Is there a connection between Islam, Judaism and Christianity

[Niki1 1]

Of course there is a connection.
They are all mono-theestic (sp).
They were all originated and developed by men who said, "God told this to me."
They all have followers who are nuttier than squirre shit.l

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That was pretty good until the declaration that Abraham and Sarah lived 73 Million years ago.

And Noah living to the age of 950 is not as absurd?

I knew it was only a matter of time before you'd come back to these religious threads.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That was pretty good until the declaration that Abraham and Sarah lived 73 Million years ago.

And Noah living to the age of 950 is not as absurd?

That's in "dog years."

I've always held the idea that somebody really meant months and not years. It would still be a very long lifespan for that period of history, but at least it would be possible.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BIGUN 1,055]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That was pretty good until the declaration that Abraham and Sarah lived 73 Million years ago.

And Noah living to the age of 950 is not as absurd?

Quote

And all three books agreed that Abraham lived to 175 years old. Perhaps the following explanation will help you, "The oldest of the antediluvians listed in Genesis 5 was Methuselah who has become the epitome of longevity because he was reported to have lived 969 years. Noah was given an equally incredible age of 950 in Genesis 9:29. There are three serious problems with the Genesis numbers: men do not live to be nine hundred years, men do not father children when they are over a century old, and why did they wait so long to have children? All three of these problems disappear if we make two simple assumptions: the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of Genesis) has the original numbers and each of the numbers has one decimal place in modern notation. The original Genesis numbers were not written in decimal notation. Instead the numbers were recorded in an archaic, pre-cuneiform, sign-value, Sumerian number system, similar in some ways to Roman numerals.

The fantastic stories about these men living over nine hundred years and not getting around to fathering their children until they had lived a century or two, are the result of an ancient mistranslation of the original numbers. Except for Noah, each young man fathered his first son during his late teens or early twenties, just as young men do today, and they lived into their seventies or early eighties. Noah lived to be 83 years old and Methuselah lived to be 85. The river flood of 2900 BC occurred when Noah was 48 years old and he had been king for ten years.

Nearly all modern translations of Genesis are derived from the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text, because it is generally the most reliable. But there are also two other versions of Genesis: the Samaritan (in an early Hebrew script) and the Septuagint (a Greek translation of an early Hebrew text). The Septuagint numbers were closer to the original numbers, because when scholars translated the Hebrew Pentateuch (which includes Genesis) into Greek at Alexandria, Egypt about 280 BC, they used a Hebrew text that was edited in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. This text was centuries older than the proto-Masoretic Text selected as the official text by the Masoretes after 70 CE, a text that was already corrupted by scribes trying to correct what they thought were errors.

Noah was a Sumerian king of Shuruppak during the Jemdet Nasr period which ended with the river flood of 2900 BC. The Genesis 5 numbers, representing ages of Noah and his ancestors, were based on records written in clay before the river flood in an archaic (pre-cuneiform) Sumerian number system. Contemporaneous records of the deaths of each king and other wealthy land owners in Shuruppak were probably created by taxation scribes, so that tax collectors would know who was responsible for paying the real-estate taxes. These separate records were dated by year name and stored with similar death records in the temple archives in Shuruppak from before and after the flood of 2900 BC. These records included Noah's death.

The flood story was first written in clay during the Early Dynastic IIIa period (ca. 2600-2500 BC). The scribe who compiled the flood story from various oral traditions about previous floods may have been the same scribe who searched the archives for records of Noah and his ancestors and calculated the Genesis 5 numbers from raw birth and death records which the scribe found in the archives. The scribe calculated the Genesis 5 numbers using an archaic Sumerian number systems that was used only in Shuruppak and only during the Early Dynastic IIIa period.

