• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the God of Judeo-Christian belief and the God of Islam the same entity?

TypicalRussian said:
yet it can be defended soundly for his existence

funny how that works
Click to expand...

Funny how it doesn't work. But it does work as a concept because you can just make up anything at all. That is why there are so many cultural differences in the details of the god concept. Each tribe has its own version of the same concept which reflects upon the tribe.
 
devildavid said:
Funny how it doesn't work. But it does work as a concept because you can just make up anything at all. That is why there are so many cultural differences in the details of the god concept. Each tribe has its own version of the same concept which reflects upon the tribe.
Click to expand...

yet it can be defended soundly for his existence
 
Re the OP, they are both examples of an imaginary being.
 
Grandpappy said:
I’ve heard Christians say no, but isn’t it the same God, just different interpretations?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you have to refer to aged text to find the answer.

Even though "monotheism" is defined as one God, *and* technically all three are "Abrahamic Religions" (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,) *and finally* they all roughly came to be at a point in world history where the shift was on in terms of beliefs.. they are not the same God.

Here is the short version why... Judaism / Christianity is on one side of the fence with plenty of text suggesting at least an idea of what God is and perhaps looks like, going so far as to suggest human creation in his image. Islam pretty much goes the opposite way suggesting that God is too "distinct" from his creation thus is not describable within the confines of how a human looks.

The agnostic in me wants to say this all boils down to two kids on the playground arguing about what God should look like.

But for the purposes of this discussion it is a practical impossibility to blend the concepts of God between how Judaism/Christianity looks at this with how Islam looks at this.

Both may offer some sort of explanation as an olive branch that it is the same god and is interpretational as to the difference, but that is just a mild way of saying the other guy is wrong and on a long enough timeline someone will end up dead over the argument.

One truth across just about all religions, especially the Abrahamic three, is they hate competition. Kinda hard to say this is just an interpretation difference when all sides in the debate are willing to engage in division, hatred, killings, warfare, and honestly just complete lunacy to prove they are right.
 
devildavid said:
Gods aren't entities, they are concepts. The so-called Abrahamic gods are from the same common concept, with cultural differences in the details.
Click to expand...

Hmmm......The Abrahamic God, when used by the Jewish people, loves the Jews.. The chosen people.

The Abrahamic God when used by the Muslims says...Kill the Jews.


How is that a common concept.
 
Yasureoktoo said:
I already told you the reason, in response to the person who said it was different interpretations.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that. and I replied to it.

It's not an interpretation, it's complete fabrication,
a completely different religion fabricated out of thin air,
pretending God changed his mind, and wants it this way now.
Click to expand...

Ok, then, so I take it you can demonstrate your claims with historical evidence? See, the problem here is that you do not know what source material and belief systems were at work and you seem to be making assumptions based upon nothing more than bias.
 
Yasureoktoo said:
LOLOL

There was no source material of their own.
Click to expand...

And you can prove this?

The only material available was the existing religions, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Greek medical.
then their major influence, their own imagination.
Click to expand...

Yes, they adapted it to their existing culture.

Like many, if not all, the religion is pure fabrication.
Some religions seem to have a source, or outside influence like events, UFO's, etc.
Islam has none.
Click to expand...

You appear to have an irrational bias against this religion. I treat them equally myself.


If you really have a degree in ancient history, you will notice there is nothing from the Mecca area whatsoever, untill the Siratt Rasuall Allah, which you did not read.
Click to expand...

LOL, the inevitable snark. Yes, I have a BA [Hons.] in Ancient History, which strictly focussed upon the Greco-Roman period. You are assuming that extant texts are all that ever existed. How do you know this?
 
NWO_Spook said:
And you can prove this?



?
Click to expand...

Hard to prove a negative.
The reason we know so little about these people is because they were illiterate, and nothing was written down.
Before Muhammed was the rock God religions.
We know some of it, but surely not all.
Muslims erased this, calling it Jilliyaya, Period of ignorance.
Their documented history starts with the Sirat Rasuall Allah. But they are trying to hide it now, because it is so vile.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Yes, I get that. and I replied to it.



Ok, then, so I take it you can demonstrate your claims with historical evidence? See, the problem here is that you do not know what source material and belief systems were at work and you seem to be making assumptions based upon nothing more than bias.
Click to expand...

Actually we do know the source material.
Juadism, Christianity, Zoroastantarism, and Greek medical, and immagination for the Qur'an.
The Sirat Rasuall Allah, and the history of Al Taburi, for Muhammeds Bio.
Everything after that is 300 plus years after the fact, to long to be considered accurate.

If you have something different, please share it.

BTW, "Companions of Muhammed", are no good.
They claim to be from people who knew him, however they were written in the 10th to 12th century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom