Thank you katieO. Ditto for me.

We might not always agree but there is no reason why participants cannot discuss the topic in a civilised and friendly way. All of us continuing to grow, learn and develop a better understanding of each other.

Our belief systems are shaped by our different experiences and I would hope that I never get so dogmatic as to dictate to someone else on how they should live their life. First and most important motto "do no harm". :)

Dear KatieO,

"BTW: ' that we associate no partners with Him;'
[The Koran is blaspheming and calling on Christians to do the same]." -KO

What is being said here (I think) is that God is indivisible. To Christians the Godhead (distinct from the Trinity) is likewise.

Can you quote scripture where God speed blood over non-belief specifically? I can only think of wrong actions.

Incidently, I am not promoting Islam as Constance (on another thread) seems to think. Scholarship is something that been allowed or quashed by the competing monotheist religions to various extents at different times in history. Abbasid Islam did once upon a time. Whether one has a rogue Pope or an overgeneralising geneticist progress stymied.

Yet, with regards Christians criticising Islam, whilst lightly weighting their own deeds, I reminded of:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay
no attention to the log in your own eye?" - Matthew 7:3

I guess what I saying, if we are to live peacefully, being uncompromising is not the way.

Do you believe the Christians, Jews and Muslims worship your God?

Hi George,

You have made the point several times - and I agee; there is a mature and reasoned dimension to debate: Something theists, atheists and secular humanists can exhibit to a fuller or lesser degree.

My Tonybee sources deal with patterns within civilizations having fairly frequent comment on religions. I don't own a book, where Toynee actually discusses religion, as the primary topic. Toynbee does mention in his histories that in India where there is less pressure to have a "one and only god," Siva and Vishnu reside as complmentaries. Where we have different interpretations of the same god, a simalar result appears distant.

With increased globalisation, Christians and Muslims will need to bury the hatchet, else, we will only have a sore that will not heal. Secular law, which allows religions and private faith to exist, is a starting point. The catch is the Great Divergence has not caught-up with many Muslims amd some Christians.

Teuku, I must take issue with you on the image that you presented of Islam. I am something of a rarity in that I am an Australian who has read the Quran,and a measure of Islamic history as well.

It is believed by ALL muslims that the Quran is the inerrant, immutable, and final word of God, end of story. The Quran literally heaps vilification upon unbelievers, as well as calling for muslims to fight unbelievers 'wherever they find them'. Your so-called tolerant muslims would then appear to qualify as unbelievers themselves.

As an unbeliever in any sort of god, by choice, I remind you that the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights confirms my right to unbelief just as much as it defends yours to be a muslim ,(in spite of the fact that the Islamic nations fought like hell to keep that part out).

Muslims love to quote, "There is no compulsion in religion" as one of the tenets of their faith. This is palpably untrue for all children born to muslim parents; if the child later chooses to follow another religion, or, shock - horror, unbelief! then most muslims believe that it should be killed or exiled etc. In most muslim countries in the world today you can be killed or imprisoned for unbelief.

I do not care what religious beliefs anyone has, I only care when those beliefs produce forms of anti-social behaviour because such people think that it is ok to vilify, assault, compel, or even kill me. This objection of mine extends in an expression of tolerance to all religions regardless.

The question that I put to all muslims that get a chance to talk with is, "Can you accept that unbelief in god is a valid human right that I should always be entitled to?". I have never had a straight answer yet.

I hope this helps get the discussion back on track, I am of the opinion that all the Islam vs Christianity argy bargy was superfluous at best.

Oliver, aligning all three faiths under the label of monotheism is too simplistic.

The differences can be best understood from the viewpoint of relationship of God to his people, as defined by the books; and from paying close attention to what God says He is (directly or indirectly).

The verse you quoted from the Qur’an espouses tawhid ( “declaring [that which is ] one”), often translated into monotheism in English.

The opposite of tawhid is shirk and mushrikun “those who commit shirk and plot against Islam” refers to the enemies of Islam (verse 9.1-15) and can extend to erring Muslims.

The Christian belief of the trinity, three persons in unity, is consistent with Genesis:

Gen 1:26: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image….”

God’s unique nature and character has not changed. God’s relationship with his people has.

While God’s righteous anger could sever that relationship – and we do see time after time how God punishes for the sin of disbelief (the OT chronicles the consequences) - he ultimately stays his hand and sends his only Son to open the door to relationship for all people.

In the absence of Christ, Jews maintain their relationship with God is sustained via the law and the prophets.

To Muslims, it is made very plain that Christians and Jews are guilty of shirk and thus mushrikun; enemies of Allah.

Atheism is also shirk, because it denies the position of Allah.

So while YHWH, the God of the Bible is the same for Christians and Jews (the claim to relationship is different), Allah of the Qur’an is a different identity altogether (even if the Arabic word for God is Allah).

Believers can test if their belief is in the one true God or not, as 1 Kings 18:29 describes of the Baal worshipers: “But there was no response; no one answered.”

Epsilon: I agree that the Christianity Vs Islam line is a red herring. Teuku’s thesis should fall or stand on its own merits.

George,

Re: Quotations (above)

Hope you realise no disrepect was intended. The remarks/quotations, to which I responded, were addressed to me, by you. In reply, I was only saying that people with hardened views are centric. The original quotation was neither yours nor mine. I quoted your quote, hence “MIKK in George”. I was referring to the remarks made, not making them.

KatieO,

The presumption of infallibility of scripture is incredible indeed. Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t take that position regarding his beliefs. If “both sides” feel themselves infallible on matters of revealed religion, no discussion will be entered into.

As best I know, a billion Muslims (in theory) hold that the three main monotheist religions have belief in the same god, Islam differing from the others in their special emphasis on the prophets. Islam notes all three recognise Abraham. Maybe this small recognition can be leveraged to achieve more harmony?

If Christians and Muslims each see themselves inerrant, it hard to see much progress being made towards improved mutual relations.

Historically, Yahweh was originally a Syriac volcano jinn. Later said deity was adopted by the henotheist Hebrews: A tribal war god was needed. Also, there are associations (as Elohim*) with the Canaanite Baal (Psalm 82). Yahweh had a wife, Asherah and, as you allude, Yahew was a jealous god, who swallowed Ahuramaza. BCE,Yahwah was a god in transition. That deity in the OT is very unlike Jesus.

Al-Lah or Yahweh: Bottom-line do you really think a god would have a name, other than as a point of reference?

It might surprise you to learn, that if I were a theist, I would be a monotheist. I cannot see an omnipotent entity reproducing itself.
Infallibility: Have a look at Michelago’s Moses. Notice the horns? People in the sixteenth century being less adept at language read “light” as “horns”. Even if one leaves aside the historical fact that the gospels were selected by humans, translations can be in-error, even if the source is infallible. The source for the gospels is several generations of folk lore and possibly a “Q” document.

*Hence, Isa-"El".