Should Islam, Christianity and Judaism unite?

[Clariman]

Clariman, you can claim that all these religions worship the same God/god - that is your right.

Just as I can claim that the 'purple teapot' is an absolute fact, and the only 'truth'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

But you cannot claim to be correct, in light of all the evidence to the contrary.

So why do you persist?

I think there is an element here of LemonFools just wanting an argument, so I may be hitting my head against a brick wall. However, I'll give it one last go. My argument isn't one about the existence of a God, or multiple Gods. To be clear (in case anyone has missed it), I do not believe in any God(s), so all your purple teapot arguments are well understood thanks. My argument is more about historical fact. So I'll keep it simple in bullet form.

• Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions (fact)
• They share the same heritage i.e. descended from the same monotheistic belief (fact)
• Jesus was a Jew and Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism (fact)
• Given that they have the same Abrahamic heritage and the ancestors of Jews, Christians and Muslims shared the same religion (as I understand it), surely one can safely say that their God was historically the same God (derived from the facts)
• At this point, let me restate that I do not believe in God, so there is not point coming out with atheistic arguments to argue with me here (fact)
• So my argument is that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in the SAME God (i.e. the God that has been in religious teaching back to their shared heritage)
• Of course, the Christian Sect of Judaism believed that Jesus was the son of God (or was God) and made that a fundamental part of their belief system (fact)
• And Mohammed's teachings in the 7th Century lead to the creation of Islam
• So from a historical perspective, I am arguing that they all believe in the same God. That doesn't mean I or you have to believe in God, but we have to accept that these religions do.
• My logic is that they - de facto - believe in the same God. If you disagree with me, then either (a) tell me where my understanding of religious history is wrong or (b) tell me where Christians and Muslims abandoned their belief in the God of Judaism/Abraham and chose a DIFFERENT God.

Please do not persist in giving me atheistic arguments because you are preaching to the converted - so to speak!

One of the ways of reaching better understanding in this world is to put yourself in other people's positions and try to see things from their point of view. So you have to accept that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in a God - even if you and I don't.

Clariman

[bungeejumper]

Dave Allen always used to sign off his shows with the words "May your god go with you". And on Christmas Eve, that'll do for me too. Whatever you call it, Merii Karisimasu

BJ

[hamzahf]

[*]So my argument is that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in the SAME God (i.e. the God that has been in religious teaching back to their shared heritage)...

Muslim teachings don't have a problem with that idea. Reference to the 'People of the Book' is to be found a number of times in the Qur'an.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book

It becomes messy once believers start to be dogmatic about their particular faith, but with a spirit of openness progress will be made. To quote from one article:

"There are two important tenets to emphasize about the Islamic viewpoint on interfaith dialogue:

• The purpose of interfaith dialogue is not to necessarily conclude with a winner and a loser or to convert others, but rather to share one’s principles. Sincere dialogue should strengthen a person’s faith and at the same time break down barriers.

• Dialogue must not be confined to academic and intellectual circles. Its purpose is to demystify religious differences to everyday people and to uncover the words of truth that frequently get buried under human biases and tendencies to follow that which is convenient. Dialogue can only lead people to examine their religious identities more deeply."

https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2010/03/ ... -view/8742

It is worth mentioning 'A Common Word' with respect to Muslim-Christian dialogue. Much more needs to be done to further Muslim-Jewish dialogue however. Reaction to the political Zionist movement has not aided that dialogue, but groups such as the Maimonides Interfaith Foundation try to lead such dialogue.

http://www.acommonword.com/
http://www.maimonides-foundation.org/

In passing I note Christmas in the UK now amounts to just one day break from shopping and public transport. We used to do the Christmas Eve bargain hunt in the supermarkets for a bit of fun, but honestly now the supermarkets will be all open on Boxing Day I just don't quite understand the queues in supermarkets this week. In fact if one lives in West London, Southall does not appear to recognise Christmas and Sunday trading restrictions anyway so it is just another day.

Have a peaceful day off from secular materialism

Regards
Hamzah

[Clariman]

Thanks Hamzahf
That is the kind of thing I was getting at. I am glad that there is appetite for such dialogue:)
C

[Stonge]

Clariman.

Thanks for your reply.

I don't think the question of whether God actually exists is relevant here. However the difference in thinking between an atheist and a believer is crucial (sorry couldn't resist that word).

It must be obvious to you that I am not an expert on these matters, so others may be able to correct my mistakes.

