Gunny's Thread on Religion

[JBeukema]

You're both correct.

i'm not saying it makes sense, but thats what i have been told

to me either Jesus is the Son of God, or he is a liar
i cant see how his words could make him either

Islam goes with option 3: the Bible has been corrupted and is, therefore, inaccurate.

Meaning gos is either not all powerful or not all merciful. The valifity of the Qu'ran rests on specific claims of the Torah/Bible being true. By saying it's imperfect, you are saying that your claims rest n claims you're saying can't be trusted.
Islam collapses at the slightest examination.

 

[Kalam]

Meaning gos is either not all powerful or not all merciful.

So?

The valifity of the Qu'ran rests on specific claims of the Torah/Bible being true.

Such as?

By saying it's imperfect, you are saying that your claims rest n claims you're saying can't be trusted.

Which claims?

Islam collapses at the slightest examination.

Yeah, you'd know.

 

[JBeukema]

Simple?: The Qu'ran rests on the claims of the Torah/Bible being true: El exists. His prophets are documented in the Jewish texts. Jesus exists. The only sources are deemed untrustworthy. Therefore, the Qu'ran declares its most basic claims untrustworthy.

 

[Kalam]

Simple?: The Qu'ran rests on the claims of the Torah/Bible being true: El exists.

The existence of God is an exclusively Jewish claim?

His prophets are documented in the Jewish texts. Jesus exists.

They're figures in parables used to illustrate Qur'anic teachings.

And these parables, We set them forth for men, and none understand them but the learned. - 29:43​

Their historicity is irrelevant. It should not be surprising that Islam borrowed figures from the stories of older monotheistic faiths. To suggest that the basis of the Qur'an is formed by claims supporting the historical accuracy of Biblical stories, though, is incorrect.

The only sources are deemed untrustworthy. Therefore, the Qu'ran declares its most basic claims untrustworthy.

The Qur'an's most basic claims have nothing to do with these figures - it's not a story book or a historical text, it's an all-encompassing code of ethics.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, and I learned this from having been raised Mormon, both can be true, because since we (according to most religious beliefs) came from some god or another, we are all sons and daughters of the god (or gods) that do exist, and many of us do lie. However, whether he lied or not would truly be impossible to tell, considering all we have is someone elses works on what he did say, not his own words, and he doesn't seem to be around to tell us.

Thats an interesting point. Is He around to tell us? I mean if the scriptures are accurately telling us about Christ, then we must conclude that He is around somewhere alive and able to tell us.

The question is will us include all of society or just individual points of contact? Its interesting to ponder.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, and I learned this from having been raised Mormon, both can be true, because since we (according to most religious beliefs) came from some god or another, we are all sons and daughters of the god (or gods) that do exist, and many of us do lie. However, whether he lied or not would truly be impossible to tell, considering all we have is someone elses works on what he did say, not his own words, and he doesn't seem to be around to tell us.

Thats an interesting point. Is He around to tell us? I mean if the scriptures are accurately telling us about Christ, then we must conclude that He is around somewhere alive and able to tell us.

The question is will us include all of society or just individual points of contact? Its interesting to ponder.

That is where my belief unraveled. I do not believe that any human can be accurate, and that the more often something is copied the less accurate it becomes. I do see the christian teachings as a lesson, that no matter how much you trust a human being, they are always flawed. But it wasn't a direct teaching of the christian religions, or LDS scripture, it was a lesson I learned through exploration and experience, though I also believe that was the same revelation that Joseph Smith got, just he started his own religion and I found one so old and short lived that it didn't have time to be diluted which suites me better. Though I still think that no religion has all the answers, and that none should be disbanded, even in my distaste for organized religions, their teachings on their own are still useful. To simplify all that, I just don't take what anyone, no matter how pure they appear, no matter how studied they are, no matter how much I trust them, I don't take their word for anything they say about spirituality.

 

[Avatar4321]

Meaning gos is either not all powerful or not all merciful. The valifity of the Qu'ran rests on specific claims of the Torah/Bible being true. By saying it's imperfect, you are saying that your claims rest n claims you're saying can't be trusted.
Islam collapses at the slightest examination.

