It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islam, Christanity and Judisam.....What is the difference?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
A couple of points here that need to be picked up on.




Originally posted by mwm1331
The biggest difference between christianity and the others is Jesus.
Of all three religons only one is founded on the words of a man who claimed to be god.
Muhammed was a prophet and so were Moses and Abraham, none claimed divinity.


Neither did Jesus. He wasn't pronounced divine until well into the 4th century at the Council of Nicea.


Christianity is also the only one of the three which teaches that salvation can not come from within or by deeds. Both judaism and Islam allow men to access heaven based on the righteousness of thier deeds and good works Christianity does not.


Not entirely true. My personal intepretation of the New Testament is that Christianity states just that - man must look to himself for Salvation by following the Teachings of Jesus.



Christianity is the only one of the three which does not spereate food into clean and unclean. Both Muslims and Jews believe pork is an unclean food.


The reason for this is that the pork is a poisonous food when not cooked properly. It's also very hard to keep fresh in the desert. Both Judaism and Islam were formed in a time of war (Christianity was formed under occupation) when the need for a fit, healthy army was paramount. Having your army come down with serious food poisoning on the eve of a battle was probably not a desirable thing to have happen.
Jesus was able to rescind the law with his famous "It's not what goes into a man, but what comes out that counts" line.



Also it seems to me that the emphasis in christianity s self sacrifice rather than sacrifice. For example Jesus died for our sins, in old judaism you would kill an animal to expiate your sins and I don't know enough about Islam to say what thier beliefs on sacrifice is.


All three religions took part in sacrifice. This was based on paganism.


Jesus was also the only founder who did not gain or attempt to gain secular power. Muhammed, Abraham, and Moses all were leaders of thier societies as well as religous figures.


We do not know this for a fact. In fact some schools of thought point to Jesus actually being a revolutionary and that is why he was tried and executed under Roman Law. Remember that crucifixion was a punishment that was reserved for enemies of the Roman Empire. You also have to remember Jesus's statement that he came "not to bring peace, but to bring a sword". The jury's still out on this one.


Finally if you interpert Christianity (as I do ) based on the words of jesus (I do not consider the old testament to be a part of christianities teachng more of a prequel)


I'll go along with that. In fact, I'd say that the major use of the Old Testament was to sell the new religion of Christianity to the masses. By connecting to an old religion they could reinterpret and convert.



[edit on 25-8-2004 by Leveller]




posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by looking4clues

My intentions are to try to find a worthy bit of difference between these three superstitions that are bringing the world to the brink of disaster.

Hogwash, your ego has you on the offensive to try and disprove the existance of God. I would assert you have such a high self regard that it could be looked upon as, "Self-God" meaning deep inside you believe you are larger than a god. I could be wrong, but thats what you portray to me.


What the hell are you talking about? I think I am larger than God? I am Self-God? I dont believe in your God. I am not ruling the possibilty of A God of some sort out but I dont believe he is backing any one of these three. So if I dont believe in something how can I be it? Am I a self-santa claus too? I am not trying to disprove anything I dont even think its possible to prove God does not exist.



So far all I have geard is "the other two are evil" or soime other nonsense
How about some FACTS to back up your claim
Or are all you are good for is childish name calling in the name of YOUR invisiable friend

Again It is your intention to destroy another person's faith as evident by your pure disrespect for the possibility of God's existance. You are bringing nothing new. As you can say the same to me, but you will not find the end you are looking for until you know what Faith is. (Not the websters definition.) I would love to amuse you with verbal circles. but thats not what you are after.


If your faith can ber destroyed by a question it is not very strong.

How am I disrespectful for doubting Gods existance?

Are disrespectful for not believing in Allah?

And how the hell do you know my mind and what I am after? Has sitting in Gods lap gave you ESP? Or does God, AKA the voices in your head, tell you these things?


If you are going to post in this thread how about joining the debate instead of just trying to insult and analize me.


[edit on 25-8-2004 by Amuk]

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   


There is a question mark hanging over the monotheistic statement made by Gazrok. Although Christianity seems to be the only religion with a trinity (and remember that the Trinity is worshipped as One), Islam also contains elements that could easily be interpreted as being the same. Whereas Christianity contains the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Islam has it's own trinity with Allah, Mohammed and Gabriel. Of course, any similarity is denied by most Christians and Muslims, but the fact remains that the comparison is there to be made.