When the compiler of the Genesis 5 numbers calculated the years/seasons data in years and tenths of years, he used one of several number systems then in common use. He used one or more archaic number sign for tens, a different sign for units and a different sign for tenths. This is called sign-value notation. A scribe familiar with these archaic signs might still have difficulty interpreting them correctly if he did not know in which number system they were written and the context in which they were written. Hundreds of years later during the Old Babylonian period (1800-1600 BC), when a different scribe translated these numbers into cuneiform in the classical Sumerian sexagesimal number system, he erroneously assumed that the archaic numbers were written in the Sumerian proto-sexagesimal number system designed for counting discrete objects such as animals, when actually the numbers were originally written in a number system designed for counting volumes of grain. This error converted tens of years to hundreds, years to tens of years, tenths of years to years, and also inflated the ages at death. Genesis 5 was based on these mistranslated numbers."

SOURCE: http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ages.htm

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

Quote

That was pretty good until the declaration that Abraham and Sarah lived 73 Million years ago.

And Noah living to the age of 950 is not as absurd?

I knew it was only a matter of time before you'd come back to these religious threads.

It is hard to stay away, quitting smoking was easier.

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

So are you denying the irrational side of the human spirit, if you want to call it that? The side of humans that do not adhere to laws of logic or reason? I'm seriously asking, because it seems like you are, in order to scoff at the concept of spirituality as you do.

I'm denying that anything supernatural exists, Those claiming to be "spiritual" are making supernatural claims just like the "religious" do.

Quote

Hell, I would consider a majority of the field of psychology to be dwelling on spirituality

"Dwelling on spirituality"? What does that mean? Psychologists many times treat people who are religious or spiritual, but Psychology is a science, and not based in anything supernatural.

Quote

I do believe there is no conflict between religion and science.

You're wrong, The debate over evolution is one of the current conflicts, and there have been conflicts between the two for a long time. See attached.

Quote

I am an engineer with the ability and training to think logically and rationally

If you were to apply that same ability and training to other areas of your life, you wouldn't be religious or "spiritual". Nothing supernatural stands up to rational scrutiny.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[Andy9o8 0]

Steve, I almost weighed-in to respond to BB's post #19, but I decided that it was directed to you, so I'd sit back and let you reply first. FWIW (if anything), you responded to each point virtually identically to how I would have.

To BB: I mean you no disrespect; you certainly have the right to have the personal faith that you do. But belief in the supernatural, in any form, by any semantic description, is what it is: pure faith. Please do not conflab it with science.

Humans tend to believe in the supernatural (no matter how it's labeled or rationalized) partly because the species' brain seems to be hard-wired to do so, and partly because a presumption of the existence of the supernatural is part of the social environment that indoctrinates virtually all children (even those raised by atheist parents) in their psychologically most formative and impressionable years; and that indoctrination tends to have a lasting effect into adulthood, and transcends even some peoples' advanced educations, so that, as adults, even though they're comfortable no longer believing in Santa Claus, they still maintain some religious or quasi-religious ("spiritual"? what's in a name?) belief in some form of supernatural. That is the reason, with all due respect, why some people with advanced educations (even in the hard sciences) are able to reconcile their educations with their personal religious beliefs.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I mean you no disrespect; you certainly have the right to have the personal faith that you do. But belief in the supernatural, in any form, by any semantic description, is what it is: pure faith. Please do not conflab it with science.

Absolutely - spirituality, notions of "karma", belief in a diety. This is all the same thing. So it's really out to lunch when someone mocks or dismisses one, and then lays claim to the others as if it's fact. Actually, it's just entertaining. Just another form of "your belief is nuts, but MINE is perfectly reasonable."

as for atheism - I understand taking the position, but I just don't see the point of making the effort. I think the position that it's rational to either believe or dispute a subjectively defined system is a bit goofy. Similar in goofiness when religious types say their 'belief' has 'proof'.

anyway, old hat

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[maadmax 0]

--I am an engineer with the ability and training to think logically and rationally

If you were to apply that same ability and training to other areas of your life, you wouldn't be religious or "spiritual". Nothing supernatural stands up to rational scrutiny.

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

--I am an engineer with the ability and training to think logically and rationally

If you were to apply that same ability and training to other areas of your life, you wouldn't be religious or "spiritual". Nothing supernatural stands up to rational scrutiny.

