves, and learn that there are things to be valued in other religions.

ie. As a Christian I cannot accept that Muhammad was a greater figure than Christ. Nevertheless, I can accept that Muhammad was important in his own right, and that many of the principals he taught as Islamic are ideals similar to my own (the struggle for a strong faith, caring for the poor, prayer on a frequent basis, levels of morality and care for surrounding society).

If rather than concentrating on the fact that Muslims dismiss my understanding of God I instead focus on the fact that Muslims affirm and recognise many of the concepts I believe Jesus was on about, then I have a basis of common ground. Our concepts of God are different, but if we remove a political element from our faith, the way in which we respond to the good things in our faiths can be the same basis for common ground.
 
Warman17 said:
Judaism = monotheism 1.0 - good to go
Christianism = monotheism 2.0 - requires patch to fix countless bugs
Islam = monotheism 3.0 - requires patch to fix coutless bugs

progress? ;)
Secular Humanism 4.0?
 
>500 year ago was year 1505. Catholicism was yet far from triumph in future Latin America, catholic Lithuania has just lost a third of its territory to emerging orthodox Russia, Ottoman Turks were crushing all papal initiatives against them and going further and further into Europe - and reformation outbreak was soon to begin.
Statistics show that catholicism grew by 40% in last 30 years.
There's some decline in western Europe, but it's dieing out anyway.


I have no idea how catholicism can be growing by 40% in 30 years but dieing out anyway. You must also be unaware of the statistics of declining in church attendance. Anyone can claim any religion they want, to justify numbers.


>Name a bloody regime that had promotion of religion as their core ideology.

The Muslim Caliphates. The Roman Catholic Church, which is a theocracy and once held power over nearly all of Europe.

>Neo-paganism would not be possible without the advent of atheism and treating religion solely as a political means.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Neopaganism has nothing to do with atheism. You must be a Christian fundamentalist because you equate the two. The Nazi regime wasn't "neopagan." There were some elements in the state that tried to revive old Germanic religion, but it was largely unsuccessful. Hitler himself admitted that he was a Catholic.
 
Capulet said:
As a Muslim, I believe that all three of these relgions are connected. We are all children of Abraham and all three of our religions have stemmed from Judaism.

Do any of you think that there will be a time when all three of these religions will live in peace?
yes which has already happen . it called the USA. Once you remove the governments control over the beliefs of the people then the war between religion disappears. This of course doesn't stop some islated cases but in general here different beliefs live peaceful.
Before you start flaming Islam, do you not agree that all three religions have played a horrible role in inter-faith relations?
Just like all powers , man has abused them no matter what is it. Someone posted the religion has cause war and blood shed but the exact same could be said of science. Since science (many other thing) increasing one's power then it has been used and abused to kill and war. the same with wealth yet science,religion, and wealth isn't evil just because they are powerful and of value.
Will there ever be full cooperation between these religions or will we always suspect each other of plotting devious plans?
No, In fact we christians (or atleast most fundamentalist) believe the enemy in within and not on the outside so we will not fully cooperate with everyone who claims to be christian , let along Muslims and Judaism. What seperate us is doctrine/ truth which can't be mixed with lies and deception. We still don't want the government to deny anyone the right to worship as they wish (of course there is limits; as no killing) even if we totally disagree with their doctrine. Nor do we want our government start any kind of holy war againest Muslims, Jews, etc.
Honestly, I think that once the crisis in Israel/Palestine ends, we will be able to embark on a path for the future of our religions and our world.
I afraid there will alway be those who just like war too much. The Isreal/Palestine conflict only shows it doesn't take many warmongers to keep the conflict going.
 
jonatas said:
well, i would say it certainly is for anyone who wants to study the period... the Berbers and Arabs hated each other and were bitter rivals.... the Berbers were present in the original invasion of 711 of course, but it was the Arabs who ruled...