I don't believe that the trinity overtly exists in Christian scriptures, in fact the world Trinity (Trias in Latin) never occurs in the Bible. Makes on think. Trinitarian belief, well the word Trinity, was coined by one of the Churches earliest and greatest writers of Latin Christianity, Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian . I believe it was the the Second Council of Nicea, which incorporated the Trinitarian beliede into its Creed. Niceno-constantinopolitan creed, or so it is called today.

Deep



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I am well aware of this...but I contend it's a cop-out, and I'm calling a spade a spade...
and I refuse to ever acknowledge Christianity as a "monotheistic" religion, just because it likes to play on words...


Gaz.
It's all about interpretation.

Some would say that the Christian ideal of the Trinity is not monotheistic. But then forget about Jesus the man. Jesus can be looked at in Christianity as god because that is how he is interpreted by Christianity itself and the religion's interpretation is everything - if the religion ceases to interpret, it ceases to become a religion. You then have different sects sprouting up and religion/s evolve/s. And that's just what has happened with Judaism Christianity and Islam - they all contain different sects which reinterpret differently!!!

The same goes for the devil. It doesn't matter if the devil is a demi-god or not by your interpretation (that's not an insult btw
) . If the religions themselves don't acknowledge the devil as a demi-god, then they aren't
open to charges of polytheism.

That's why religion is so bloody hard to argue with!!! Because everything is down to interpretation, you can't really argue with the mainstream. You can only form your own sect!!!!



[edit on 25-8-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   


There is a question mark hanging over the monotheistic statement made by Gazrok. Although Christianity seems to be the only religion with a trinity (and remember that the Trinity is worshipped as One), Islam also contains elements that could easily be interpreted as being the same. Whereas Christianity contains the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Islam has it's own trinity with Allah, Mohammed and Gabriel. Of course, any similarity is denied by most Christians and Muslims, but the fact remains that the comparison is there to be made.


There is no comparison there, because those two concepts are utterly different, the very basic of it couldn't be more different.

Christians see Jesus as the Son of God, call him God and see him as a part of Trinity along with Holy Ghost. God in flesh, as they say.

The utmost blasphemy in Islam is to call a human being God, Mohammad was never a god, son of god, divine or anything similar. NEVER. He is not son of god, not a single verse anywhere refers to him in that way, he was ONLY a messenger. There is no concept of trinity anywhere in Islam, not even close. Muslims believe in ALL prophets that God sent since Adam and they respect them all the same. Actually only Jesus has a higer status as a God's CREATION. He is higher in hierarchy then Mohammad, a simple mortal human.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
What the hell are you talking about? I think I am larger than God?


Sounds like the punch-line to some sort of 'You're so fat...' joke to me.

As far as I am concerned, there in no major difference among the major religions. Each of them believes that they are the chosen ones.

However in all fairness, the sensational tends to grab our attention the most: Jihad, Crusades, etc. It is the fanatics, the head-line grabbers, by which we most often classify a group because they are the ones that we hear of more frequently. There are genuinly good people that believe in Christianity just as there are genuinly good people that believe in Islam, Judisam, etc. If you believe that all of a group are evil or immoral then you would probably be more similar to the fanatics which I mentioned then your proclaimed religion.

I don't have a problem, per say, with any particular belief system as I do with the polotics of organized religion.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   


Not entirely true. My personal intepretation of the New Testament is that Christianity states just that - man must look to himself for Salvation by following the Teachings of Jesus.


I used to believe the same, but later studies led me to question, did the founded of Christianity have any sense of meta-physics? Hebrew did not have such a metaphysical dimension, Moses, certainly did not. When Yahweh declared himself, I AM THAT I AM, he was not hinting himself as a self-subsistent being, but simply, Never you mind who I am, mind your own business. !

And, yes, it is hard to shnub Christianities deep rooted pagan influence. Mythras, to Horrus, to Attiz, to KRSHINA, to Dyonosis, it is hard to believe that the figure of Christos was not influenced by a previous pagan figure.

Deep



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep

I don't believe that the trinity overtly exists in Christian scriptures, in fact the world Trinity (Trias in Latin) never occurs in the Bible. Makes on think. Trinitarian belief, well the word Trinity, was coined by one of the Churches earliest and greatest writers of Latin Christianity, Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian . I believe it was the the Second Council of Nicea, which incorporated the Trinitarian beliede into its Creed. Niceno-constantinopolitan creed, or so it is called today.


