02 Apr 14
Originally posted by PenguinI would assume that if there is a God then he would have relevance to the modern world as well as the ancient world. It does not make sense to me for God to show up on the scene say 500 years ago.
What is the relevance of their age? When they were first begun, they were a tiny proportion (and a tiny absolute number of adherents). During the height of the power of the societies that hosted them they may conceivably have been a larger proportion of world population than now, (but still a small number of adherents compared to now) but that was many hundr ...[text shortened]... to see how their age has any bearing on whether they are relevant now (or ever).
--- Penguin.
As far as number of adherents, that is another thing altogether. I would not demand that the following be large, although, if God were trying to reach the world I would assume it would be.
02 Apr 14
Originally posted by whodeyWell ok then, the oldest of these three is Judaism, which began around 4000 years ago. That's still very recent in terms of human history. Modern humans arose around 200,000 years ago and 'behavioural modernity' began about 50,000 years ago. To adapt your own words: "t does not make sense to me for God to show up on the scene say 4000 years ago"
I would assume that if there is a God then he would have relevance to the modern world as well as the ancient world. It does not make sense to me for God to show up on the scene say 500 years ago.
As far as number of adherents, that is another thing altogether. I would not demand that the following be large, although, if God were trying to reach the world I would assume it would be.
Penguin
02 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMF<pedant mode>
Three groups on Earth, looking up at the moon. One believes it is part of the Earth that broke off at some point. Another believes it is a tiny planet in its own right that got trapped in an orbit around the much bigger Earth. The third group thinks it is an asteroid of some kind. All three believe that they are looking at something different and, to a degree, describe it using different concepts. In fact, they are all looking at exactly the same thing.
Actually, those three groups are not in disagreement about what it is, they just have different opinions about how it got there.
And the difference between a (dwarf) planet and an asteroid is simply that an asteroid is not massive enough to become spherical. So really, there are only 2 groups in your analogy.
</pedant mode>
--- Penguin
02 Apr 14
Originally posted by PenguinIf you have a better analogy for "The Three Abrahamic Religions", go for it. That is, after all, the purpose of this thread.🙂
<pedant mode>
Actually, those three groups are not in disagreement about what it is, they just have different opinions about how it got there.
And the difference between a (dwarf) planet and an asteroid is simply that an asteroid is not massive enough to become spherical. So really, there are only 2 groups in your analogy.
</pedant mode>
--- Penguin
02 Apr 14
Originally posted by PenguinRecorded history spanky
Well ok then, the oldest of these three is Judaism, which began around 4000 years ago. That's still [b]very recent in terms of human history. Modern humans arose around 200,000 years ago and 'behavioural modernity' began about 50,000 years ago. To adapt your own words: "t does not make sense to me for God to show up on the scene say 4000 years ago"
Penguin[/b]
03 Apr 14
Originally posted by JS357I rather think it has less to do with Abraham and more to do with the God of Abraham. The only common thread to all three religions is that they worship the same God. Everything else is fluff, at least when discussing commonality.
The analogy might carry over to other secular events for example:
One group believes Lavoisier discovered oxygen.
One group believes Priestley discovered oxygen.
One group believes Scheele discovered oxygen.
The matter hinges on historical records and perhaps a view of what it means to be a discoverer and which and when if any of these men did what tha ...[text shortened]... n, depending on the meaning of "discoverer." (This is an overstatement. Most people don't care.)
04 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneThe God of Abraham is a commonality, but their understanding of Abraham's God and God's Son is the difference.
I rather think it has less to do with Abraham and more to do with the God of Abraham. The only common thread to all three religions is that they worship the same God. Everything else is fluff, at least when discussing commonality.
04 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneThe point is that if they understand God differently, then they are not really worshipping the same God, even though they may make that claim.
But commonality is the point of the OP. If you want to discuss differences, that's a whole 'nother thread, one I wouldn't care to participate in.
07 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNo.
The point is that if they understand God differently, then they are not really worshipping the same God, even though they may make that claim.
They ARE worshipping the same person, the God of Abraham. God does not change.
It is only Islam's method of worship that differs. It was codified by Mohammed (or Muhammad, depending on your source), who was just a man, with his own motivations to sin as any other man. He had much motivation to not only modify history, but to establish himself as their prophet. I'm sure he saw many benefits (on earth) from doing so.
On the other hand, Christians had a man without sin, without treasure upon earth and with a message of peace, the actual Son of God. His only motivation was satisfying the mission His Father sent Him to accomplish. And we see how that turned out.
07 Apr 14
4 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneI might could agree with you, if we were just talking about the Jews and the Christians, because with the exception of Jesus, we do worship the same God.
No.
They ARE worshipping the same person, the God of Abraham. God does not change.
It is only Islam's method of worship that differs. It was codified by Mohammed (or Muhammad, depending on your source), who was just a man, with his own motivations to sin as any other man. He had much motivation to not only modify history, but to establish himself a ...[text shortened]... n was satisfying the mission His Father sent Him to accomplish. And we see how that turned out.
I also agree that God does not change, but peoples understanding of God can change. When the Muslims say Allah is the name of their god and he has no son, does that sound like the same God that Christians worship? I don't think so. Allah of Islam's Quran or Koran seems like a different god than the God of the Holy Bible.
Both the Jews and the Christians worship the God of Moses and the Israelites, who worshipped the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob (Israel). But we must remember that Abraham and his fathers are said to have served other gods before God promised him Issac. So I believe this Allah is one of those other gods. Maybe the moon god.
And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the River in old times; and they served other gods.
(Joshua 24:2 NKJV)
Allah the moon god
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/allah-moon-god.html
08 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsBut in the analogy they don't think they are looking at the same thing.
In a way. However, I think it is more like all three [b]think they are looking at the same thing.[/b]
Isn't that the essence of the OP analogy?
Perhaps you could produce your own analogy ~ along the same sort of lines as the OP ~ that encapsulates your take on the commonality [such as there is] of "The Three Abrahamic Religions".