Of course, your analysis is flawed here.

First, the Validity of the Qu'ran does not on the Bible being perfectly true.

Second, from a non-islamic view, no where in history has God ever said that that anything written about Him will be flawless/perfect. In Christianity, the Bible does not claim perfection. A point lost on many who exalt the Bible to a place beyond what it's meant to be. The message in the Bible is that God is perfect. It is the goal of living religion for people to learn from God directly, not solely through the revelation of others.

So if people corrupted any book of scripture, God still has the power to speak His word and Teach His people. And it is my viewpoint that God does that He does. To me what would make God not all powerful if He was unable to speak to man for whatever reason. To me it would be much more unmerciful to give people a book and tell them to figure it out for themselves.

Third, I dont think any religion that has hundreds of years collapses at the slightest examination. otherwise, it would have done so long before you were even thought of. There is a reason people believe it, and it isnt because people are stupid.

 

[Avatar4321]

That is where my belief unraveled. I do not believe that any human can be accurate, and that the more often something is copied the less accurate it becomes. I do see the christian teachings as a lesson, that no matter how much you trust a human being, they are always flawed. But it wasn't a direct teaching of the christian religions, or LDS scripture, it was a lesson I learned through exploration and experience, though I also believe that was the same revelation that Joseph Smith got, just he started his own religion and I found one so old and short lived that it didn't have time to be diluted which suites me better. Though I still think that no religion has all the answers, and that none should be disbanded, even in my distaste for organized religions, their teachings on their own are still useful. To simplify all that, I just don't take what anyone, no matter how pure they appear, no matter how studied they are, no matter how much I trust them, I don't take their word for anything they say about spirituality.

And I think it's wise to not just taking someones word for it. I think that's one of the things I've always liked Mormonism. Joseph wasnt going hey believe me because I said it. He was saying Hey This is what I saw, why dont you come experience the same things so you know for yourself.

And I agree that no religion holds all the answers. But I think if they are good for people they direct people in a way to find out the answers for themselves.

 

[KittenKoder]

That is where my belief unraveled. I do not believe that any human can be accurate, and that the more often something is copied the less accurate it becomes. I do see the christian teachings as a lesson, that no matter how much you trust a human being, they are always flawed. But it wasn't a direct teaching of the christian religions, or LDS scripture, it was a lesson I learned through exploration and experience, though I also believe that was the same revelation that Joseph Smith got, just he started his own religion and I found one so old and short lived that it didn't have time to be diluted which suites me better. Though I still think that no religion has all the answers, and that none should be disbanded, even in my distaste for organized religions, their teachings on their own are still useful. To simplify all that, I just don't take what anyone, no matter how pure they appear, no matter how studied they are, no matter how much I trust them, I don't take their word for anything they say about spirituality.

And I think it's wise to not just taking someones word for it. I think that's one of the things I've always liked Mormonism. Joseph wasnt going hey believe me because I said it. He was saying Hey This is what I saw, why dont you come experience the same things so you know for yourself.

And I agree that no religion holds all the answers. But I think if they are good for people they direct people in a way to find out the answers for themselves.

True, the organized religions are not the problem, it's the "organized" part that is. I actually enjoy talking to agnostics and pagans the most about such matters because they are not blindly following, and oddly they are less likely to be zealots.

The ancient Egyptians had an unwritten rule that there would never be just one religion in the land, which they all followed so much that when one religion threatened the others they would ban it, they even destroyed and entire city for that same reason.

 

[Avatar4321]

The ancient Egyptians had an unwritten rule that there would never be just one religion in the land, which they all followed so much that when one religion threatened the others they would ban it, they even destroyed and entire city for that same reason.

Interesting... I have to ask though. If it's an unwritten rule how do you know about it?

 

[JBeukema]

The existence of God is an exclusively Jewish claim?