Agreed. In fact I don't believe there is a single reference to the Trinity in the Bible at all.
Although the Trinity was incorporated into the religion at Nicea (as "homoousia") it was probably present earlier. It seems to have it's roots in paganism.
Certainly Christianity is not the only surviving major religion with a Trinitarian creed. Nor is it the oldest.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip



There is no comparison there, because those two concepts are utterly different, the very basic of it couldn't be more different.

Christians see Jesus as the Son of God, call him God and see him as a part of Trinity along with Holy Ghost. God in flesh, as they say.

The utmost blasphemy in Islam is to call a human being God, Mohammad was never a god, son of god, divine or anything similar. NEVER. He is not son of god, not a single verse anywhere refers to him in that way, he was ONLY a messenger. There is no concept of trinity anywhere in Islam, not even close. Muslims believe in ALL prophets that God sent since Adam and they respect them all the same. Actually only Jesus has a higer status as a God's CREATION. He is higher in hierarchy then Mohammad, a simple mortal human.



I disagree. There is a trinity in Islam. Please note that I have not capitalized the word and therefore I do make a distinction between Trinity and trinity and do not accuse Muslims of worshipping Mohammed. But a trinity and a distinct similarity remains nonetheless.

Let's get away from the actual concept of Jesus being god for a moment and look at him in his prophet status.

Within the Christian trinity you have God, Jesus (the prophet) and the Holy Spirit.
Within the Islamic trinity you have Allah, Mohammed and Gabriel.

Now if you look at all 3 you will see that they actually all have pretty similar postions within their respective religions.

Without the prophet you would not be aware of the god. Without the work of the Holy Spirit or Gabriel you would not have the prophet. And without the god you would have no Holy Spirit/Gabriel. All three are irreplaceable cogs in the wheel. The god may always be there, but he needs the other two to get his message across in the religion and they need the god to have a message and a means to deliver it.

My argument isn't based on the divinity of Jesus. The Christians may have taken one step further and made their prophet divine (and Hinduism went even further!! But then isn't all mankind divine to some degree?) but the fundamental remains the same. The trinity exists.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
However in all fairness, the sensational tends to grab our attention the most: Jihad, Crusades, etc. It is the fanatics, the head-line grabbers, by which we most often classify a group because they are the ones that we hear of more frequently. There are genuinly good people that believe in Christianity just as there are genuinly good people that believe in Islam, Judisam, etc. If you believe that all of a group are evil or immoral then you would probably be more similar to the fanatics which I mentioned then your proclaimed religion.

I don't have a problem, per say, with any particular belief system as I do with the polotics of organized religion.



I agree with you 100%

On another thread about book burning I mentioned that the group doing the burning were also on the front lines during the civil rights movement and several of the people that I knew personaly were good people, one little old lady brings me apple pie to work. I also am friends with several Jews and Muslims, not to mention Buddists a couple Wiccans and Santorians. I even know a couple Santanists. There is room on this planet for us all, unless of course we let the fanitics kill us all in the name of their God.

This was part of the reason I started this thread was to show those out there saying the other two are evil and intent on world domination etc that they were WAY more alike than different



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   
So far the only real difference to me seems on when each went through its most violent stage. The Jews went through thiers first, the Christians are just coming out of theirs and the Muslims are (my guess) in the begining of the end stage. More of just where they are at on the evolotionary scale then any REAL doctrine issues.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

The Christians havent killed in the name of their God????????



Take "The" out of your question, change the capital G to a small g and it becomes a correct statement.

Christians haven't killed in the name of their god



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly

Originally posted by Amuk

The Christians havent killed in the name of their God????????



Take "The" out of your question, change the capital G to a small g and it becomes a correct statement.

Christians haven't killed in the name of their god


1- What's the difference?
2- Are you saying Christians haven't killed in god's name?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Amuk Leveler, First I must say its nice to debate this with an athiest who isnt foaming at the mouth about the evils of religon.


