4 ms·

Right but that isn't really up for reasonable debate. The quran says that Jesus never died on the cross, isn't God and isn't the son of God either. https://qur

Right but that isn't really up for reasonable debate. The quran says that Jesus never died on the cross, isn't God and isn't the son of God either. https://quran.com/23/91 https://quran.com/23/91 Now contrast that with John 3:16, perhaps the most well known single verse that summarizes the central and only gospel of the bible. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203%3A16&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203%3A16&v... To say that these two are compatible is willful ignorance.

vmception 6y ago
I'll chime in on this, it won't be possible to keep the same level of decorum as before to drive these points but here it goes: Abrahamic religions have the same source material. They all branch off based on the consensus of who the self-proclaimed prophet is, or the consensus on a lack of prophet. Christians branch off by following Jesus Christ. Nobody else follows that, to many people the whole story jumped the shark when one guy (Saul/Paul) decides to reform his life and go on a Eurotrip to talk about Christ and comes back with a story that has incorporated regional religions along the way. Now there are ghosts, and devotion due to fear has been replaced with devotion due to love. A lot of people just disregard that part because the "New Testament" is inseparable from that guy being the major contributor. The world has basically been splintered in three for the next two millenium because its a different story. 700 years into that, after two major councils that try to reconcile this, people are still like "yeah we're all in line with season 1 but season 2 eehhhhh we can agree the guy was inspirational but" and mostly ignoring it. New sects of Abrahamic religions continue to pop up and continue from older events and books because of the wide consensus that one branch was practically procedurally generated. So the book of John is in the "New Testament", and if we are acknowledging the similarities of Abrahamic religions it means ignoring the New Testament just for the sake of comparison. When looking at the base material, which Christians also rely upon for inspiration or as rules on how to live life, they are very compatible. The primary distinction of all of the Abrahamic religions is the divinity of the prophets or lack thereof, and thats where the incompatibilities are. It isn't useful to make an example about who says Jesus is divine, when thats the primary distinction by definition. After you get past the prophets, there are more similarities than differences.
- acqq 6y ago
  Book by Aaron W. Hughes about the use of the term "Abrahamic religions" Oxford University Press, 2012: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/abrahamic-religions-9780199934645 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/abrahamic-religions-... From the description: "Directly proportionate to the rise of religious exclusivism, perhaps best epitomized by the attacks of 9/11 and the problems now plaguing the Middle East and Afghanistan, there has been a real desire both to find and map a set of commonalities between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is often done, however, for the sake of interfaith dialogue, rather than scholarship." "Like our understanding of Abraham, the category "Abrahamic religions" is vague and nebulous. Usually lost in contemporary discussions is a set of crucial questions: Whence does the term "Abrahamic religions" derive? Who created it and for what purposes? What sort of intellectual work is it perceived to perform? In order to answer these and related questions, Aaron Hughes examines the creation and dissemination of this category in Abrahamic Religions." Quotes from the book: "There is no historical precedent for reading the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim myths that deal with the figure of Abraham or Ibrahim together in the ways that many want to align them today." "Those interested in reclaiming this Abraham for interfaith dialogue are not motivated by historical study, even though they may try to make certain appeals to it. Rather they imagine variously constructed romanticized and pristine periods of interfaith interaction. They subsequently create a set of words and categories based on their own contemporary concerns and desires, and then read these into various historical and textual sources."
  - quietbritishjim 6y ago
    Any term can get vague at the borders. For example, you can imagine vehicles for which it's ambiguous whether the term "car" applies or not, but that doesn't mean the word "car" is useless. Similarly, clearly Christinity and Islam include some fairly direct reference to the same story of Abraham in a way that Norse mythology or ancient Greek mythology didn't. The term is useful despite not having a mathematically rigorous definition.
    - JNRowe 6y ago
      Perhaps it was the example you were thinking of, but Christopher Danielson really brings home the extreme ambiguity of terms using vehicles and children. I keep coming back to that every time I'm trying to have one of these conversations with people, especially when the question is deeper than whether a salad is a vehicle(as if that were possible). https://talkingmathwithkids.com/blog/vehicle-chat-invitation/ https://talkingmathwithkids.com/blog/vehicle-chat-invitation... or discussed in audio form https://aperiodical.com/2020/08/mathematical-objects-a-vehicle-with-christopher-danielson/ https://aperiodical.com/2020/08/mathematical-objects-a-vehic...
pessimizer 6y ago
John is a weird book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Synoptic_gospels_and_Pauline_literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Synoptic_gospel... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_wo...
g8oz 6y ago
I don't believe the OP were saying they were compatible. He's saying they worship the same God. Beliefs about God's nature are clearly different of course.
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  Thank you. I thought it was obvious enough to not need belaboring and was quite distinct from the point we were actually discussing.

