It is possible that Islam has a better understanding of God than Christianity

[micrometers]

Christianity IMO has a "ticking time bomb" version of God. Basically, God creates people. The first man, Adam fucks up and eats the apple (which btw none of us had a choice in), and thus we're all doomed to sin unless we accept jesus into our hearts, even though some people are false christians who don't have the true understanding of Jesus. So he creates the world only to blow it up in the indeterminate future.

Islam's take of God is that there is one God which created the world and that he has sent various prophets and holy men through the centuries to different people across the world, revealing himself through them. So they would include all the various holy persons throughout the world, from Jesus to Buddha to Moses, etc. And they are all equally valid for the people that they are revealed to.

Islam is specific to the Arabs (though others are free to convert) and is about surrender to the one true god which was revealed to man from the beginning. In many ways it resembles to me efforts by progressive Christians to find the meaning of "early christianity".

On a purely theological level, ignoring society and so forth, I think it may be the best understanding of monotheism of the three, since it is more pluralistic and in many ways the acceptance of other "prophets" as manifestations of God would be how I would do monotheism if I really were to take it seriously.


Moving thread from P&N to OT with OP's permission.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[dawheat]

Christianity IMO has a "ticking time bomb" version of God. Basically, God creates people. The first man, Adam fucks up and eats the apple (which btw none of us had a choice in), and thus he has to send his own Son to pay the price for us fucking up and whose Son willingly accepted death for us, even though some people are false christians who don't have the true understanding of Jesus. So he creates the world only to blow it up in the indeterminate future.

Fixed for you

 

[JEDIYoda]

On a purely theological level, ignoring society and so forth, I think it may be the best understanding of monotheism of the three, since it is more pluralistic and in many ways the acceptance of other "prophets" as manifestations of God would be how I would do monotheism if I really were to take it seriously.

You know nothing about Christian theology so stop while you are ahead...

 

[mattpegher]

Islam's take of God is that there is one God which created the world and that he has sent various prophets and holy men through the centuries to different people across the world, revealing himself through them. So they would include all the various holy persons throughout the world, from Jesus to Buddha to Moses, etc. And they are all equally valid for the people that they are revealed to.

So your premise is that God revieled himself to various people around the world and all religions are of equal validity. This contradicts your first statement. But If you believe in a god, that is the key to understanding religion. It doesnt matter who you follow, or where you were born, the message is what is important.

The only true religion will be the one that openly admits that all religions are correct. I dont think I will see that day.

 

[micrometers]

So your premise is that God revieled himself to various people around the world and all religions are of equal validity. This contradicts your first statement. But If you believe in a god, that is the key to understanding religion. It doesnt matter who you follow, or where you were born, the message is what is important.

The only true religion will be the one that openly admits that all religions are correct. I dont think I will see that day.

Islam though is more progressive in the sense that they do not actively go around calling other religions false and doomed like Christianity does.

of course both actively condemn polytheistic religions that worshipped stone idols.

 

[Anarchist420]

I'd say that none of the Christian denoms have a good understanding of their savior because they're not anarchists. Jesus was an anarchist because he didn't support the use of force. The Mainline Protestants support UHC, the White Evangelicals and Black Protestants support murdering innocent brown people, and the Church of Rome supports the welfare state and the warfare state. None of the religions that call themselves Christian live up to the pro-anarcho teachings of Jesus.

 

[MovingTarget]

You know nothing about Christian theology so stop while you are ahead...

This. Although, to be fair, he doesn't seem to know enough about Islamic theologies to be able to make the comparison either.

 

[shadow9d9]

You can't have a better understanding of make believe than someone else...

 

[IGBT]

islam (submission) has more to do with control then anything else. My way or the high way. In islam it's a mans world. Get used to the idea. They will make fish chum out of the liberals. The rest of us will grow beards and carry prayer rugs.

 

[lopri]

Which Christianity?

 

[shira]

I think atheists have a better understanding of "God" than Christianity or any other religion.

 

[cybrsage]

Christianity IMO has a "ticking time bomb" version of God. Basically, God creates people. The first man, Adam fucks up and eats the apple (which btw none of us had a choice in), and thus we're all doomed to sin unless we accept jesus into our hearts, even though some people are false christians who don't have the true understanding of Jesus. So he creates the world only to blow it up in the indeterminate future.

Islam's take of God is that there is one God which created the world and that he has sent various prophets and holy men through the centuries to different people across the world, revealing himself through them. So they would include all the various holy persons throughout the world, from Jesus to Buddha to Moses, etc. And they are all equally valid for the people that they are revealed to.

Islam is specific to the Arabs (though others are free to convert) and is about surrender to the one true god which was revealed to man from the beginning. In many ways it resembles to me efforts by progressive Christians to find the meaning of "early christianity".