Those specific accounts and claims of the existence and actions of that specific deity are exclusive to the Abrahamic tradition and those accounts within the Torah of the actions and wishes of the Abrahamic god are exclusive to the Torah and the books which build upon it. Therefore, those religions rest upon the validity of the Torah as their basic foundation./ To declare the Torah unreliable begs the question of how one know3s the necessary claims are somehow reliable while the others are not and actually opens the door for Satanic deception

You knew exactly what I was saying, Kalam.

Their historicity is irrelevant.

Not when it teaches that the places of men (for instance one tribe to be 'beneath' and serve the other stems from actual events involving individual 'fathers of nations.

The Qur'an's most basic claims have nothing to do with these figures - it's not a story book or a historical text, it's an all-encompassing code of ethics.

Built upon claims of the existence of the Abrahamic god and acceptance of the Abrahamic prophets, of whom Muhammad is deemed a successor.

 

[KittenKoder]

The ancient Egyptians had an unwritten rule that there would never be just one religion in the land, which they all followed so much that when one religion threatened the others they would ban it, they even destroyed and entire city for that same reason.

Interesting... I have to ask though. If it's an unwritten rule how do you know about it?

I just coined a phrase, what I meant by it is that it wasn't a law, it was just understood.

 

[JBeukema]

[

Of course, your analysis is flawed here.

First, the Validity of the Qu'ran does not on the Bible being perfectly true.

I'm assuming the word 'depend' should follow 'not'. I did not say it does, nor does the Qu'ran. It depends on certain aspects of an admittedly fallible text being true. Do not continue with these strawmen.

Second, from a non-islamic view, no where in history has God ever said that that anything written about Him will be flawless/perfect

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
Psalm 19:7

There are others. You fail. Why do Christians tend to know lessa bout the Bible than theists?
​

. In Christianity, the Bible does not claim perfection.

Funny. That means it's a fallible test and only a complete retard takes it as truth without supporting evidence. Now, you have argued that scriptures are no evidence and must be supported by pther sources or be deemed useless crap like any other single source one finds making wondrous claims withiout confirming evidence. Congratulations, you just debunked your own religion

Now, given that the bible contradicts itself throughout (even the four gospels can't agree with eachother), the whole thing gets thrown out like any other alleged historical document that can't get its story straight and has no supporting evidence. Nobody argues more strongly against your religion than your own kind.

There is a reason people believe it, and it isnt because people are stupid.

Yes, it is. Just like those who believed the Earth was flat after it was demonstrated to be 'round' and those who believe an unborn child is neither alive nor human.

 

[Kalam]

Those specific accounts and claims of the existence and actions of that specific deity are exclusive to the Abrahamic tradition and those accounts within the Torah of the actions and wishes of the Abrahamic god are exclusive to the Torah and the books which build upon it. Therefore, those religions rest upon the validity of the Torah as their basic foundation./ To declare the Torah unreliable begs the question of how one know3s the necessary claims are somehow reliable while the others are not and actually opens the door for Satanic deception

You knew exactly what I was saying, Kalam.

The deity worshipped in most interpretations of Judaism and Christianity is, IMO, quite unlike ours. The Judeo-Christian God, a conception of Allah based on corrupted scripture, is essentially a human with superpowers; he's prone to the same petty emotions and ethnic prejudices that affect many of his followers. The claim that this conception of God is at all like the God of Islam is false, as is the claim that the Islamic religion is hinged upon the accuracy of Biblical accounts of this god's emotions and exploits.

Not when it teaches that the places of men (for instance one tribe to be 'beneath' and serve the other stems from actual events involving individual 'fathers of nations.

That isn't taught in Islam.

O mankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you. Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware. - 49:13​

Built upon claims of the existence of the Abrahamic god and acceptance of the Abrahamic prophets, of whom Muhammad is deemed a successor.

A relationship between Muhammad and the Biblical prophets was most likely suggested in the Qur'an to grant legitimacy to the religion in the eyes of Christians and Jews. As I've said, we humans have reached a point in our development where the legitimacy of an ethical system can be determined based on the benefits it brings to its adherents. So, once again, the historicity of the Jewish prophets is of little consequence to Islam today. The superiority of the Islamic way of life is evident to those who devote themselves to it because they derive happiness from it.