The dinasty was of Arabic origin, but people of Romanic, Visigothic, Slavic, Berber, Arab origines participated in building the state. It was a land of Arabic cuture, but it's pretty obvious - Arabic is the language of the revelation, and in this case the language of the dinasty.

well, you can't forcibly convert the population base immediately, but by the 1100's, the vast majority of Al-Andalus was Muslim, and they converted because it was practical probably more than anything else... you're right about Islam having built in guidelines to respect "the people of the book"...
To be fair, i was talking about the policy within its context, i don't argue with you that now it is a completely different story...

the "vast majority of Al-Andalus was Muslim" part.
I don't know if we can really say anything about the percentage. What would it be, according to You (what does "vast" mean)? And what do You base your assumptions on?
The number of Christians in Al-Andalus was perhaps smaller than in Levantine lands, where they were probably still a majority in this time, but as well probably much higher than in Africa, where by that time, there weren't many Christians left.
One of the reasons of decline of Christians in Africa was decline of the cities under Muslim rule. In Spain, it was different. Also, the emmigration of the clergy probably was smaller. But I don't know. Spain is this Arabic region of the time I have the less interest in.

yes, like i said, the vast majority of Al-Andalus did convert, because of practical reasons... the fact that Christian Iberia was rural was because the Visigoths had previously done a terrible job of administrating Iberia... as i already mentioned, superior agricultural techniques of the Arabs and direct connection with the commerce and knowledge of the East greatly encouraged urbanization

I remain with my opinion that this situation is based on what You get.
If your kingdom consists of a pair of mountain villages, constantly endangered by Muslim conquest, it's hard to turn it into a flourishing city civilisation.


bigmeat said:
Religious tolerance really boils down to demographics, if you are a muslim, and rule over a 98% christian society, in let's say, egypt in the 600s, you won't persecute them, if you are a christian ruler, and rule over a 98% muslim society, in say, Sicily in the 1000s, you won't persecute them either, because they'll rebel.

That's what I've said... But Sicily was doubtfully a 98% Muslim society in the 1000's. The Muslim conquest started 827, and the last Byzantine stronghold, Taormina, fell 902 (Basilios Bulgaroktonos later wanted to make an expedition on Sicily, but death was quicker). Normans appeared in Sicily about 1071. I don't remember how much time it took them to conquer it whole, but not much. So it's about 250 years in the longest occupied part of Sicily, 169 in the part they kept for the shortest time. Personally I doubt Sicily could became clearly Muslim in such quick time.

Nanocyborgasm said:
I have no idea how catholicism can be growing by 40% in 30 years but dieing out anyway. You must also be unaware of the statistics of declining in church attendance. Anyone can claim any religion they want, to justify numbers.

Church attendance decrease doesn't yet mean changing religion.
Also, do you know that majority of the catholics live outside Europe where in some states church attendance and catholic affiliation is indeed in decrease?
Catholic church has its successes in other regions of the world, especially in Africa.

The Muslim Caliphates. The Roman Catholic Church, which is a theocracy and once held power over nearly all of Europe.

Catholic church ruled over nearly all of Europe? Bah, up to the start of XX century, the church couldn't even elect the pope without emperors and kings interfering. It had some influence,
but it was not, except for few regions, the direct power. And there it was not any other rule than the other contemporary ones.
And both it and all Muslim caliphates took together killed many times less people in 200 times longer time....

You have no idea what you're talking about. Neopaganism has nothing to do with atheism. You must be a Christian fundamentalist because you equate the two. The Nazi regime wasn't "neopagan." There were some elements in the state that tried to revive old Germanic religion, but it was largely unsuccessful. Hitler himself admitted that he was a Catholic.

You have no idea what You're talking about. Hitler had Austrian-catholic roots, but He had the deepest disdain for Christianity, because of its Jewish roots, and because as he's put it (rough quote): taken literally, Christianity would be a glorification of inability". He admired the strenght and long-lasting of catholic church, but would've crushed it if it openly opposed him.
Does a good catholic plan kidnapping of the pope? Or throw thousands of priests into concentration camps?
 
Squonk said:
The dinasty was of Arabic origin, but people of Romanic, Visigothic, Slavic, Berber, Arab origines participated in building the state. It was a land of Arabic cuture, but it's pretty obvious - Arabic is the language of the revelation, and in this case the language of the dinasty.

how does this have any relationship to the text you quoted from me? what is your point, and what are you implying that i was saying? :confused: on second thought, don't tell me, because it's probably not worth my time...

Squonk said:
the "vast majority of Al-Andalus was Muslim" part.
I don't know if we can really say anything about the percentage. What would it be, according to You (what does "vast" mean)? And what do You base your assumptions on?

literature i've studied


Squonk said:
I remain with my opinion that this situation is based on what You get.
If your kingdom consists of a pair of mountain villages, constantly endangered by Muslim conquest, it's hard to turn it into a flourishing city civilisation.

then you are wrong in your assumption and i have the impression at all that you really don't know what you're talking about in this area... the Visigothic overlords before the invasion of 711 were little more than glorified goatherds in Iberia and incompetent rulers... the urbanization of which i speak in Iberia did not pre-exist the Islamic invasion and occurred under the Arab dynasties' rule... regardless i'm getting tired of having to explain everything to you, as far as i'm concerned you can stay with whatever assumptions you have....
 