The answer ultimately can only be found in God.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Steve, I almost weighed-in to respond to BB's post #19, but I decided that it was directed to you, so I'd sit back and let you reply first. FWIW (if anything), you responded to each point virtually identically to how I would have.

To BB: I mean you no disrespect; you certainly have the right to have the personal faith that you do. But belief in the supernatural, in any form, by any semantic description, is what it is: pure faith. Please do not conflab it with science.

Humans tend to believe in the supernatural (no matter how it's labeled or rationalized) partly because the species' brain seems to be hard-wired to do so, and partly because a presumption of the existence of the supernatural is part of the social environment that indoctrinates virtually all children (even those raised by atheist parents) in their psychologically most formative and impressionable years; and that indoctrination tends to have a lasting effect into adulthood, and transcends even some peoples' advanced educations, so that, as adults, even though they're comfortable no longer believing in Santa Claus, they still maintain some religious or quasi-religious ("spiritual"? what's in a name?) belief in some form of supernatural. That is the reason, with all due respect, why some people with advanced educations (even in the hard sciences) are able to reconcile their educations with their personal religious beliefs.

you are both misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I am saying.

Faith is faith.

Rationality is rationality. Note: I am using the definition of the word "rational" here that pertains to the ability to reason using logical facts and premises, not the connotative "smart" or "sane".

I do not have a conflict here because i understand that I cannot apply rational thought to matters of faith because faith is, by definition, "irrational". Unfortunately, the term "irrational" has a negative connotation, so that instead of just the basic definition of "not rational" it becomes "crazy" or "stupid" or all other manner of bad things.

Emotion is also irrational. Are emotions, therefore, invalid? You cannot apply rational thought or logic to emotions, yet I do not see people in this forum arguing that we should all become Vulcans. What makes emotion valid and spirituality invalid?

Science, therefore, falls into the realm of rational thought. my personal faith, therefore, falls outside the realm of rational thought. my personal love for my husband, or the tears in my eyes at the end of a sad movie, or the giddy glee i feel when nailing a 4-way exit, also ALL fall outside the realm of rational thought.

The "debate over evolution vs. creation" is EXACTLY what i'm talking about, as people are trying to mix science (rational or logical discourse) with faith (not rational). I don't do this. It is just not necessary.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[stevebabin 0]

I don't think emotion is irrational. Can you explain why you think it is?

Quote

The "debate over evolution vs. creation" is EXACTLY what i'm talking about, as people are trying to mix science (rational or logical discourse) with faith (not rational). I don't do this. It is just not necessary.

Evolution and creation (as written in the bible)are mutually exclusive ideas. They can't both be right, which is why we have the fundie nutters fighting so hard against science on this issue. It is yet one more thing that shows belief in the supernatural(god, spirits, whatever) is ridiculous.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

Quote

I don't think emotion is irrational. Can you explain why you think it is?

Quote

The "debate over evolution vs. creation" is EXACTLY what i'm talking about, as people are trying to mix science (rational or logical discourse) with faith (not rational). I don't do this. It is just not necessary.

Evolution and creation (as written in the bible)are mutually exclusive ideas. They can't both be right, which is why we have the fundie nutters fighting so hard against science on this issue. It is yet one more thing that shows belief in the supernatural(god, spirits, whatever) is ridiculous.

Huge difference between the "fundie nutters" and those on a quest for faith.

As someone who considers myself spritual, I find the fundie nutters as objectionable as you do. Their blind following of obviously false beliefs is idiotic. Their attempts to justify, explain and rationalize them are insulting. Look at some of the back and forth Jaybird and I had.

Lots of spirtual folk don't believe that the bible is historically accurate. My dad was a devout Catholic, and a respected scientist. He knew perfectly well that the biblical accounts were myth. That didn't stop him from believing in God. Nor did his belief in God interfere with his scientific quests. Like BikerBabe, he kept them seperate.