 

[JBeukema]

The deity worshipped in most interpretations of Judaism and Christianity is, IMO, quite unlike ours. The Judeo-Christian God, a conception of Allah based on corrupted scripture...

It claims the same god. it merely claims a different interpretation of perception thereof. It is just like the modern neochristians who hold a perception of God as loving and merciful that is totally unfounded when when looks at scripture. The god and prophets claimed, however, are the same.

is essentially a human with superpowers; he's prone to the same petty emotions and ethnic prejudices that affect many of his followers.

The same is true of most primitive religions, including the Abrahamic. If one follows history, animism became polythiesm. polytheism then led to ever-smaller pantheons as there was less need for Gods. Then, only a single god is believed to exist, followed by the emergence of meta-ethics and meta-physics before secularism, materialism, and positivism began to gain influence.

The claim that this conception of God is at all like the God of Islam is false,

Christians make the same claim about the Jewish god, but the fact remains clear that they are ultimately the same. The progression is simple. Christianity and Islam are the natural progressions of Islam: one that holds the Messiah has arrived, and one that denies that Messiah and follows a new prophet.

That isn't taught in Islam.

O mankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you. Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware. - 49:13​

Does the Qu'ran retract the story of Jacob and Essau as false? If it does not explicit deny this scripture, my point stands.

A relationship between Muhammad and the Biblical prophets was most likely suggested in the Qur'an to grant legitimacy to the religion in the eyes of Christians and Jews.

Definitely, as they're all false. I, as an atheist can see that. You, as a non-Muslim in the strictest sense (much as modern neochristians are truly not Christians, as they do not follow the words attributed to Jesus) might alzsso see the falsehood of the book and be able to understand why it claims what it does. The point remains, however, that the Qu'ran as written, in its most basic form and as accepted by the majority of its most literal adherents, rests upon the validity of the Torah, as the Torah announces the god and prophets that the Qu'ran follows. Note that the Qu'ran even states that it build upon the Torah, and is intended to be interpreted as the natural progression is Judaism (it is, in effect, a Jewish sect more than a distinct religion) as El/YHWY sends Muhammad as hias next prophet, that those who have been misled and lost their way might know the will of God though his word has been defiled. Muhammad is no different from other Jewish prophets in this regard.

As I've said, we humans have reached a point in our development where the legitimacy of an ethical system can be determined based on the benefits it brings to its adherents.

That is a humanist (among a few other ultimately secular ideologies) perspective. The Qu'ran, just like the Torah, holds ultimately that that which is the Law of God is moral and just- not because God's law is just, but because that which is just is God's law. That is to say that God's law need not conform to any definition of righteousness, but that righteousness is defined as complying with God's will.

So, once again, the historicity of the Jewish prophets is of little consequence to Islam today.

Not if 'Islam today' is to even remotely resemble the Islam of Muhammad and his disciples. What you are attempting is the same as the modern neochristians who attempt to ignore Old Testament law when jesus said to keep the law of the prophets and is quoted in the gospels as referring to it on a number of occasions. You're attempting to cherry pick and build a religion for yourself that complies with your own morals and standards because you are more upright and consider yourself more moral and reasonable than you ultimately know the scriptures to be- just like the modern 'christian' apologists. In attempting to distance 'modern Islam' from its roots, you are denying the very nature of islam itself in favor of your own beliefs and projecting your own standards upon the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and Islam itself.

It is precisely because you do this- because you are better than Islam- that I can even tolerate you, much as i can only tolerate the existence of most modern neochrostians and reformist/ 'mainstream' Jews because they are better than their holy books and the roots of their faith.

The superiority of the Islamic way of life is evident to those who devote themselves to it because they derive happiness from it.

One could say the same of Buddhism, Toaism, Christianity, Judaism, or near any other faith or tradition. This doesn't demonstrate any 'superiority' but merely a personal usefulness to the individual.

 

[BrianH]

There's a difference between religion and spitituality...the belief in God does not mean a belief in religion...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There's a difference between religion and spitituality...the belief in God does not mean a belief in religion...