Squonk said:
Sicily was doubtfully a 98% Muslim society in the 1000's. The Muslim conquest started 827, and the last Byzantine stronghold, Taormina, fell 902 (Basilios Bulgaroktonos later wanted to make an expedition on Sicily, but death was quicker). Normans appeared in Sicily about 1071. I don't remember how much time it took them to conquer it whole, but not much. So it's about 250 years in the longest occupied part of Sicily, 169 in the part they kept for the shortest time. Personally I doubt Sicily could became clearly Muslim in such quick time.
98% must be considered way to high.
Around the year 1000 Palermo, the capital of Sicily, was known as a city of 250 churches and 300 mosques. That might better reflect the proportions.

It took the Normans no longer to conquer the Muslim princes than anybody else. The thing was of course that once you pledged allegience to the Normans, they stopped giving you a hard time. Consequently Norman Sicilly had three official languages of administration: Latin, Greek and Arab. (Though the scribes conducting diplomatic business in Arabic were always Christians, as a precaution against double loyalties.)

The last serious Muslim uprising in Sicily was in the 1220's, put down with considerable harshness by Frederick II, who then relocated 60.000 of their number to the military colony of Lucera on the mainland, a municipality obeying islamic law. That seems to have broken the Muslims communities in the inland mountains on Sicily itself.

Despite this the Sicilian Muslims turned out to be feircly loyal to the Hohenstaufen dynasty. Frederick had a personal Muslim bodyguard, the Imperial Treasurer was a Muslim ('Johannes Maurus'), the treasury was located in Lucera, and the Muslim troops were very good border guards against the Papal State to the north. (Figures reported say 20.000 men, but that may be on the high side.)
When the Pope and the French crushed the Staufers, the destruction of the Muslim settlement of Lucera was a top priority. They did a thorough job of it too. Contemporaries likened it to a second burning of Troy.
 
Well getting back to the point of the thread ;)

Pope Benedict is clearly in favour a (re?)uniting monotheistic religions, he's supposed to be continuing building bridges with Judaism, and non-Catholic Christian denominations.

Interestingly the head of the Anglican Church is going to be in attendance on Sunday for the Popes first Mass as a sign of goodwill.

Actually that's probably wrong, but he's defintely doing something for the first time since the 16th century, lol.

Regarding Islam, I don't know how they differ from Christianity or Judaism so I couldn't say. Obviously as a Catholic I hope everyone starts believing as I do!
 
jonatas said:
how does this have any relationship to the text you quoted from me? what is your point, and what are you implying that i was saying? :confused: on second thought, don't tell me, because it's probably not worth my time...

If You're not able to understand that, well, I can only pity You.

literature i've studied

Quote something


then you are wrong in your assumption and i have the impression at all that you really don't know what you're talking about in this area... the Visigothic overlords before the invasion of 711 were little more than glorified goatherds in Iberia and incompetent rulers... the urbanization of which i speak in Iberia did not pre-exist the Islamic invasion and occurred under the Arab dynasties' rule... regardless i'm getting tired of having to explain everything to you, as far as i'm concerned you can stay with whatever assumptions you have....

I doubt cities were in complete decline during the reign of Visigoths.
But I have no knowledge in this matter, so I won't argue.
But please, gimme some proofs if You can.
 
puglover said:
It is true that both Islam and Christianity are rooted in Judaism, but Christianity and Islam have different fufillments to Old Testament prophecies. They are too different to live in harmony.

Actually, that's not true at all, according to God. Christianity is "rooted" in Judaism, but Islam is not. Consider the following passage from Romans chapter 11, which the Apostle Paul wrote regarding the relationship between Christians and Jews:

Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
 
JoeM said:
@capulet

Any chance of info regarding what seperated Islam from Christianity, interms of fundamental beliefs?

I'm not capulet, but here is a brief 'history' of all three.

Judaism, in existence from sometime before the common era (BC/BCE), focused primaily on a covenant with God enacted through observance of the Torah (old testament), as understood to have been given to the Isralites by God through the prophet Moses.