Did you read the NPR story I linked?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[stevebabin 0]

Yes, I read the NPR article.
I understand what you and BB are saying about keeping the two (religion/faith and rationality) seperate. I cannot do that and maintain a sense of intellectual honesty. Yes, it's the fundamentalists that frustrate me the most, because their beliefs are directly opposed to things we know to be as fact, but even the "casual" believer faces the same contradictory issues.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

I don't think emotion is irrational. Can you explain why you think it is?

Quote

The "debate over evolution vs. creation" is EXACTLY what i'm talking about, as people are trying to mix science (rational or logical discourse) with faith (not rational). I don't do this. It is just not necessary.

Evolution and creation (as written in the bible)are mutually exclusive ideas. They can't both be right, which is why we have the fundie nutters fighting so hard against science on this issue. It is yet one more thing that shows belief in the supernatural(god, spirits, whatever) is ridiculous.

I did explain. the explanation is in the use of the true definition of rational vs, the connotation of rational that you are applying. when i say emotion is not rational, i mean that emotion does not follow the rules of reason and logic. What you may be reading is me saying emotion is crazy or odd not normal or some other connotation that "irrational" has come to mean.

Emotion does not follow the rules of reason and logic. neither does faith. that's why it's called faith.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[stevebabin 0]

For me, emotion does follow logic and reason...
Faith(the suspension of rational thought) should not be required to believe something that is true.
If what the religious (or "spiritual") would have you believe were the truth, why is faith a prerequisite?

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Evolution and creation (as written in the bible)are mutually exclusive ideas. They can't both be right

You shouldn't be so sure of yourself...

If a 30 year old man was created ex nihilo 30 minutes ago, how old is he?

Quote

which is why we have the fundie nutters fighting so hard against science on this issue. It is yet one more thing that shows belief in the supernatural(god, spirits, whatever) is ridiculous.

Then why fight so hard against something so "ridiculous."

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

For me, emotion does follow logic and reason...

I guess you never heard of buyer's remorse...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[stevebabin 0]

Joe, when you describe yourself as spiritual, what exactly do you mean?

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

For me, emotion does follow logic and reason...
Faith(the suspension of rational thought) should not be required to believe something that is true.
If what the religious (or "spiritual") would have you believe were the truth, why is faith a prerequisite?

you claim to bow at the throne of science, logic and reason (as per your signature) yet, it seems as if you don't really understand the true definition of the terms.

objectively speaking, emotion is NOT a logical system. meaning, it cannot be explained or rationalized by the methods and discipline laid out by aristotle and still used today. It does not exhibit consistency, soundness, validity, and completeness, all of which are required by logical systems.

this is the basis of what I am saying in my posts. Pure logic and reasoning cannot explain faith or emotions. All other inferences made by you regarding the terms "rational" or "logical" are entirely connotative and are NOT what I am talking about.

Yet pure logical reasoning is the basis of the scientific method. science is a logical system.

This is why they are NOT mutually exclusive.

here, an easy to understand refresher (or primer, i don't know your educational background. This is basic philosophy course stuff though, so any philosophy 101 book would have a nice description, too)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

wikipedia also has a decent article, but no one here trusts it, so meh.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

Quote

For me, emotion does follow logic and reason...
Faith(the suspension of rational thought) should not be required to believe something that is true.
If what the religious (or "spiritual") would have you believe were the truth, why is faith a prerequisite?

you claim to bow at the throne of science, logic and reason (as per your signature) yet, it seems as if you don't really understand the true definition of the terms.

objectively speaking, emotion is NOT a logical system. meaning, it cannot be explained or rationalized by the methods and discipline laid out by aristotle and still used today. It does not exhibit consistency, soundness, validity, and completeness, all of which are required by logical systems.

this is the basis of what I am saying in my posts. Pure logic and reasoning cannot explain faith or emotions. All other inferences made by you regarding the terms "rational" or "logical" are entirely connotative and are NOT what I am talking about.

Yet pure logical reasoning is the basis of the scientific method. science is a logical system.