vmception 6y ago

I'll chime in on this, it won't be possible to keep the same level of decorum as before to drive these points but here it goes: Abrahamic religions have the same source material. They all branch off based on the consensus of who the self-proclaimed prophet is, or the consensus on a lack of prophet. Christians branch off by following Jesus Christ. Nobody else follows that, to many people the whole story jumped the shark when one guy (Saul/Paul) decides to reform his life and go on a Eurotrip to talk about Christ and comes back with a story that has incorporated regional religions along the way. Now there are ghosts, and devotion due to fear has been replaced with devotion due to love. A lot of people just disregard that part because the "New Testament" is inseparable from that guy being the major contributor. The world has basically been splintered in three for the next two millenium because its a different story. 700 years into that, after two major councils that try to reconcile this, people are still like "yeah we're all in line with season 1 but season 2 eehhhhh we can agree the guy was inspirational but" and mostly ignoring it. New sects of Abrahamic religions continue to pop up and continue from older events and books because of the wide consensus that one branch was practically procedurally generated. So the book of John is in the "New Testament", and if we are acknowledging the similarities of Abrahamic religions it means ignoring the New Testament just for the sake of comparison. When looking at the base material, which Christians also rely upon for inspiration or as rules on how to live life, they are very compatible. The primary distinction of all of the Abrahamic religions is the divinity of the prophets or lack thereof, and thats where the incompatibilities are. It isn't useful to make an example about who says Jesus is divine, when thats the primary distinction by definition. After you get past the prophets, there are more similarities than differences.

acqq 6y ago
Book by Aaron W. Hughes about the use of the term "Abrahamic religions" Oxford University Press, 2012: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/abrahamic-religions-9780199934645 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/abrahamic-religions-... From the description: "Directly proportionate to the rise of religious exclusivism, perhaps best epitomized by the attacks of 9/11 and the problems now plaguing the Middle East and Afghanistan, there has been a real desire both to find and map a set of commonalities between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is often done, however, for the sake of interfaith dialogue, rather than scholarship." "Like our understanding of Abraham, the category "Abrahamic religions" is vague and nebulous. Usually lost in contemporary discussions is a set of crucial questions: Whence does the term "Abrahamic religions" derive? Who created it and for what purposes? What sort of intellectual work is it perceived to perform? In order to answer these and related questions, Aaron Hughes examines the creation and dissemination of this category in Abrahamic Religions." Quotes from the book: "There is no historical precedent for reading the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim myths that deal with the figure of Abraham or Ibrahim together in the ways that many want to align them today." "Those interested in reclaiming this Abraham for interfaith dialogue are not motivated by historical study, even though they may try to make certain appeals to it. Rather they imagine variously constructed romanticized and pristine periods of interfaith interaction. They subsequently create a set of words and categories based on their own contemporary concerns and desires, and then read these into various historical and textual sources."
- quietbritishjim 6y ago
  Any term can get vague at the borders. For example, you can imagine vehicles for which it's ambiguous whether the term "car" applies or not, but that doesn't mean the word "car" is useless. Similarly, clearly Christinity and Islam include some fairly direct reference to the same story of Abraham in a way that Norse mythology or ancient Greek mythology didn't. The term is useful despite not having a mathematically rigorous definition.
  - JNRowe 6y ago
    Perhaps it was the example you were thinking of, but Christopher Danielson really brings home the extreme ambiguity of terms using vehicles and children. I keep coming back to that every time I'm trying to have one of these conversations with people, especially when the question is deeper than whether a salad is a vehicle(as if that were possible). https://talkingmathwithkids.com/blog/vehicle-chat-invitation/ https://talkingmathwithkids.com/blog/vehicle-chat-invitation... or discussed in audio form https://aperiodical.com/2020/08/mathematical-objects-a-vehicle-with-christopher-danielson/ https://aperiodical.com/2020/08/mathematical-objects-a-vehic...

pessimizer 6y ago

John is a weird book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Synoptic_gospels_and_Pauline_literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Synoptic_gospel... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_wo...

g8oz 6y ago

I don't believe the OP were saying they were compatible. He's saying they worship the same God. Beliefs about God's nature are clearly different of course.

ComputerGuru 6y ago
Thank you. I thought it was obvious enough to not need belaboring and was quite distinct from the point we were actually discussing.