Timkins,

The only thing that Yahweh and Allah have in common is that they are both referred to as "God". Apart from this they have absolutely nothing in common.

AK

Asian,
I think that even the experts cannot fully piece together the exact history of Christianity or of Islam. (eg the first records of Mohammad appeared about 100 yrs after his death, and of course the Bible was written over time also).

However Mohammad and Jesus were both prophets of God, which is the original starting point, although a lot has happened since.

Tim .. fair enuf on what u say about the common belief in Angels etc..
but when it comes to the core documents of both faiths, the gospels and epistles for Christianity and the Quran and Hadith and Sunna .. accepted biographies of Mohammed. It sounds like your referring to the 'search for the historical Jesus' kind of thing, where form critical analysis is applied to the bible to find the "REAL" picture. Of course there some rather weighty pre-suppositions which that approach brings with it, and it has many inherrant weaknesses. The funny thing is that when they apply the same thing to the Quran they end up with the same kind of result "This bit was Meccan.. That bit (of the same sura) was of the Medinan period..and so it goes on. If I thought it was flawed for the gospels, I completely roll around the flaw when its applied to the Quran, but anyway.. it would help us to understand your position on such matters if u actually tell us :) then we wont suggest u are limited in your understanding... we will just say you have a different one. For the record, I accept the inspiration of Scripture.

Pericles

"Geoffrey, I think you may have twisted Scott's words a little to make your point."

No. I think you have completely missed Geoffrey's point
In stating that reality is a mere construction of language, scott is making an objective claim, using language. Thus he contradicts himself from the outset. Essentially, if I adhere to what Scott says about reality and language, then his words are meaningless.

Alan

Boaz, there is a possibility that my post was too subtle, but I was trying to point out your Mark Antony approach to the "inferior" issue.

Mark Antony: "I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know"

Boaz: "Examining the differences in another culture does NOT imply that they are inferior.... Knowing a bit about the Sharia law, I don't EVER would like to live under THAT !!"

Incidentally, I think you may have registered a new PB on the Boaz condescension meter:

Boaz: "Now this is where age and experience come in a bit."

Alan/Grey

If I follow you correctly, you have the view that it is impossible for anyone to assert that reality is a construct of language, because that would be an objective statement, and would therefore be by definition self-contradicting. Fair enough.

If, however, I am of the same opinion (that reality is a construct of language), I accept the meaning fully in its context, relative to me and my understanding of the world. It doesn't need to be objective, you see, for me to accept it and believe it.

However, I can understand how the concept would deeply trouble people who only see the world in terms of absolutes.