Good point as I fall under your description. I have a dislike for organized religion, i dont follow any one religion, but I have a strong belief in a higher power.

Im a big Karma guy too.

 

[Kalam]

It claims the same god. it merely claims a different interpretation of perception thereof.

Thus making most Jews and Christians mushrikeen whose worship is directed towards false conceptions of God. This difference is hugely significant.

It is just like the modern neochristians who hold a perception of God as loving and merciful that is totally unfounded when when looks at scripture.

The difference between them and me being that my beliefs have a scriptural basis.

The god and prophets claimed, however, are the same.

Most of the prophets were claimed so that familiar parables could be used to reinforce moral teachings. Arguing that the god is the same is disingenuous at best.

The same is true of most primitive religions, including the Abrahamic.

Islam cannot accurately be lumped in with Judaism and Christianity in this regard.

If one follows history, animism became polythiesm. polytheism then led to ever-smaller pantheons as there was less need for Gods. Then, only a single god is believed to exist, followed by the emergence of meta-ethics and meta-physics before secularism,

Secularism seems to be less of a philosophy in itself than a rejection of religious ethics. It isn't inherently superior to religion.

materialism,

The merits of which are...?

and positivism began to gain influence.

The rudiments of which had been explained by others long before Comte (who, interestingly enough, considered himself a prophet.)

For example:
"We do not go beyond experience, and we cannot be content to use pure concepts in investigating natural phenomena." - Ibn al-Haytham, Kitab al-Minazir

Alhazen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which is in line with the Qur'an:

And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Surely, the hearing and the sight and the heart, of all of these it will be asked. - 17:36​

Christians make the same claim about the Jewish god, but the fact remains clear that they are ultimately the same. The progression is simple.

Christianity fully accepts the authenticity of the Torah; therefore, Biblically-conscious Christians worship the God of the OT. Muslims do not worship this conception of God because, unlike the NT, the Qur'an rejects the authenticity of the Torah in its present state and establishes itself as the sole ethical and religious authority for its adherents.

Christianity and Islam are the natural progressions of Islam: one that holds the Messiah has arrived, and one that denies that Messiah and follows a new prophet.

That is overly simplistic. Christianity simply built on Judaism by tacking the Gospels, etc. onto the Torah. Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism that canonized the teachings of the Messiah and revered him over other prophets as the son of God. Islam does not built upon Judaism; it's a distinct system that merely saluted the Jews' monotheism by incorporating stories of their prophets into its teachings.

Does the Qu'ran retract the story of Jacob and Essau as false? If it does not explicit deny this scripture, my point stands.

Jacob is only mentioned passingly, and no reference is made to Esau. You are referring to the supposedly superior status of the tribes of Israel, which is rejected in the Qur'an.

And We divided them into twelve tribes, as nations. And We revealed to Moses when his people asked him for water: Strike the rock with thy staff; so out flowed from it twelve springs. Each tribe knew its drinking-place. And We made the clouds to give shade over them and We sent to them manna and quails. Eat of the good things We have given you. And they did not do Us any harm, but they wronged themselves. And when it was said to them: Dwell in this town and eat from it whence you wish, and make petition for forgiveness, and enter the gate submissively, We shall forgive you your wrongs. We shall give more to the doers of good. But those who were unjust among them changed it for a word other than that which they were told, so We sent upon them a pestilence from heaven for their wrongdoing. - 7:160-162

Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful. - 62:6

And they say: None shall enter Jannah except he who is a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful. - 2:111​

Definitely, as they're all false. I, as an atheist can see that. You, as a non-Muslim in the strictest sense (much as modern neochristians are truly not Christians, as they do not follow the words attributed to Jesus)

We have seen the difference between neo-Christians and me - my positions are in accordance with the religion I profess, and I corroborate them with references to scripture.

might alzsso see the falsehood of the book and be able to understand why it claims what it does. The point remains, however, that the Qu'ran as written, in its most basic form and as accepted by the majority of its most literal adherents, rests upon the validity of the Torah, as the Torah announces the god and prophets that the Qu'ran follows.