Whether or not we (you and I) are atheists, is in other ways irrelevant - we do believe that religions exist and a lot of people believe that their particular one is the absolute truth. Though perhaps that is something we (i.e. you and I) find hard to fully understand and accept, because we don't have a strong faith.

However I would make a few observations:

1. Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and the Messiah of the Jews.

2. Judaism does not believe that Jesus was even a prophet, let alone the son of God, or God incarnate (Holy Trinity and all that).

3. Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet (not God incarnate, who died on the cross to save humanity, by suffering for His children and all the rest of it). Mohammed was the last prophet. Neither Christianity nor Judaism believes that Muhammed was a prophet.

Of course these religions all originated from a common source (Abrahamic - Abraham was a Jew or an Arab depending on which religion you quote), but their visions of God (even if people like us who are outside these religions see their Gods as historically the 'same' God) are now very different.

Religious people do not just believe in a vague concept of God, they believe in the details of their religion which supplies their version of the 'true' God, and which is different in significant ways from the versions worshipped by other religions. Worshipping the true God through the one true (and not a false) religion is vital to their ultimate salvation - so it is very important. A major problem is that of claims of revelation - if that can be worked round there is hope.

I cannot see how these religions would ever be able to unite, but it would be nice if they could get along together. Lets hope progress will be made.

Anyway that's about as far as I can get with my limited intellect and knowledge.

[hamzahf]

Of course these religions all originated from a common source (Abrahamic - Abraham was a Jew or an Arab depending on which religion you quote), but their visions of God (even if people like us who are outside these religions see their Gods as historically the 'same' God) are now very different.

Religious people do not just believe in a vague concept of God, they believe in the details of their religion which supplies their version of the 'true' God, and which is different in significant ways from the versions worshipped by other religions. Worshipping the true God through the one true (and not a false) religion is vital to their ultimate salvation - so it is very important. A major problem is that of claims of revelation - if that can be worked round there is hope.

Not the easiest of reads (I found I got buried in detail), but Karen Armstrong's 'A History of God' is a fascinating exploration of how the concept of God changed over a 4000 year period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God

What fascinates me is how the concept of God develops through the interaction of the the three faiths and through the influence of earlier Greek philosophy. I was left inspired that the concept of God is not static, a redundant relic from the bronze age, but remained a vibrant transformative idea that went hand-in-hand with cultural change. On a short-term horizon we may feel that religions do not change, but her book demonstrates that over a long-term horizon the religious environment showed a radical and interdependent interplay between the three Abrahamic faiths.

Regards
Hamzah

[UncleEbenezer]

[*]My logic is that they - de facto - believe in the same God. If you disagree with me, then either (a) tell me where my understanding of religious history is wrong or (b) tell me where Christians and Muslims abandoned their belief in the God of Judaism/Abraham and chose a DIFFERENT God.[/list]

Sure, they have common roots. And all originate in much the same part of the world: they are in origin desert religions.

One can track common roots also with polytheistic religions. In the name, Jehovah derives from the roman Jove (as well as the obvious hebrew), and has at times been used more-or-less interchangeably. In the key mythological elements, Odin sacrificed himself on the tree and was resurrected, like Christ on the cross. And before either Christ or Odin came the far harsher story of Prometheus, and doubtless others that fed the mythology.

The point I've been trying to make is that the common roots have little meaning: just like "brexit", they mean entirely different and utterly incompatible things to different people. Your sword and my ploughshare may both be made of iron!

And they feed on conflict: take away the perceived threat from "the other" and a religion melts away: hence in Blighty the dominant Church of England's position on the genteel fringe of life, compared to the much stronger, more active churches in countries with current or recent history of oppression. Or to early Christians in the catacombs, the Zionist movement of the post-war years, or parts of Islam today: religions under severe attack by someone stronger than themselves become figureheads for the oppressed!

[RowdyReptile]

I forgot to consult my reference resource http://www.godchecker.com/

https://scontent.ftpa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=58E961C4

We are going to have a lot of fun around here, I can tell.

RR

[beeswax]

I tend to agree that all the Abrahamic faiths are based on the OT and one God and so are in effect ALL Jewish. Its only Christians that don't circumcise their kids but that was a concession that Paul got when he met up with some of Jesus's disciples. Otherwise even Christian kids would have been done. Oooch!

Muslims will argue that God's revelation continues and indeed that makes sense but then why did it stop 1400 years ago..Isn't there a good case that what better time for a NEW revelation by God in todays world?