However I must point out, That I am not a "standard christian" I do not attend church and have not since I attended a predominatly black church in tallahasee. (Why is it that only the African Americans seem to know how to make a "joyful noise"? Are us crackers really so uptight?) I don't believe in prayer for gain (I.E. to save my life, get a good job or to save the liife of someone I love) Becuase the way I see it if god wants it to happen it will (in which case there is no need to pray) and if he doesn't its arrogance (you are asking him to change his plans)
My beliefs were first influenced by the catholic and baptists churces (my mom was baptist my dad was catholic) As I got older I disagreed wth allowing another to interpert the bible for me. Since then my beliefs are based on the new testament only.
However Jesus did say to "honor the laws of Moses" in one of his sermons, and I have yet to decide if that message was meant for those of his time who had been born jewish or if it also extends to those of our time. Thus as I mentioned I view the old testament as a prequel.
Much has been made of the radical shift in Gods personality between the old testament and the new and I too have often wondered why. I think it boils down to the nature of appeasement and expiation, and the differences between the methods before and after Jesus. Prior to the sacrifice of Jesus to wash the sins of man, Those sins could only be washed by blood, either the blood of the sinner or the blood of a sacrificial offering. After the death of Jesus the power of the sacrifice of the Living vessel of God was so powerful that further sacrifice was no longer necessary.
In reference to the Biblical command to kill all the men, women, children, beasts of the felds, burn the crops, and salt the earth, If I am not mistaken That was a single incident in war not a general command. The only way I can understand it is to understand that that was the way war was waged in those days. Did God give that order or did a man claiming to speak for God? I don't know.
In reference to the difference between the Old and New Testament, well Amuk like myself I know you to be a man who loves this country, if anything it would seem that America is your religon, so let me put it this way. Prior to the Declaration of Independnce America was a british colony and ruled under british law, after the revolutionary war it was ruled under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. While the constituion is the law of the land much of it is based on british common law and the Magna Carta, I view the New Testament as the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Old Testament as the Magna Carta. Does that help make my view more understandable?

No I don't believe that Muslims or Jews are gong to hell, I am not sure whether or not they get into heaven, but I dont believe that God has a personal torture chamber where he punishes PEOPLE for all eternity. I believe Hell is being removed from gods love, in other words you just stop when you die. I believe that belief in Hell was manufactured by the Catholc church (as a way to control the populace) based on the "Lake of Fire" reference, which I always though only applied to the devil and his followers among the fallen angels not men.
While Jesus never came out and said "I am god" in those exact words, based on my readings of the various versions of the bible he did make it clear he was.
In terms of salvation I think leveler was so close to the point tht he managed to miss it. In Christianity the only path to salvation is to believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died to forgive your sins. Without that no amount of good deeds, charitable works, or righteousness will gain you entrance. Even if you die a martyr (to God not Jesus) but do not believe in Jesus you will still be denied entrance.
The trinity is I believe a Catholic belief primarily and one which I think was an attempt to explain how God could be God and Jesus at the same time, I have a simpler one, He is God and He can do anything.
In terms of Jesus being a revolutionary he was but not in the traditonal sense. He was there to "shake up" the social structure as it were (more of a Mahatma Gahndi than a Che Gueverra), To make people understand that what happens in this world is no more than an entrance exam to the next world. Thus also the "not to bring peace but the sword" comment. I think he was telling his followers that they would suffer in this world for thier beliefs, but that it didn't matter because this world doesn't matter. As for being executed, think about the positions the romans were in, they were occuping a city of foreign peoples with foreign religon (keep in mind that since the time of Ceaser the emperor was a god) and here comes a guy saying that "no men are righteous" "the pharisees are corrupt" (they were by most historical descriptions the primary way the romans kept the local population under thumb) "This world doesnt matter" and the like. All were revolutionary ideas which stiired up huge conflct between the Romans and the Jews, the Jews and the Jews, and everyone else. In an already tense situation this type of preaching would in modern days be considered "incitement to riot" or intentional sowing of disorder. Is it any wonder that both the secular authorities (the Romans) and the religous authorities (the Pharisees, not the general jewish population) both viewed him as a threat?

Finally Amuk the big question, do I believe the OT is the word of God? Well I believe its the word of God as dictated to imperfect assistants. Just as my PA often makes errors in dictating my business correspondence, (and keep in mnd we speak the same language and have equal mental capacities as opposed to the difference between God and Man) I believe the prophets of the OT made errors in thier transcription, Jesus because he was God made no such errors in his message. This would I think also explain the more loving and forgving nature of God in the NT.

Anyway I hope I have been clear and have awnsered your questions. Its been good to talk about this without too many people damning anyone to hell or saying that those with Religous beliefs are mentally inferior.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:46 AM
link   


Now if you look at all 3 you will see that they actually all have pretty similar postions within their respective religions.