The Qur'an is not meant to be interpreted literally in all instances. Those who take all of its words at face value presumably do so in ignorance of the Qur'an's own explicit warnings against literalism.

Note that the Qu'ran even states that it build upon the Torah, and is intended to be interpreted as the natural progression is Judaism (it is, in effect, a Jewish sect more than a distinct religion) as El/YHWY sends Muhammad as hias next prophet, that those who have been misled and lost their way might know the will of God though his word has been defiled. Muhammad is no different from other Jewish prophets in this regard.

The Qur'an states that it is a retelling of previous revelations which are now unknowable, because they were replaced with the Torah and Bible in their present, corrupted forms. Hence "ut those who were unjust among them changed it for a word other than that which they were told" in the quoted scripture above. The "Torah" whose authenticity is affirmed by the Qur'an is clearly not the Torah as we now know it.

That is a humanist (among a few other ultimately secular ideologies) perspective. The Qu'ran, just like the Torah, holds ultimately that that which is the Law of God is moral and just- not because God's law is just, but because that which is just is God's law.

Not so. Unbelievers are enjoined to reflect and determine themselves whether Islam is authentic.

Will they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy. - 4:82​

Not if 'Islam today' is to even remotely resemble the Islam of Muhammad and his disciples. What you are attempting is the same as the modern neochristians who attempt to ignore Old Testament law when jesus said to keep the law of the prophets and is quoted in the gospels as referring to it on a number of occasions. You're attempting to cherry pick and build a religion for yourself that complies with your own morals and standards because you are more upright and consider yourself more moral and reasonable than you ultimately know the scriptures to be- just like the modern 'christian' apologists.

That isn't the case at all. As I've explained, a Christian who follows the Bible must abide by the laws of the Old Testament if he's not to ignore half of his holy book and the commandments of the Messiah as recorded therein. How can Muslims be expected to abide by the Torah when Islam contends that Biblical teachings no longer exist in a true, uncorrupted form? They can't, and Islam does not expect them to. The unsuitability of all other religious doctrines was the reason for the advent of Islam.

In attempting to distance 'modern Islam' from its roots, you are denying the very nature of islam itself in favor of your own beliefs and projecting your own standards upon the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and Islam itself.

That isn't what I'm doing at all. I favor a return of Islamic belief to its Qur'anic roots.

It is precisely because you do this- because you are better than Islam- that I can even tolerate you, much as i can only tolerate the existence of most modern neochrostians and reformist/ 'mainstream' Jews because they are better than their holy books and the roots of their faith.

The texts revered by Jews and Christians contain, if interpreted literally, indefensible savagery. The Qur'an is unlike the Bible.

One could say the same of Buddhism, Toaism, Christianity, Judaism, or near any other faith or tradition. This doesn't demonstrate any 'superiority' but merely a personal usefulness to the individual.

Superiority is subjective. I believe that Islam is superior to other systems, you do not.

 

[Avatar4321]

There's a difference between religion and spitituality...the belief in God does not mean a belief in religion...

While I have no doubt that there is a difference between religion and spirituality, I am going to have to humble disagree with you. Checking the definition of religion. I find it impossible that any sort of faithful devotion to God can not be religion when thats the very definition of it.

You may not have organized religion. You may simply follow your own person religion. But it's still a religion because its still your state of faithful devotion to God.

 

[JBeukema]

Thus making most Jews and Christians mushrikeen whose worship is directed towards false conceptions of God. This difference is hugely significant.

Can you do me a favor? If you're going to use Arabic words in your posts, can you provide a translation? You might have called them fools, devils, naive, heretics, blasphemers, or any number of things here.

The difference between them and me being that my beliefs have a scriptural basis.

As do their.s, in the same sense. You both twist and interpret to gt the desired result. We've discussed in the past the fact that your interpretation is not literal, mainstream, the original, or otherwise demonstrably anything other than another case of people picking, choosing, and interpreting to get the desired result- just like modern neochristians, many sekt of Judaism, and both jihadist and 'revisionist' Muslims.

Most of the prophets were claimed so that familiar parables could be used to reinforce moral teachings. Arguing that the god is the same is disingenuous at best.