[hamzahf]

Muslims will argue that God's revelation continues and indeed that makes sense but then why did it stop 1400 years ago..Isn't there a good case that what better time for a NEW revelation by God in todays world?

One essential component of Christianity and Islam was that they offered a message to mankind as a whole. In hindsight one might argue that each came at a time that influenced the course of direction of major power blocks (Rome and then Byzantium and Persia) that had influences up to the enlightenment.

What new message would a modern-day revelation contain, and to whom would it be directed? There is no harm in indulging in such a thought experiment, but would a modern-day revelation say too much dogma and not enough principle (but didn't non-conformist Christianity already go there) or would it speak to the growing secular population (either approvingly or disapprovingly)?

Regards
Hamzah

[supremetwo]

What new message would a modern-day revelation contain, and to whom would it be directed? There is no harm in indulging in such a thought experiment, but would a modern-day revelation say too much dogma and not enough principle (but didn't non-conformist Christianity already go there) or would it speak to the growing secular population (either approvingly or disapprovingly)?Regards
Hamzah

Nowadays, such as the Press, Facebook and other social media would likely have debunked religion not least as a 'conspiracy theory'.

It's certain that proof would be required and that proclamations of 'experts' would not be accepted.

[hamzahf]

What new message would a modern-day revelation contain, and to whom would it be directed? There is no harm in indulging in such a thought experiment, but would a modern-day revelation say too much dogma and not enough principle (but didn't non-conformist Christianity already go there) or would it speak to the growing secular population (either approvingly or disapprovingly)?Regards
Hamzah

Nowadays, such as the Press, Facebook and other social media would likely have debunked religion not least as a 'conspiracy theory'.

It's certain that proof would be required and that proclamations of 'experts' would not be accepted.

In the current 'post-truth' climate it strikes me that anyone demanding proof of a an idea or statement is somehow seen as a kill joy. Is blind faith in a political aspiration now analogous to religious fervour? Since social media is one of the bigger conduits of 'fake news', how does one discern the debunker from the conspiracy theorist, particularly if the debunker is portrayed as part of the conspiracy (9/11 comes to mind)?

Is the modern world becoming more rational? Recent years strike me as rolling back progress in so many areas, perhaps as a reaction to scientificism or as a specific anti-science statement. Which 'experts' shall we trust? The past year has shown two political campaigns where only experts who say what is wanted to be heard by a specific audience get any credence. Religious experts are no doubt suspect for an atheist audience, yet scientific and economic experts are dismissed by a growing audience of deniers of all stripes (climate, MMR etc).

I am rather disheartened where Western society is heading (I don't live anywhere else so have no yardstick for those cultures) and religion does not strike me as the root of the problem. Perhaps we are creating a dystopian groupthink through social media where anyone with sufficient will can peddle any opinion to a receptive audience. What is absent in the outlook of that audience that makes them susceptible to such influence?

Coincidentally, the Radio 4 World at One is now discussing this exact topic as I type. I guess it will be available online in a couple of days.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qpt ... des/player

Regards
Hamzah

[ReformedCharacter]

... In the current 'post-truth' climate it strikes me that anyone demanding proof of a an idea or statement is somehow seen as a kill joy. Is blind faith in a political aspiration now analogous to religious fervour? Since social media is one of the bigger conduits of 'fake news', how does one discern the debunker from the conspiracy theorist, particularly if the debunker is portrayed as part of the conspiracy (9/11 comes to mind)?

Is the modern world becoming more rational? Recent years strike me as rolling back progress in so many areas, perhaps as a reaction to scientificism or as a specific anti-science statement. Which 'experts' shall we trust? The past year has shown two political campaigns where only experts who say what is wanted to be heard by a specific audience get any credence. Religious experts are no doubt suspect for an atheist audience, yet scientific and economic experts are dismissed by a growing audience of deniers of all stripes (climate, MMR etc).

I am rather disheartened where Western society is heading (I don't live anywhere else so have no yardstick for those cultures) and religion does not strike me as the root of the problem. Perhaps we are creating a dystopian groupthink through social media where anyone with sufficient will can peddle any opinion to a receptive audience. What is absent in the outlook of that audience that makes them susceptible to such influence?

