Aren't Islam, Judaism & Christianity pretty much the same thing?

[Philosoraptor]

Don't they all worship the same diety? Don't they all go back thousands of years? Isn't history rife with conflicts between the three?

I'm an atheist who supports America's freedom of religion, but I'm not fond of ANY religion, particularly the ones who become violent and hateful and oppresive.

[Mimosa]

1. NO, not at all.

I've little doubt this will turn into a bitter flamefest in which all 3 of the religions are bashed.

In fact, within each of the 3 religions you've mentioned there are various sects which adhere to conflicting interpretations of doctrines.

[SpiralHawk]

12. "Smirk." - Gee Hovahh

"All part of my sneaky little wrathful plan to keep you Earthlings diverted from Paradise, so that I and the other Elohim (My Gang of Co-conspirator Buds in the One God dogma grandfaloon), can have the joint to ourselves. Smirk."

Wrathfully yours, Gee Hovahh

[eShirl]

2. Less so than Catholic and Protestant being the same thing.

[aquart]

3. You need to dig up Jonathan Swift's essay on egg breaking.

"Pretty much the same thing" is pretty much a delusional comfort.

Isn't one soccer team pretty much the same as any other soccer team? So why root for one over the other? Religion has little to do with deity and all to do with identity.

[Nihil]

19. Excellent points there Aquart ...

> Isn't one soccer team pretty much the same as any other soccer team?
> So why root for one over the other?

To take your analogy a little further: While most soccer fans are there
to "support their team", some people just like to see good football from
whichever side is delivering it at that time. In addition, although the
guys in the local pub team (or similar amateur sides) have a good time
playing, they are never going to get rich from it nor will they be glorified
as some kind of celebrity as a result ... no, they are doing it purely to
play the game itself, for their own enjoyment.


> Religion has little to do with deity and all to do with identity.

:applause:

[Igel]

24. To a large extent, that's true.

But many push it a bit farther.

Not only are all soccer teams pretty much the same, but they *are* the same.

"Judaism, Xianity, and Islam worship the same deity" is roughly equivalent to "Manchester United" and "Liverpool Football Club" and the Brazilian national team are the same team with the same players, sometimes the players wear Manchester colors, sometimes Liverpool colors, sometimes Brazilian players. By definition they cannot be rivals nor compete--apparent exceptions are delusions on the part of people who aren't really supporters of the teams.

Yes, it's ludicrous. Intentionally so.

[elleng]

4. I'm agnostic, but to suggest that these religions, or ANY, are 'pretty much' same

shows real lack of historical knowledge.

These 3 claim to worship same diety, but they do so in very different ways, and they came about in very different ways, thru different 'prophets.' And yes, history is full of the conflicts you suggest. I'm not 'fond' of any organized religion, or even any disorganized religion. I'll take nature, please.

[Igel]

26. The claim is sketchy.

Islam was considered a heresy by the Byzantine church. Then Islam grew and they were deemed to simply have a false god. So much for ecumenism.

Islam considers Judaism to have lost much of their original revelation. They worshiped the same god at one time. Their current description of god is pretty much wrong, the uppity SOBs.

Christianity was usually considered by Muslims of yore to have intentionally corrupted its revelation. Jesus isn't god. He's a prophet, rather lesser than Jesus. Christianity's god gave nothing at odds with Islam, he just gave Xians an inferior revelation--better than the one given to the Jews, of course. The very idea of "God the Father" is utter blasphemy. The idea of somebody dying for our sins is utterly insane.

Let's recast it. "Yes, I like Obama. What, you say that Barack Obama's actually a 5' 4" red-headed gymnist. A woman gymnist? Well, you're wrong. But we can still agree that my 6'-something black ex-law faculty president and your 5' 4" red-headed gymnist are really the same person, you've just forgotten." No, it doesn't make sense, as long as you put it that way.

What Islam's done is very clever. They assert continuity, and thereby claim pedigree and legacy: They're not a new religion, they're the *original* form of Judaism and Xianity (well, original, but better)--after all, Moses and Jesus were actually Muslims (just not as good as Mohammed). Then they turn around and say that they'll reveal the god that people have actually been worshiping, clearing up their confusion. That way there's no severe loss of honor when you convert: You haven't been worshiping the wrong god, you've just gotten it a bit wrong. It's like going from Lutheranism to Episcopalism.

A lot of this wrong-headedness made its way into Western though thanks to the Orientalists. More that a couple actually converted; while bible critics were saying how false the bible was, Orientalists usually took the Koran at face value. Xian historians would hedge their wording; Islam-specialists wouldn't.

