Two quick things. Much of the discussion above is about religion in general. The universal (if there is such a thing at all) is given precedence over the particular. I am certainly not for religion as my earlier articles show. Religion is the great illusion that keeps humanity in superstition and ignorance and vulnerable to nature. The history of Israel is important because it struggled with religion in general and arrived at a synthesis that equipped the nation to live in the real world, even though it most often abandoned that path.

It is not that we must know man before we can know God but the reverse. Theology always challenges our view of ourselves. That includes a challenge to our religiosity. The path to the truly human is through Christ.

My use of the male gender to refer to God does not mean that God has any sexuality. However it is faithful to stick to the particular in this just as it is faithful to stick to the particular man Jesus and not to some universal spirituality of our own making even if that seems more inclusive

BD,

Rather than claiming the ‘same’ culture has produced a belief in one God I’m saying the reverse, a belief in one God has essentially given us two corresponding cultures – i.e a certain ‘unity’ existing between two disparate peoples. It’s a broad definition but a quite legitimate one. We broadly define eastern culture as opposed to western culture and separate a European culture from an indigenous one. So too we might broadly define both middle-eastern peoples of ‘the book’ as belonging to the same culture. Many sub-cultures intersect, combine and are defined within a ‘main’ culture, so it (culture) can be either broadly or more narrowly defined. My point is and remains, the Koran and Bible have more in common than what separates them – they share the same ancestry and core belief. Regardless of this, a division remains.

Sells,

Your statement, “The path to the truly human is through Christ” if made within the context of Christianity leads one to conclude, it is only through the Christian religion we find Christ - which seems a rather obvious statement. After all, how else do we have Christ revealed but through Christ – ianity? If stated in terms of a belief, expressive of a particular ‘faith’, there should be no intransigence. If, however, presented as an absolute, denying those who ‘seek’ via differing paths, pluralistic values are merely paid lip-service to (if at all).

It seems contradictory to (quite legitimately I might add) call religion “the great illusion” keeping us from superstition and ignorance, vulnerable to nature but then to advocate Christianity.

Relda,
The association of the Koran with the bible is only superficial. This is an attempt by liberals to obliterate the differences, make Islam and Christianity the same and then damn them with the same criticism. Read the unreadable Koran and then read the bible and you will see the difference. Your postulate of a similar origin leading to similar religion is absurd.

Have I ever promoted myself as a devotee of pluralism? Let Muslims be as non pluralist as they like and let me also be. The truth is in the particular not in some universal view of religion or spirituality. The problem is that spirituality has become the property of everyman, it is the sop we use to mask our nihilism.

Christianity is and is not a religion. It is not a religion because it is not based on mythology as were its rivals in the ancient world and its rivals in our present time. Islam is based on the myth that God spoke the words of the Koran to one man. Christianity is based on historical event, the main point of this article that we are supposed to be discussing.

Sells,
I should point out nowhere have I said Islam and Christianity are similar – they are two very different religions, each comprising of their own variety of divisions and sects. Both religions suffer similar narrow interpretive views of their respective bibles. My point has always been in their close similarity of origin. Both religions are deserving of differing criticism - it should go without saying, nothing defined is beyond any objective criticism.

You are certainly very liberal if you are to say Christianity is not a religion, but you hedge your bets when saying, yet perhaps on the other hand it is. Spirituality has always been the property of everyman – it is something not to be entrusted to anyone, although some prefer it that way.

Jesus may or may not have existed (I’ll hedge my bets too) because the very existence of Jesus has not been proven as an historical fact. There is no story of Jesus which is uniformly accepted worldwide, despite the Gospel stories – which I do actually enjoy.

Missionary and theologian, Albert Schweitzer, in his ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ 1906, reviewed and exposed the fallibility of the previous lives of Jesus and the problem of whether anything could be safely known about him. More recently, Christian theologian Rudolf Bultmann has said, “We can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary.”

Early Christians agreed that Christianity offered "nothing different" from paganism. Arguing with pagans around C.E. 150, Justin Martyr said: "When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)."

It does, in fact, all come down to a matter of belief even if based on ignorance or superstition. But, I'll contend, we all have and hold our favourite myths.

Sells: "...The path to the truly human is through Christ. .."

:-)LOL

Sells:"..The problem is that spirituality has become the property of everyman,,"
Whose problem?Sells'?:-)