Leveler,, I have to disagree with you again. They do not have similar positions, they have very different positions.
Jesus, son of God, the only way to salvation.
Mohamad, only human, and most deffinitely not the only way to salvation. He is not worshiped, he was just a messenger. He is equal to Moses, Abraham, David etc,etc all the other prophets who were just humans but chosen by god to be the messegers of his word.
You can't just pick three things from one religion and call it a trinity then. Apart from semantics and purely philosophical discussion, when you say trinity to people, they see the concept of trinity in Christianity. Now if you say that such concept exists in Islam, people might get completely wrong picture about it. They will think "oh trinity? so mohamad is part of god, and only way to salvation, oh how ignorant". That is how reality is, the facts.
What you are doing are only philosophical arguments and semantics.

The FACT remains, trinity is the official doctrine of Christianity and it absolutely doesn't exist in Islam.





I believe the prophets of the OT made errors in thier transcription, Jesus because he was God made no such errors in his message.


mwm1331, Jesus didn't write the NT, men did AFTER he died. So, errors are there. We don't have the original gospel of Jesus, if such thing even exists. What we have are thoughts of men about Jesus, what they heard from others about him, how they perceived him, not the actual word of Jesus.




Much has been made of the radical shift in Gods personality between the old testament and the new and I too have often wondered why


I think it was Gazrok who said in another thread: God mellowed down a bit since he had a kid, just like we all do


Now a question: does it explicitly state in the bible that Jesus died for our sins or is that one of Nicean doctrines or interpretations?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
The FACT remains, trinity is the official doctrine of Christianity and it absolutely doesn't exist in Islam.


It may be official but it isn't right. The "trinity" is RC dogma that later christian sects latched onto. No where in scripture can you prove the trinity.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by PublicGadfly

Originally posted by Amuk

The Christians havent killed in the name of their God????????



Take "The" out of your question, change the capital G to a small g and it becomes a correct statement.

Christians haven't killed in the name of their god


1- What's the difference?
2- Are you saying Christians haven't killed in god's name?


Chistians have NEVER killed in the name of their god.

MANY claiming to be have.


Originally posted by mvm1331
(Why is it that only the African Americans seem to know how to make a "joyful noise"? Are us crackers really so uptight?)


I can tell you haven't been to a Pentacostal church.

[edit on 26/8/2004 by PublicGadfly]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:08 AM
link   


If your faith can ber destroyed by a question it is not very strong.

Recognizing an attempt to destroy faith in itself, does not offer the possibility of success.

How am I disrespectful for doubting Gods existance?

Ask your imaginary friend to explain it to you.

Are disrespectful for not believing in Allah?

??? I owe no respect to the Moon god or the False Prophet, Pedophile, Thief, Murderer Mohammed.

And how the hell do you know my mind and what I am after? Has sitting in Gods lap gave you ESP? Or does God, AKA the voices in your head, tell you these things?

A Lack of denial accompanied by the guessing how I know, speaks in itself.

If you are going to post in this thread how about joining the debate instead of just trying to insult and analize me.

Which alledged Insult? The one where I say you will bring nothing new to the arguement? Or the One where I claim you will never understand until you undersatnd what faith is?

[edit on 26-8-2004 by looking4clues]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:09 AM
link   
ur rite, christians havnt killied in tha name of g-d, the have killed in the name of christianity, the crusades, "well, if someone has already died for our sins, the we might as well make some wins (kill non-believers) and then ask for forgiveness, which we will get because we killed the non-believers



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
Leveler,, I have to disagree with you again. They do not have similar positions, they have very different positions.
Jesus, son of God, the only way to salvation.


You're looking at things through modern eyes. As I stated before, forget Jesus' position within Christianity as a god figure. Go back to pre 4th Century and you will find that his position is much the same as Mohammed's. You will then find that he fits into place much the same as Mohammed does within a trinity. The similarity is distinct.



I believe the prophets of the OT made errors in thier transcription, Jesus because he was God made no such errors in his message.


There are many errors in the Bible. The NT is no different in the amount of questionable material that it contains.




Much has been made of the radical shift in Gods personality between the old testament and the new and I too have often wondered why


We've questioned this elsewhere. God's personality didn't change - the god himself did!!! His personality actually changes throughout the whole OT too. The Old Testament shows an evolution of a god/s. We start out with the Canaanite High god El and end up with the Jewish tribal god Yaweh.
Jesus then took the tribal Jewish god, adapted it and made it universal.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join