Then it was taken up widely by the ecumenical movement, people who wanted to get along largely for the sake of getting along.

My Xianity was usually so far outside mainstream Xian thought that I think this is all fairly obvious. Those embedded in MSX thought don't. Then again, I think most Xians aren't quite clear on what they're worshipping--most can't give a coherent answer on where the OT Yahweh is in the NT or why they believe he suddenly went all nice.

[JI7]

5. they are related like Buddhism and Hinduism but they aren't the same

[baldguy]

6. People of the Book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book

[midnight]

7. I don't think those three religions could worship the same God?

[ironbark]

34. Why not? nt

[laconicsax]

41. I doubt you'll get an answer...

Or at least one that does not rely on prejudices elevating one above the other.

[CJCRANE]

8. The fundamentalists of all three

have pretty much the same moral code which is based on the same sources.

[H2O Man]

9. Three branches

of one tree.

[Chulanowa]

10. From an outside view, they're pretty much identical

Mix-and-match a prophet or two and you can't tell the difference.

Of course I know that there are some people who are certain that Baptists and Methodists are different enough to be species unto themselves. This makes no damn sense, but I guess everyone wants to feel special.

Mormonism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the same religion. And they're all a truncated version of the old Khemetic religion with a dash of Canaanite polytheism thrown in.

[GliderGuider]

11. They are as different as their followers think they are...

A man was walking along San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge when he saw a woman about to jump off. He ran up to her, trying to dissuade her from committing suicide. He told her simply that God loved her. A tear came to her eye.

He then asked her, “Are you a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, or what?”
“I’m a Christian,” she replied.
He said, “Me, too! Small world! Protestant or Catholic?”
“Protestant.”
“Me, too! What denomination?”
“Baptist.”
“Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
“Northern Baptist.”
He remarked, “Well, ME TOO! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
She answered, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
He said, “Well, that’s amazing! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reformed Baptist?”
“Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist.”
“Remarkable! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?”
She told him, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
“A miracle!” he cried. “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
She said, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
He then shouted, “DIE, HERETIC!”, and pushed her over the rail.

[Hannah Bell]

13. yes. they're all the same religion with slight differences.

like protestants v catholics, catholics v. episcopalians, lutherans v. methodists.


underlying all the schisms = workaday politics & economics.

hard to believe people still take it seriously.

[CJCRANE]

14. And the ironic thing is

that a fundamentalist christian has more in common with a fundamentalist muslim than with a liberal christian.

(And also, of course, liberal christians/muslims/jews have more in common with each other than with their fellow conservative co-religionists).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. No, very much not.

At their roots Islam was the code created by a warlord to help run his empire, Christianity was a death/afterlife-cult created by a mystic, and Judaism was the folk beliefs of one specific tribe.

They have a lot in common, due to heavy mutual influence, but also a lot different - two are centred around active proselytisation with a goal of universal conversion and have been heavily shaped by having grown as majority religions, one discourages converts and has been heavily shaped by having grown as a minority religion; two preach the separation of religious and politica authority and one their union; the religious leaders of two are simply people who are authorities on religion while the third has (in most interpretations) divinely-mandated priests.

Also, the proportions of Christians and Jews whose beliefs have been influenced and watered down by the Enlightenment (although in many cases they'd deny this) is much, much higher than the corresponding proportion of Muslims.

[Hannah Bell]

16. oooh, islam is eeeeevil. like judaism & christianity weren't created by power-mongers as well.

jesus didn't create christianity: his followers did. many of them long after the fact.

the biggest force was a monarch, to help run his empire.

[GliderGuider]

22. Islam claims superiority over the other two due to its more recent development

AFAIK, Islam arose from Christianity which in turn arose from Judaism. The monotheistic god they worship is apparently the same one, but the colour of the beard is different in each religion.

The organizations, which is what we usually think of when someone says "religion", are of course nothing but normative social control constructs. The mystic cores of the religions (Jewish Kabbalah, Christian mysticism/Gnosticism and Islamic Sufism, along with Vedanta in Hinduism) seem to have more than just social control going on in them, though.

[ironbark]

33. Such a notion of “superiority” would make sense

in a business or military context…ie the most recent instruction from the Boss or command from the Supreme Commander ought hold sway and be “superior” to all prior commands/instructions.

In an educational/ethical context the University is not “superior” because it is the most recent or most advanced education…the lessons learned in kindergarten remain just as important if not more so.