Coincidentally, the Radio 4 World at One is now discussing this exact topic as I type. I guess it will be available online in a couple of days.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qpt ... des/player

Regards
Hamzah

I agree with you. I am concerned that many of the younger generation seem so poorly able to exercise their reasoning skills. Because the media, in its various guises, seems to give equal weight or even bias towards the ridiculous over the rational it seems particularly important for the young who live in a world of media to be able to choose the real from the bogus. As a case in point, my niece - a reasonably intelligent graduate - was watching some nonsense reality TV show yesterday. It was a bit of a revelation to find that she hadn't realised that the program wasn't actually about people going through their everyday lives who just happened to be being filmed and was in fact scripted and the performers were being paid for their efforts. It's the direction of travel that worries me.

RC

[Clariman]

Good post by Hamzah. I agree that Social Media creates its own myths and misinformation, so one cannot blame religion for all of society's ills. Society has them without religion.

Clariman

[beeswax]

Muslims will argue that God's revelation continues and indeed that makes sense but then why did it stop 1400 years ago..Isn't there a good case that what better time for a NEW revelation by God in todays world?

One essential component of Christianity and Islam was that they offered a message to mankind as a whole. In hindsight one might argue that each came at a time that influenced the course of direction of major power blocks (Rome and then Byzantium and Persia) that had influences up to the enlightenment.

What new message would a modern-day revelation contain, and to whom would it be directed? There is no harm in indulging in such a thought experiment, but would a modern-day revelation say too much dogma and not enough principle (but didn't non-conformist Christianity already go there) or would it speak to the growing secular population (either approvingly or disapprovingly)?

Regards
Hamzah

Hi Hamzah,

Fair point but it leaves so many questions like..

Why didn't Jehova give revelations to other races and cultures during the OT days and not just to the Jews? Why didn't Jesus travel to other lands to give his vision of him. Why did God decide to send an Angel to an illiterate uneducated man like Muhammad and why as a holy man decide to have so many wives and a child bride which would be frowned on today, indeed be against the law? Why was the Quran a dictation and to whom and over what period and why in arabic which its said cannot be translated in other languages etc?

There was no message to the whole of mankind by GOD because its clear there are too many errors and contradictions to be from him and animal sacrifice which Islam still embraces today is obviously a pagan ritual as was human sacrifice.

Surely God would never choose such backward cultures to direct HIS message to. The Greeks or Chinese would surely have been more appropriate and never in a time when there was no written means of copying or communication like there is today. If a day is a 1000 years in God's eyes, that would just meant a couple of days wait wouldn't it?

God could surely choose a way of sending a message to every continent and every person IF he wished to do so and my point is that the only time that God chose was back then to a tiny fraction of the earth's peoples? And always to some individual when nobody else was around? Doesn't that make you a little suspicious and if not then you MUST believe that Joseph Smith was also a Prophet and Muhammad was not the last one and why the last one anyway? Why NO revelation of God during the last war when the most number of people were killed circa 50 million was it? What OTHER time in history could match that?

Having said all this there is NO message that God needs send to us now because we have come of age to realise (well except the religious) that we KNOW what is needed to please God and that is the golden rule and that was always true even in Aristotle's time but mankind will never learn to live with each other because of famine and feast, riches and women, tribalism, land and maniac dictators which pop up the whole time seemingly and convince others to follow them. We surely don't need ANY religious text based wholly on myth and legend and a great deal of lies to be honest to know its not from God at all and used to control others like I said. Could Mohammad have succeeded WITHOUT claiming God was on his side? Could the Jews succeed in Palestine without religion and its historical claim of ownership?

The evidence is all we can go by and that surely proves that we have evolved from pond life and are primates. That God has NEVER intervened in human affairs and certainly either doesn't watch what we are doing or doesn't care to see all the human misery of the holocaust and little children being slaughtered or even those as said, dying of cancer. So why do millions of religious people bow down and pray to this UNSEEN God every single day when that is the ONLY evidence we have? I tend to think that my idea of my Deistic God does intervene and could quote personal testimony to that effect but it really would not stand serious scrutiny and probably more hope than expectation.

Christianity and Islam especially have caused untold misery across the world for centuries and still is and its time people in the West who should at least some intelligence started to know its all man made and started to reject it as such. My biggest worry is that Islam will become the ONLY religion across the world based purely on numbers and having lots of indoctrinated children and of course the Quran and Sharia Law will then be the norm and all because we allowed it to happen. At least the Politicians did.