On a purely theological level, ignoring society and so forth, I think it may be the best understanding of monotheism of the three, since it is more pluralistic and in many ways the acceptance of other "prophets" as manifestations of God would be how I would do monotheism if I really were to take it seriously.

Actually, Christianity has (for the most part) messed up with its understanding of the Torah. You are NOT born with sin. Sin is doing something wrong, therefor it is impossible to be born with sin as you have not yet had a chance to actually do anything.

We are all born perfect, sinless. We all have the ability to die that way. The problem is that our parents TEACH us to sin. Little white lies are still lies...we are taught that when someone says "how are you" you respond "I'm good" even if you are not good (unless the person is someone you trust).

Our society makes it even harder, sinning is not only everywhere, but often it is rewarded. It is all but impossible to never sin...so much so that we simply say you are a sinner because you will sin...the odds of you not doing it are so low as to be considered zero for all intents and purposes.

We do not genetically gain sin via an act done by an ancestor.

 

[Karl Agathon]

I think Judaism has them both trumped!

 

[cybrsage]

I think Judaism has them both trumped!

Christianity, done properly (before the Constantine alterations), is Judaism with the belief the Messiah is Jesus, who will return to finish fulfilling the prophesies...which allows the Goyim (nations) to join in the blessings of Abraham, but does not extend The Law onto them (that is a coventant between the Jews and God).

 

[Madwand1]

Islam's take of God is that there is one God which created the world and that he has sent various prophets and holy men through the centuries to different people across the world, revealing himself through them. So they would include all the various holy persons throughout the world, from Jesus to Buddha to Moses, etc. And they are all equally valid for the people that they are revealed to.

Why the last qualifier "for the people that they are revealed to"? and what sense does that have at present? Are they not as well or better revealed to us in this day through internationalization and accessibility of literature than they were originally but to a few?

If you give any credence to that point, I think you should dive into it and its conclusions, one of which is necessarily that there is no validity in the notion of comparative validity of religions, at least with reference to the core of religions distinguished from the cultural and historical embellishments.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Err, god isn't real. So no one knows him better than anyone else.

That's like saying, 'Who knows Harry Potter better?'.

 

[cybrsage]

I wonder why Uthman had all the surviving original scrolls, skins, etc. destroyed. I would think he would WANT to keep the actual original Quran writings intact. Instead, he destroyed them. Does anyone know why he did?

I know he created his own version of the Quran and then destroyed the various other versions of the Quran which were out there...no problem with that. He vetted his version very well. But why destroy the actual originals?

 

[cybrsage]

Err, god isn't real.

Is this a faith based belief, or do you have support for this? Remember, faith is belief without support (commonly called proof).

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Is this a faith based belief, or do you have support for this? Remember, faith is belief without support (commonly called proof).

No, its an observation.

Using all the current infomation availible, the only sane and logic conclusion to make is that god doesn't exist.

In just the same way that all the evidence shows that unicorns dont exist.

If factual infomation comes to light that contradicts this, I will be happy to reevaluate my position.

 

[cybrsage]

No, its an observation.

Using all the current infomation availible, the only sane and logic conclusion to make is that god doesn't exist.

Can you show me some of this information you observed?

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Can you show me some of this information you observed?

There is none. That's the whole point.

There isn't a single shred of evidence that god exists.

Normal people assume things dont exist until there is evidence that they do.

 

[cybrsage]

There is none. That's the whole point.

Then you are admitting you are holding a faith based belief.

There isn't a single shred of evidence that god exists.

Correct. However, you made a statement that God is not real. For this to not be a faith based belief, you need supporting evidence, which you just claimed does not exist in either for for or against direction.

Normal people assume things dont exist until there is evidence that they do.

You have obviously never heard of a theoretical physicist.

 

[davmat787]

No, its an observation.

Using all the current infomation availible, the only sane and logic conclusion to make is that god doesn't exist.

In just the same way that all the evidence shows that unicorns dont exist.

If factual infomation comes to light that contradicts this, I will be happy to reevaluate my position.

I frequently see unicorns mentioned in this fashion when compared to god. However, it doesn't quite make sense. Unicorns are supposed to be physical, earth based creatures, God is not.

I am not religious, just promised I would point this out upon the 100th reading of this god vs. unicorns comparison here at AT.

And you are lucky #100!! :awe:

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Then you are admitting you are holding a faith based belief.



Correct. However, you made a statement that God is not real. For this to not be a faith based belief, you need supporting evidence, which you just claimed does not exist in either for for or against direction.



You have obviously never heard of a theoretical physicist.

Theoretical physicists use math to model things that we cant observe.

They dont just make stuff up and asset it like its the truth.

Their math is the evidence that something exists.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I am still amazed that those that do not "believe in" (their term) evolution, climate change, etc., despite the evidence, are the same ones that believe in god with no evidence.

It boggles the mind.

"Who got it right" is the same as "Who best matches what I want to believe".