Religious teachings/rules may be seen as broadly dividing into two realms- Social Laws that change and differ from one period to the next and Spiritual Laws that remain unchanged (ie.The Golden Rule).

"The mystic cores of the religions (Jewish Kabbalah, Christian mysticism/Gnosticism and Islamic Sufism, along with Vedanta in Hinduism) seem to have more than just social control going on in them..."

Couldn't agree more.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Well, no, they weren't.

Christianity was certainly heavily shaped by power-mongers (the influence of Constantine is hotly debated; I don't know enough to commit myself to how great it was and I'm willing to bet you don't either; but the influence of the catholic popes and the like was clearly immense) but created by people who didn't really give a damn about temporal power, or indeed temporal anything else much, because they thought the world was going to end in a few years. Judaism wasn't shaped at all; it grew up without a single guiding or ruling intellect.

If by Islam you mean "the religious beliefs of modern Muslims" then I think it's not an exageration to describe many versions as evil, but some are clearly not; if you mean "the teachings of Mohammed as expressed in the Koran" then yes, I think it's reasonable to describe much of those as evil (if I cared enough, I'd go through and list chapter and verse, but I'll limit myself to 4:34 as a well-known one). Oppression of women, oppression of gays, corporal and capital punishment, denial of religious freedom and so on are bad things even when done by people who aren't rich white Christians.

Which is not, of course, to say that there isn't an immense amount wrong with Christianity and Judaism too (although not as much).

[darkstar3]

29. Not as much?

I think it's a question of Christianity and Judaism being more mature and tempered by the societies that have grown in this world. Islam, as a younger religion, is going through the same growing pains.

Islam now in the middle-east is not significantly different than Catholicism in Europe's Dark Ages. They serve the same purposes, suffer from the same failings, and use many of the same tactics of fear, violence, and oppression to maintain control.

If throwbacks like Robertson had their way, the current incarnation of Christianity would be much closer to the Dark Ages than to what it is now.

The teachings of Muhammed are no more or less evil than many of the things found in the Bible. The clear evils you mention of oppression and violence are found in both books in spades.

[LAGC]

32. Well said.

I think many people fail to realize that Islam is 500 years newer than Christianity, therefore its no surprise that its "development" and "evolution" is still lagging 500 years behind Christian cultures. I can only hope that Islam has its Renaissance and Enlightenment, and soon. I'm tired of hearing about mere adulterers being stoned to death by ignorant masses.

[ironbark]

44. Have you paused to consider…

To what degree Islam was the catalyst and foundation for our (Western) ‘evolution’ ‘Renaissance and Enlightenment’?

When the Crusaders returned they brought Medical, Mechanical, Astronomical, Mathematical wealth untold.
Inheritance rights for women? From Islam. Melodic music? From Islam. Table manners and set courses? From Islam.
When the Merchants of Venice turned their trade and attention from incessantly warring Italian Provinces to the Middle East they imported far more than spice. They brought the wealth and the intellectual impetus that >was< our Renaissance.
Universities? First established to translate the vast intellectual wealth from Libraries taken in the Spanish Reconquista. Almost everything we know of the ancient Greeks from Philosophy to Democracy (the core of our Western heritage) preserved for us by the Moors and Arab scholars.
Hundreds of years to translate it all and we are still in the process of assimilating it.

“I'm tired of hearing about mere adulterers being stoned to death by ignorant masses.”

Yea, me too. When it is reflective of the sole and exclusive focus it is as balanced, productive and insightful as viewing Americans as the most imprisoned people on earth….and considering nothing else.

[dimbear]

31. Hmmm. There is a more modern point of view......

promoted by Professor Israel Finkelstein et al which gravely disagrees with you on the forces that shaped Judaism.

"Judaism wasn't shaped at all; it grew up without a single guiding or ruling intellect."

One of the more interesting contentions in current theology, it can be followed at the good professor's site, where he posts some of his more accessible works.

If you agree with his research, you will see the Hebrew scriptures (what Christians call the OT)largely as a coordinated whole written for political purposes. IMHO, his case is compelling.

[DeSwiss]

36. +1

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. lulz.

Mohammed was a "warlord" because his tiny little Mecca and Medina were caught up in massive wars between the Christians and the Jews. Also the Zoroastrians.

Judaism was a religion from a little tribe in Israel with its own patron God in a pantheon of Gods, which massacred all the other tribes and set up their God as the one true God.

And Christianity was just a little cult of Judaism before it was adopted by the Roman Empire and used to conquer vast tracts of land and people.

[Smarmie Doofus]

17. Well, yes.

The irony is that their very commonality fuels the antipathy among them.

