MAD-4A wrote:The fundamental basis of Christianity is that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, the son of God, and the one true sacrifice for all humanities sins. It is only through his sacrifice that a person can reach heaven.
Islam completely disavows all of this, claims Jesus was just a profit and the way to get to heaven is through your own personal works, that (as an analogy, somehow a filthy pig rolling in the mud can somehow clean itself off without any help from the farmer). Then there's the section about the "12th Oman" the Muslim belief that God will send his next 'holy man', who will bring God back to Earth and usher in the 'kingdom of God'. The same text is in the Bible, everything the Koran says he will do is in the Bible, only difference is that in the Bible he is called by another name, the 'Anti-Christ', Deceiver and son of Satan.
Christianity says that by following the example of Jesus, we attain the right to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Islam says that by following the teachings of Allah and his prophets, we attain the right to enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is pretty much equivalent. This whole bullshit about how we can only obtain grace because Jesus died for our sins? It's meaningless, on a purely mechanical level; It does not matter in the slightest for the common believer. If christian dogma were different, if it resembled islam more, we'd be having the same discussion.
Do they both say 'don't murder your next door neighbor'?
Do they both say 'don't go down to the market and rob the place'?
Do they both say 'don't have sex with someone else's wife'?
of-course they do, so do Buddhism, Hinduism and Shintoism, are they basically the same? NO
That is certainly a great point you made there. Tell us more about how being similar means being opposite.
You know, you may think that a bold and italicized NO is an argument, but it actually isn't. I think you need to add more font size and probably some red colouring too for it to actually count (At least I think that's what argumentation on the internet is? I'm not sure. You see, I believe in presenting arguments, not refutation, but I might be in the minority on this)
Do they both say 'there is only one God'?
yes, So does Zoroastrianism (which you apparently didn't know about), that doesn't make their fundamental teachings the same.
Zoroastrianism is part of the lineage of monotheistic religions that, as one of its branches features the abrahamic religions. These are distinct classifications, which is why I didn't mention it.
I mean, the term "abrahamic" refers to religions that are exclusively post-zoroastrianic; I'd have thought that a keen scholar of theological matters such as yourself would be familiar with the term and not try to purposefully misunderstand it in order to try and land a cheap shot.
I was obviously wrong about that, my apologies.
Anyone who knows their basic teachings knows that they are complete opposites, which, by-the-way is why they have spent the last millennium and a half trying to eradicate each other.
Ah! Finally a metric by which we can see whether or not a religion is "opposite" to another. This makes many things much more clear. So using this logic, we can see that catholicism and anglican/protestant christianity are opposite. We can also see that christianity at large is opposite to judaism and any number of african as well as native american religions.
Yes, that clears that right up.
In other words, in case you were unable to see the sarcasm inherent in this post: If you think you want to make a point about comparative theology, you better make sure you bring better game than this, son. Because this weak-sauce shit may fly on facebook or in Breitbart comment pages, but it sure as shit ain't gonna fly here.
please disregard.