As I have said Jews and Christians say they believe the OT and NT was God's revelation but don't live by it. Most Muslims don't live by the Quran or we are all toast as we know the end mission based on the text and just hope enough Muslims come to common sense and use their brains more. Its true that most people alive today are far more intelligent than any past religious prophet or writer and yet they want to cling to their incredible myths? Its why I am amazed that you chose that path when you clearly know that too.

The question was should Islam, Christianity and Islam unite?

My answer is very clear, they should ALL go extinct and replace it with secularism which despite all its flaws has PROVEN to be more loving, more compassionate and more just than ANYTHING you will find in holy scripture. We must hope that one day none of them will exist but that is probably mission impossible but then life can always be surprising and God (IF he is watching us) has a choice to do something TODAY IF he wants us ALL to come to know him. Can he really judge us all one day and answer that very question as any human being would act to stop a single atrocity and yet he didn't and had nothing to lose in doing so?

ATB

Mike

[Clariman]

Mike
While I have sympathy with some of your views, I'd say two things.

Firstly, as co-owner of the site and the OP, I'd prefer if your ideas were expressed in a more respectful way. Calling religious teaching "lies" isn't particularly respectful. Many religious people care deeply about their faith and care greatly for the wellbeing of others.

Secondly, I think people seeking power cause war and aggression, not religions per se. People may use religion - or nationalism or their bloodline or their gang or anything else as a tool in thar aggression so secularism is not wholly immune. I.e. there are bad and good folk in every section of society whether religious or not.

Anyway, I want to return this to the Topic which was whether the 3 main abrahamic religions should work more closely together, or celebrate their common heritage.

Any posts that divert away from that core topic will be removed from this thread.

Clariman

[hamzahf]

Muslims will argue that God's revelation continues and indeed that makes sense but then why did it stop 1400 years ago..Isn't there a good case that what better time for a NEW revelation by God in todays world?

What new message would a modern-day revelation contain, and to whom would it be directed?

Having said all this there is NO message that God needs send to us now because we have come of age to realise (well except the religious) that we KNOW what is needed to please God and that is the golden rule and that was always true even in Aristotle's time but mankind will never learn to live with each other because of famine and feast, riches and women, tribalism, land and maniac dictators which pop up the whole time seemingly and convince others to follow them.

Hi Mike,

Nice to cross paths again online. Nesting quotes will soon become a challenging exercise in my replies. You seem to call for a modern-day revelation to update and unify religion and then change your mind and opt for a very old principle that is contained within most of the religions already. In addition you then attack all religions in favour of a benign secular outlook on life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

That actually would encourage me if we espoused this rule at every opportunity, but from my perspective it also says that at some point nothing new is needed in any case (the position of Islamic teachings as it happens). So what actually would be the new secular teaching to flesh out the basic principle of the golden rule? Do you have a model in mind that we could discuss? Will it be socialist, liberal, libertarian, conservative or politically non-aligned?

If we stick to the thread topic, what form will the syncretic combination of the Abrahamic faiths take and what will be required to achieve it? Shia Muslims already have a messianic outlook, so would they be the first to align with charismatic Christianity in a highly emotional amalgam. What of the austere Sunni Muslims and the even more rule-driven Orthodox Jews? Are they going to have any truck with emotional expressions of religion? Is it even worth trying to combine different religious outlooks since they already successfully offer different groups their own particular expression of religious devotion and notion of God?

I am still a slow writer by the way, so will inevitably only pick at points raised in your posts. Apologies in advance if that is frustrating.

Kind regards
Hamzah

[beeswax]

What new message would a modern-day revelation contain, and to whom would it be directed?

Having said all this there is NO message that God needs send to us now because we have come of age to realise (well except the religious) that we KNOW what is needed to please God and that is the golden rule and that was always true even in Aristotle's time but mankind will never learn to live with each other because of famine and feast, riches and women, tribalism, land and maniac dictators which pop up the whole time seemingly and convince others to follow them.

Hi Mike,

Nice to cross paths again online. Nesting quotes will soon become a challenging exercise in my replies. You seem to call for a modern-day revelation to update and unify religion and then change your mind and opt for a very old principle that is contained within most of the religions already. In addition you then attack all religions in favour of a benign secular outlook on life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

That actually would encourage me if we espoused this rule at every opportunity, but from my perspective it also says that at some point nothing new is needed in any case (the position of Islamic teachings as it happens). So what actually would be the new secular teaching to flesh out the basic principle of the golden rule? Do you have a model in mind that we could discuss? Will it be socialist, liberal, libertarian, conservative or politically non-aligned?

