Judachrislam

[Pilgrim]

Contemporary Judaism, Christianity and Islam reject any sort of reconciliation.

that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on Theology web. For someone who claims to have this very tolerant, open minded faith, you sure do a lot of unpleasant stereotyping.

[headheart]

The fact that you completely avoided answering my question indicates that you understood my point.

When a person expresses a belief that is completely at odds with the traditional understanding of that belief, then the person expressing that differing belief is not an adherent of that school of thought. No matter how much the person wants to be considered a member. This applies whether an individual is a Mormon claiming to be a full Christian, or a Hebrew Christian claiming to be a Jew.

And whether I’m warm to you or not is irrelevant. If someone is claiming absurdities about my religion, then I’m going to correct them.

That's a very narrow-minded approach to this subject! I must say I am not at all surprised for I remember how about 6 months ago you kept insisting that G-d dictated the five book of the Torah to Moses. When I asked you about the narrative and indirect speech (story line) in these books you just kept on insisting that it was so. If this is what you mean by 'traditional understanding' and 'adherent of that school of thought' or 'a member' then we have nothing further to discuss.


This Life - Sons of Anarchy Theme Song

I'd much rather join the "Sons of Anarchy" than affiliate myself with a belief system like yours for there at least I'd have some freedom to think outside the box, on occasions.

Goodbye,
Eric.

[headheart]

This is a sidebar details for TK:

'According to Jewish tradition the Torah was dictated to Moses by God, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy which describe his death.( Louis Jacobs (1995). The Jewish religion: a companion. Oxford University Press. p. 375 ) Today, the majority of scholars agree that the Torah does not have a single author, and that its composition took place over centuries. ( McDermott, John J., "Reading the Pentateuch: a historical introduction" (Pauline Press, 2002) p.21 ) From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BCE). ( Gordon Wenham, "Pentateuchal Studies Today," in Themelios 22.1 (October 1996): 3–13. ) This general agreement began to break down in the late 1970s, and today there are many theories but no consensus, or even majority viewpoint. ( Van Seters, John, "The Pentateuch: a social-science commentary" T&T Clark, 2004) p.74. )

To read more, go to: Torah > Composition.

[shunyadragon]

that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on Theology web. For someone who claims to have this very tolerant, open minded faith, you sure do a lot of unpleasant stereotyping.

This represents a meaningless rant without a purpose in communicating

The belief in absolutes in Judaism, Christianity and Islam eliminates any serious attempt at reconciliation. I would like for you to describe any serious long term attempt from any of these three.

[Tassman]

that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on Theology web. For someone who claims to have this very tolerant, open minded faith, you sure do a lot of unpleasant stereotyping.

Abuse aside, your argument regarding reconciliation of the three Abrahamic religions is.................?

Their history (e.g. anti-Jewish pogroms, the Crusades) to this very day (e.g. Iran/Israel, Al Qaida) is not an encouraging indicator of a deep felt need for reconciliation, quite the reverse. One sees only a desire for each to dominate the other two.

[shunyadragon]

that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on Theology web. For someone who claims to have this very tolerant, open minded faith, you sure do a lot of unpleasant stereotyping.

I thought it would be helpful if you understood the meaning of reconcile and reconciliation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reconcile

To reestablish a close relationship between.
To settle or resolve.

To make compatible or consistent: reconcile my way of thinking with yours.

To become compatible or consistent: The figures would not reconcile.

© source where applicable

The three religions remain anchored in their doctrines and dogma that define themselves as the only true way in one way or another. There has been no effort between these religions to make them compatible nor consistent with each, nor are these differences in doctrine and dogma ever settled nor resolved between them.

It is time you rethink your strategy of verbal abuse, which in itself reflects a hostile view toward others who believe differently. No sign of reconciliation here.

[headheart]

that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on Theology web. For someone who claims to have this very tolerant, open minded faith, you sure do a lot of unpleasant stereotyping.