After initially establishing an independent state in the ancient near east, Jews were diseminated throughout the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and then Roman empires as each conquered the world. Jews awaited, and worked into their theology, the expectation of a messiah that would re-establish their prominence as God's chosen people in the world.

Generally, practice of Judaism was centred around the temple in Jerusalem, where sacrifices were practiced as a core element of Jewish religion.

Around 30 Common Era (CE/AD), a Jew named Jesus arose in Roman occupied Judea preaching that he was the Messiah (in Greek, Christos or Christ) come to establish the kingdom of heaven. Against all expectations, he was a pacificist, encouraging embracing gentiles rather than driving them completely from Judea. Most Jews disregarded him, especially after his crucifixion in around four years later.

Nevertheless a small contingent of Jews remained followers of this teacher's beliefs, led by several of his disciples and a new teacher, a Jew named Paul. Paul developed the belief that Gentiles could convert to the teaching of the Christ without being Jewish, the main element of 'salvation' lying not in the Torah and Temple, but in belief in Christ, who was recognised as God in human form, himself.

In 70 CE, the Jewish temple was destroyed. For Jews, it became necessary to work out a new way of practicing religion without the temple - thus careful attention was payed to observing the law in daily life, as worked out by teachers, known as Rabbis - the origin of modern Judaism.

The followers of Christ, who becamed known as 'Christ Ones' or Christians, now believing that most of Judaisms observances were not needed to follow God, from this point became a seperate 'faith.' They accepted old testament as scripture, but also agreed to follow the teachings and records of Jesus' followers, the New Testament.

Islam entered the scene around 500 years later, after an Arab merchant named Muhammad, after coming in contact with Jews and Christians, believed he had experienced a revelation from the one true God, Allah, through the Angel Gabriel. This revelation was written in what is known as the Koran.

The revelation claims that while Jewish and Chrisian tradition holds important truth, such as their understanding of one God and recognition of great prophets (Moses, Abraham, Jesus), they are ultimately, like their scriptures, corrupted by history and false teaching.

Among the things Muslims find false about the others is the Christian doctrine of trinity, regarded by Islam as a type of polytheism (belief in multiple gods), the Christian claim of Christ's divinity, and the Christian rejection of the prophet Muhammad.

Of key Muslim concern regarding Judaism is that Jews have corrupted and appropriated a promise made in the old testament regarding Abraham's ofspring. They believe a promise of prosperity made regarding Ishmael, Abraham's older son and traditional father of the Arabs, was incorrectly interpreted to being made to Isaac, traditional father of the Jews.

All three religions agree in one God, and all three do trace at least spiritual heritige back to Abraham. All three believe in prayer, care for the poor, and belief in self control as regard to interactivity with alcohol, food, and vices.

However, the fundamental aspect of how one best interacts with God - Torah for Jews, through Christ for Christians and through Submission to God for Muslims, ultimately differs.
 
JoeM said:
@Margim

Cheers. Very interesting, can you direct me to your source, or is this a summary based on wide ranging studies?

Sorry, its the latter, off the top of my skull based from five years of uni :). A quick google search on 'early history Judaism' and the same for Islam and Christianity should hopefully be able to confirm most of what I've told you.
 
Hi again!
I'd like to say you one funny thing:
I think you don't know one little thing - Judaism is the only one of those three that has an alternative for "gentiles"!
While Christianity and Islam state that the only solution is to become THEM - Judaism in the Torah states about "7 Noahic Laws" that refer to all non-jews.
Judaism was never a propagandic religion because Torah doesn't want everybody to be jewish - but there also laws for non-jews.
Also there's written that even among the non-jews being righteous IS possible - through those 7 laws.
So if jews would keep Torah and all non-jews would keep their 7 laws - it would mean that Judaism had won!!!
Those laws are mostly about social things including JUST COURTS!
Believing in One God is also included.
Therefore nowadays I see more problems with crimes than with "religion".
BTW both Sodom & Gomora AND the people before the Flood were punished NOT for "religious" but for SOCIAL injustice.
Sodomers made the crimes into LAWS and pre-flooders used to live by the strength - weaker were simply killed or robbed in the daylight.
THAT'S the cause of the PUNISHMENT.
So if (WHEN) our society will cope with crimes and make people honest - it would be the victory of: JUSTICE / HUMANITY / GOD / & JUDAISM!!!
Funny - isn't it???
 
Back
Top Bottom