How so? That prophet was speaking of a singular deity. To claim that prophet is to claim the god of which that prophet spoke. You can disagree on the nature of that deity or whether another is correct in their understanding, but the dishonest one ios he who claims a prophet and then claim,s the prophet spoke of a god other than the prophet spoke of. El, YHWH, and Allah are all the same god, for they all claim the same prophets and therefor the one god that prophet spoke of is being claimed.

Islam cannot accurately be lumped in with Judaism and Christianity in this regard.

Islam is ultimately nothing more than a Jewish sekt who claims a prophet the other sekts deny and therefore have a different understanding if the God in which they believe. When they realize this, it will be possible for them to live in peace and understanding., It is the denial of this fact that has (among other factors) led to such bloodshed in the past, as they see eachother not as simply failing to understand or recognize a prophet of God, but of having the wrong god altogether. By distancing themzwelves and refusing to acknowledged that which they have in common, they are fueling the problems that have plagued the region for so long.

Secularism seems to be less of a philosophy in itself than a rejection of religious ethics. It isn't inherently superior to religion.

It is insomuch as it avoids much (but not all) of the tyranny, oppression, and intolerance inherent to theocracies with an interest in guarding the faith. The FF knew this and founded a secular government to protect their religion from other sekts more than for any other reason. They were trying to avoid another Anglican church and the oppression that came with it- much like what is seen in modern-day Iran.

The merits of which are...?

I have made on observation. I made no argument in favor of or against materialism.

Christianity fully accepts the authenticity of the Torah; therefore, Biblically-conscious Christians worship the God of the OT. Muslims do not worship this conception of God because, unlike the NT, the Qur'an rejects the authenticity of the Torah in its present state and establishes itself as the sole ethical and religious authority for its adherents

.

You're confusing yourself. The same god and the same understanding thereof are not equal statements. One could argue than many christian sekts don't believe in the same understanding of God, despite sharing the same texts, prophets, and messiah.

That is overly simplistic. Christianity simply built on Judaism by tacking the Gospels, etc. onto the Torah.

As well as redefining the nature of God, who 'his people' are, and much of his nature. The outgrowth of Islam is not ultimately that different, despite many years of distancing one from the other.

Jacob is only mentioned passingly, and no reference is made to Esau. You are referring to the supposedly superior status of the tribes of Israel, which is rejected in the Qur'an.

And my most Christians, who claim that 'God's People' are those who find him through the christ. You're no so different, if you are willing to see it.

And We divided them into twelve tribes, as nations. And We revealed to Moses when his people asked him for water: Strike the rock with thy staff; so out flowed from it twelve springs. Each tribe knew its drinking-place. And We made the clouds to give shade over them and We sent to them manna and quails. Eat of the good things We have given you. And they did not do Us any harm, but they wronged themselves. ...We shall give more to the doers of good. But those who were unjust among them changed it for a word other than that which they were told, so We sent upon them a pestilence from heaven for their wrongdoing. - 7:160-162

​

Which is almost exactly the same as the Christian tradition, which claims that the Jews lost God's favor and now the gentiles, as well, may find his favor through his son. Change 'son' to 'prophet' and you pretty much have what you have cited. All three traditions focus too much on their differences. That's a huge part of the problem.

We have seen the difference between neo-Christians and me - my positions are in accordance with the religion I profess, and I corroborate them with references to scripture.

They make the exact same claims as you do.

The Qur'an is not meant to be interpreted literally in all instances. Those who take all of its words at face value presumably do so in ignorance of the Qur'an's own explicit warnings against literalism.

They make the same claims about the bible, most especially Revelation and other prophesies. Heck, now they make that claim about Eden and the creation...

That isn't the case at all. As I've explained, a Christian who follows the Bible must abide by the laws of the Old Testament if he's not to ignore half of his holy book and the commandments of the Messiah as recorded therein.

-and the other half can be spun to support the opposite claim, and oft is. I'm sure we'll see this play out in my latest thread if we wait.

Superiority is subjective....

Thereby making your earlier statement meaningless.