If we stick to the thread topic, what form will the syncretic combination of the Abrahamic faiths take and what will be required to achieve it? Shia Muslims already have a messianic outlook, so would they be the first to align with charismatic Christianity in a highly emotional amalgam. What of the austere Sunni Muslims and the even more rule-driven Orthodox Jews? Are they going to have any truck with emotional expressions of religion? Is it even worth trying to combine different religious outlooks since they already successfully offer different groups their own particular expression of religious devotion and notion of God?

I am still a slow writer by the way, so will inevitably only pick at points raised in your posts. Apologies in advance if that is frustrating.

Kind regards
Hamzah

Hi Hamzah, thanks for the mention and sincerely hope we can have some meaningful discussions once again and apologies for my intolerance towards religion and especially Islam as I have always seen as dangerous dogma for reasons we have discussed many times and indeed would have fallen foul of Christianity in its cruel enforcement at one time and the divisions therein. I do jump about a lot both with my thoughts and my old faith and new approach where I believe in a Creator God and at the same time suggest organised religion is put out of its misery etc. Its no accident that more enlightenment and education within Western Societies has undermined Christian beliefs and attendance to Churches, at least in the UK and can only guess elsewhere. That is because we are no longer subservient to it or their leaders but don't see that with Islam based on its cultural and cruel enforcement within Islamic Countries and so elsewhere too. I fear the worst actually. When a religion says not to intermarry with people of another faith or non faith unless they convert suggests to me that integration is impossible as something has to give.

I sometimes think or dream that the NT was like the OT in that its mostly made up and it doesn't really represent the real views that Jesus espoused and many words were put into his mouth by vested interests and other stuff like the Virgin birth and claims he was the only way to God and the narrow way promulgated and of course the punishment for not doing so...Strange that these faiths always has punishment by God IF you don't do what they want. I therefore come back to the golden rule that Jesus was associated with and his pacifism and willing to help no matter who it was and even ticked of his disciples when they complained that the unbeliever was doing much the same.

John the Baptist and Jesus seemed to be about the same ethos of the golden rule and basically pleasing God by being kind and loving and doing the best we can for others less fortunate. Who needs ANYTHING else from religious text other than those few words? No, they just had to spoil it and start yet another rule enforcing hierarchy after Jesus died and we know what happened next with the power and influence and monstrosity the Catholic Church became with all its wealth and trappings that Jesus would have been appalled to see.

So it seems God does have a choice to intervene as all religious people claim he has over the last 5000 years and oddly not before in the 200,000 years history of homo sapiens...Any reasons why not??? Why then and no prophet since? And there are many ways he could do that to every single person on this earth lets say a message on your bedroom wall for instance or in the sky that he despises ALL organised religion and to repeat the few words of the golden rule etc. Would that work? Probably not and would be thought as some kind of hoax by the them and carry on as before and so...It then has to be left as it has been to secular governments to come up with rules for living that are better than what religion has offered in its condemnation of homosexuals and divorce and women's rights just to name three...

What then does organised religion offer us other than a promise of eternal life or God's punishment that secularism can't? I am apolitical and so don't suggest any political model other than a democratic one where we all get to choose and of course that means large chunks of society is unhappy. But that is the essential consequence other than dictatorship or a theocracy.

I really cannot get my head around Muslims fighting and killing each other because of its twin forks of divergence after the death of Muhammad and yet they have a common base of belief and its religious text ie the Quran. But then we had and still have Catholics and Protestants in a phoney war after centuries of conflict too..I don't take kindly to ANY religion that enforces its rituals, doctrines and beliefs on others and especially young minds.

ATB

Mike

PS You may be a slow writer but you are a whizz at how and what you write. Keep it up...without them there links you know...You don't need others to do your thinking...Its why in a serious way I can say the world is a far more intellectual and educated one than ever the time of those ancient religious ones where almost anything was believed and yet millions cling to them because they all claim its God's word that must be obeyed! They would wouldn't they...You are better than that and why I ask the questions I do of you occasionally and apologise if that grates with you and your faith.

[Stonge]

What new message would a modern-day revelation contain, and to whom would it be directed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke

(I wonder if there's a 'Godwin's law' for David Icke?)

[RowdyReptile]

The truth of the matter is, there is no way in hell our faiths will combine. However, I do think a Muslim and a Christian can unite as individuals.

Hamzahf is a brother, and a person of the book. I hope he can forgive my past, and I look forward to a better future discussing these issues in the future.

RR