This is why they are NOT mutually exclusive.

here, an easy to understand refresher (or primer, i don't know your educational background. This is basic philosophy course stuff though, so any philosophy 101 book would have a nice description, too)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

wikipedia also has a decent article, but no one here trusts it, so meh.

Thanks for helping me understand your position, BB.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[BikerBabe 0]

I really think if more people read and understood aristote's science of logic, this world would be a lot better place.

SC would, for sure

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[skybill 19]

Quote

For years, I have been studying religions of the world. A way of trying to find that emotional connection to God that I remember as a young Roman Catholic altar boy singing the Latin mass. Over time and particularly from 9/11 have been questioning, "How did all this "Holy War" shit start thousands of years ago? How can people of God have crusades and wars and so much strife when there HAS to be a common thread among all three religions. What is that thread and is there a way to educate people that our religions may not be that different? The beginning of my journey began some years ago when I heard Whitney Houston at an award show say "Music is the most important thing to me, because if we have music, then we have love, and if we give the children music; they too will have love."

The music of the Latin Mass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9sIcQ5MAeM&feature=related

The music of the Torah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfF6-TkAnBM&feature=related

The music of the Q'uran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jivNz_i9QTU&feature=related

While trying to interlace the three religions together myself recently came across the following dissertation/explanation of the three that I found quite profound. Now, I don't think we're ever going to sway one from their roots; but wonder how few know that all the roots tie back to a single point in time. If you're interested... have a cup of coffee and check it out:

http://explore.org/#!/videos/player/middle-east-traveling-with-jihad

Hi Keith!,
As far as a "connection" goes, forget it. The Christians and Jews have the best connect and as far as either of those two and the is-salami-icks, Hahahahahahahaha~~ya' gotta be kidding. Just remember that "joining" the Christians or Jews is "Voluntary!!" Remember this bud, islam is such a "Gutter Religion" that the only way that they can get people to join is to kill them if they don't!!!!!!!!!!!! Got That??!!!

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I really think if more people read and understood aristote's science of logic, this world would be a lot better place.

SC would, for sure

Agreed. Three concerns, however.

(A) Aristotle's logic is not infallible, but it is the most effective way to make an support a given argument.

(B) Emotion can be explained in terms of evolutionary psychology. More importantly, emotion is specific to a person. While we can all accept that emotions exist, no one is out there saying there is only one true emotion for a situation and all others are wrong. No one says their emotion is fact or truth. It is how they feel.

(C) How do you reconcile the parts of religion that specifically contradict science, or vice versa?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

There is no more evidence for disorganized religion than there is for organized religion. I always laugh when I hear the declaration "I'm spiritual, not religious".

So are you denying the irrational side of the human spirit, if you want to call it that? The side of humans that do not adhere to laws of logic or reason? I'm seriously asking, because it seems like you are, in order to scoff at the concept of spirituality as you do.

Note: spirituality doesn't have to mean "believe in god". Hell, I would consider a majority of the field of psychology to be dwelling on spirituality

*sigh* this is what I do when my pastime is unavailable...i get into pointless discussions on SC.

As for the original topic, of course there is. All you have to do is read the bible, or even a second-source book discussing the history of the Middle East region, to know. I mean, aside from all three springing from the same dude. Allah, Jehovah, and the Christian God are, of course, one and the same.

Yes, I am Christian. I am an engineer with the ability and training to think logically and rationally. I do not believe these things are mutually exclusive, and I do believe there is no conflict between religion and science. Rather, the conflict is between small-minded people unwilling to use the rational brain given to us by God. On both sides.

Bikerbabe,
You seem to be saying that since humans have an irrational emotional side that spirtualism is real.
That doesn't make any sense. Just because humans are often emotiona and irrational doesn't mean their irrational and emotional beliefs are real.
Faith is an irrational and emotional belief in something that is often not based on any evidence at all.
There is no logical reason to believe there is any god or that spirtualism is real. Just because people believe in it doesn't mean it exists.

I really don't see how any logically thinking person can reconcile the belief in the supernatural. Whether that be a belief in god or just spiritualism either way it's an emotional belief not based in reality.