At some point psychology kicks in. One has to find something of significance with which to distinguish one's own group from the "OTHER".

That's when the venom ( and the blood) starts flowing.

[KharmaTrain]

18. They're Only That Way When You're Not Affiliated With Any Of Them...

Every faith claims some kind if filial piety...a superiority over all others. By nature religions are exclusionary and those who don't belong are viewed as not as holy or civilized as they are. While you hear some calling to "co-exist", it's incidents like these that show the raw arrogance that is prevelent in this country among cultures that they consider "alien" or inferior to theirs.

[Jim__]

20. "... but I'm not fond of ANY religion, particularly the ones who become violent and hateful and ...

... oppresive."

Unfortunately, it's humanity that is violent, hateful and oppressive - tribal really. And, our tribal instincts and tribal violence are very similar to group traits exhibited in chimpanzees. In other words, these traits are probably deeply embedded in our evolutionary history.

If you really want to think about something, combine our apparently natural propensity for tribal violence and our current weaponry. What do you think the future holds for us?

[Angry Dragon]

21. The end of the species or the world

take your pick

[Jim__]

28. Either of those are possible, but they don't exhaust the alternatives.

I believe we are evolutionarily programmed to fight, and that when we are in a fight, we will do anything to win, including the suicidal - using nuclear weapons against a nuclear opponent. But, we are not always at war, and when we are at peace, we do seem to be able to act rationally.

I do believe that during peace time, we can negotiate away weapons that threaten everyone's survival.

[GliderGuider]

23. I find it interesting that such xenophobic tribal violence coexists

alongside such deep wells of empathy, compassion and cooperation. Humans aren't simple creatures, easily reduced to s single set of traits. Which set of traits will win? We each get a chance to decide that in our own lives.

[GeorgeGist]

30. To the extent that they all have their roots ...

in the non sequitur of Genesis, I would agree.

[ironbark]

35. The Baha’i claim is that all the worlds major living faiths are ‘One Faith’.

Which would render ‘The People of The Book’ lineage (Islam, Judaism & Christianity) as- Hinduism:2000 BCE , Judaism : Moses 1500-1350 BCE, Zoroastrianism:
Zoroaster 628-527 BCE, Buddhism: Buddha 563-483 BCE, Christianity: Jesus 1-33 CE, Islam: Muhammad 570-632 CE, Baha'i: Baha'u'llah 1817-1892 CE.

“The Bahá'í Faith states that religion has the same foundation, and that there is unity of religion. It is one of the core teachings of the Bahá'í Faith, alongside the unity of God, and the unity of humanity.
The Bahá'í teachings state that there is but one religion which is progressively revealed by God, through prophets/messengers, to mankind as humanity matures and its capacity to understand also grows. The outward differences in the religions, the Bahá'í writings state, are due to the exigencies of the time and place the religion was revealed.”
Wiki.

[GliderGuider]

37. Of all the "organized" theistic religions I've always liked Baha'i the most.

Very liberal, very inclusive, woman-friendly etc. They kind of remind me of Middle Eastern Unitarians.

[dimbear]

38. That gentle approach explains

why Baha'i is so extensively persecuted. Well, to be honest, that and the idea that it is a revision of Islam and hence they see it as a heresy.

[ironbark]

43. “That gentle approach”

I agree with both previous post.
From my experience of the Baha’is, if I had any criticism, it would be in relation to “That gentle approach” taken to the extreme.
Their theology is one in which “Justice is the best beloved of all things” Baha’u’llah.
And yet their refusal to engage in partisan/Party politics debars them from joining organizations such as Amnesty International.
On a micro/community level they also have a profound tendency to believe that the spiritual/gentle approach (read- ignore conflict and it will go away ;-) resolves serious allegations/issues.

Other than that they are indeed gentle and broadminded, compassionate and reasonable… and put up a dam good ‘Pot Luck’ meal ;-)

Being the most recent of the worlds major faiths they are the easiest (and in my opinion most interesting) to study.

I find it most curious that the Baha’i faith sprang up in exactly the same year, 1844, (down to the day) that William Miller (Millerites/Adventists) came to call ‘The Year of the Great Disappointment’- (Expecting the Second Coming that the Baha’i founder claimed to be)

[GliderGuider]

46. I wasn't aware of the 1844 coincidence.

It's interesting but not surprising that Miller was so focused on Christianity that he couldn't conceive of the Second Coming happening in another culture.

[ironbark]

48. Yea, then he (Baha’i founder) gets exiled to Acca/Haifa

and the Baha’i temples are built on Mt Carmel.

At the base of the mountain is the German Templar colony… In the 1860s, these German immigrants came to the foot of Mt. Carmel, where they expected the Return of Christ to take place.

Coincidence? Anomaly? Setup? Scam?

The “coincidences” stack up continually, building a body of evidence worth investigating, but not any singular objective proof.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andropolis/1606631886/




The Templar colony is the houses with red roofs.

“…Miller was so focused on Christianity that he couldn't conceive of the Second Coming happening in another culture.”

Yup, Not from “another culture” and not from any culture, the Second Coming could only be conceived by Miller and Co as a literal event…i.e. the clouds will part and the messiah physically descend from the sky.
Millers mathematics and calculations were however impeccable…which leaves a problem for Christians and Christian theology…by any calculation the time for the return is well and truly up.

[Evoman]

39. From what I understand, all religions are like blind men jacking off an elephant.

Like the blind christian grabs the elephant balls and says, this is a tree and it grows a sac like fruit with two big seeds inside.

And the blind muslim rubs the elephants penis and says, no guys, this tree is vine-like and has no fruit.

And the blind Jew just stand there, and tells the other to quit playing with the tree, cuz it's raining some kind of sticky salty water.

Or something like that...I always forget how that blind thing goes.

Anyways, all of the religions are very different, but they are also very similar in that they are a big load of bullshit.

[ironbark]

45. Does that mean atheism is akin to having your head sticking out the elephants bum

and shouting- “Don’t be stupid you lot…there’s no such thing as elephants”?

[Evoman]

47. No, no.

How do you "stick out" your head from an elephants bum? The colon is way to small to support a full grown human being. Unless the person has some sort of developmental disorder or is a baby or something.


You know, ironbark, it's just not cool to make fun of handicapped people. Bad form.

[ironbark]

49. I never make fun of the handicapped Evomam

And I never get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

;-)

[Evoman]

50. You should. You might finally win an argument.

[laconicsax]

52. Oh, SNAP!

[laconicsax]

40. ALL theistic religions are pretty much the same thing.

Insofar as they all depend on a suspension of the critical mind.

The three you name share a deity in tradition though, which I suppose makes them more similar to each other than to other religions. At the annual picnic, they all sit at the wrathful desert god table.

[iris27]

42. Not in terms of their impact on the rest of us.

Christians allow their text to be translated into the language of the people, and possibly related to this, most of them allow themselves to "interpret" their Holy Book in such a way as to ignore the parts that cause them discomfort. This means Christian morality is much more flexible in keeping up with societal morality than Islam, with its insistence on an Arabic-only, all-literal Quran.

Many Christians in the first part of the 20th century honestly believed that the Bible said it was wrong to "mix the races". Now almost no Christians would say this, and most of them would find the earlier view morally repugnant. Fast forward 50 years from now, and it's highly likely that gay marriage will be viewed the same way. We can see this process in action now as more and more churches become gay-friendly.

Basically, most Christians interpret their Christianity to suit their lives, while most Muslims, even though they may not be living according to the dictates of the Quran, feel/know that they are not living in accordance with their faith, and are more susceptible to hard-line messages. Muslims aren't arguing amongst themselves about whether or not it is true that, “Whenever a man is alone with a woman, Satan is the third among them.”

As for Jews, their lack of proselytizing zeal has kept them from being as oppressive and hateful for the most part, though they clearly have made life hell for those who claim a right to the place they believe God gave them.

[bik0]

51. To understand - compare the religious books... The Quran is VERY different...

The Bible is a collection of books of parables, advice and dreams by many authors over a vast period of time, sometimes hundreds of years apart. The Bible is full of symbolism, vague analogies and open to interpretation. The Torah is the old testament of the Bible.

The Quran is the world view of one man written in his one lifetime and is meant to be taken literally. The Quran is very specific and consists of mostly direct commands. There are many contradictions in the Quran like the Bible, however the Quran instructs that when two passages contradict each other, the one written later supersedes the one written earlier. Most of the peaceful, tolerant passages were written early in Mohammad's lifetime but those passages were abrogated by later, more violent, less tolerate passages. There is no picking and choosing, The Quran says very explicitly and in no uncertain terms that a Muslim must not ignore or alter any part of it's very clear and direct message or they will burn in an eternal fiery torment.

Another difference is that the Quran commands that the implementation of Sharia law is a religious duty. Islam is more political than most people realize. Islam regards nationalism equal to paganism as an affront to Allah. Islam is more of a religious ideology than a religion.