
Originally Posted by
jcb
What is absurd is to consider an orange, a grapefruit and a kiwi and declare them all the same because they are all fruit. Here's the problem: you're in good company with the Pope, and others with good intentions, but you are confusing commonality of origin with sameness.
The statement that Christianity has "adopted Jewish narratives" is remarkably erroneous. It supposes that the Jewish narratives came first, then Christianity developed, then Christians latched onto a Jewish heritage. That is not what occurred. Christianity did not adopt a heritage of Judaism after the fact--it has a Jewish origin and claims a seamless transition between the two faiths. Jesus was a Jew. In the early years of Christianity, the Romans thought of Jesus' followers as a strange Jewish cult.
That commonality between Jews and Christians ended with Jesus. The Jewish faith went one way, Christianity a different way. And the commonality between Christianity and Islam ended with Muhammad.
The central event in Christianity is the Resurrection of Christ. Without it, there really is no such thing as Christianity. And the resurrection is recognized by neither Jews nor Muslims. Without Jesus as son of God, without the Resurrection, again, what is absurd is to say that these three religions worship the same God. Is there one other example you can think of in which one thing you can declare the same, but that thing is defined in three fundamentally different and non-inclusive ways to three different groups of people?
Roadtoad, I found this statement really disappointing: "To say that theirs is a different God is nothing more than a made-up excuse for Muslim bashing." This may surprise you, but I have never bashed Muslims, and I hope I never do. Nor has anyone I worship with. Recognizing obvious differences does not have to lead us to division.
And as to my "reluctance to believe" you, please don't take this the wrong way, but my disagreeing to your statement has nothing to do with you at all.
Great discussion.