Obviously, Frank and Jamie live in worlds which have never encountered the sort of reconciliation that is possible and keep serving up their arguments in support of how religion has failed, is failing and will continue to fail. It really hard to talk to minds who are so set on destruction that the last thing on their minds is reconciliation. It's certainly a bedrock teaching in the doctrine of St. Paul, it's also part of Jewish beliefs which allow for Gentiles to join in the Feast of Tabernacles and though not many people know this there is a considerable movement to re-educate and guide Muslims towards a more peaceful coexistence with others on this planet.
I guess it's easy to pile up the dirt when one has an anti-religious agenda.

Peace,
Eric.

[Pilgrim]

This represents a meaningless rant without a purpose in communicating

The belief in absolutes in Judaism, Christianity and Islam eliminates any serious attempt at reconciliation. I would like for you to describe any serious long term attempt from any of these three.

Why? You wouldn't accept any explanation because it wouldn't fit your prejudice. The fact that you think all iterations of those three deal only in absolutes shows either your prejudice or your ignorance. I'll let you tell me which. You see, you've created in your mind a construct of what you think is the total definition of these three and that construct is not accurate universally. Of course it's easier to deal with things when you over simplify them, I get that. The irony is that you say you reconcile all of them, except of course that you don't. This is demonstrated by your assertion that they're all wrong and can not be anything other than wrong.

[headheart]

Why? You wouldn't accept any explanation because it wouldn't fit your prejudice. The fact that you think all iterations of those three deal only in absolutes shows either your prejudice or your ignorance. I'll let you tell me which. You see, you've created in your mind a construct of what you think is the total definition of these three and that construct is not accurate universally. Of course it's easier to deal with things when you over simplify them, I get that. The irony is that you say you reconcile all of them, except of course that you don't. This is demonstrated by your assertion that they're all wrong and can not be anything other than wrong.

Yip, that's pretty much the same conclusion I've come to reading Frank's posts to the Judaism forum:

What is G-d? by Tanakh Keeper (Post 10)

"From my perspective it is the universal 'Source' some call God(s) with transcends the very limited ancient cultural view of individual religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Zorastrianism, Islam, Vedic Traditions (Hinduism), Buddhism, Taoism or any other limited vision different cultures have of God."

In the word of Peter Sellers, 'Case Clos'd'

Peace,
Eric.

[shunyadragon]

Why? You wouldn't accept any explanation because it wouldn't fit your prejudice. The fact that you think all iterations of those three deal only in absolutes shows either your prejudice or your ignorance.

No prejudice at all the simple non-negotiable doctrines and dogma of the three religions is a bottom line fact. It is more rant an abuse on the part of your posts, and lack of touch with reality, and a heavy dose of the three stooges Duck, Bob and Weave..

I'll let you tell me which. You see, you've created in your mind a construct of what you think is the total definition of these three and that construct is not accurate universally. Of course it's easier to deal with things when you over simplify them, I get that. The irony is that you say you reconcile all of them, except of course that you don't. This is demonstrated by your assertion that they're all wrong and can not be anything other than wrong.

The Doctrines and Dogmas related Trinity are not accepted by Judaism and Islam, which they consider heresy.

[shunyadragon]

Yip, that's pretty much the same conclusion I've come to reading Frank's posts to the Judaism forum:

What is G-d? by Tanakh Keeper (Post 10)

"From my perspective it is the universal 'Source' some call God(s) with transcends the very limited ancient cultural view of individual religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Zorastrianism, Islam, Vedic Traditions (Hinduism), Buddhism, Taoism or any other limited vision different cultures have of God."

In the word of Peter Sellers, 'Case Clos'd'

Peace,
Eric.

I very much agree with the definition of God or G_d provided by Tanakh Keeper, and fits the quote provided by me. but the Christian Dogma of the Trinity, which is the foundation of Traditional Christian belief would be considered heresy by Tanakh Keeper. Also Tanakh Keeper and most other Jews belief the only relationship to G_d is through the Torah from the limited cultural view of Judaism, not Christianity nor Islam would share this relationship. Likewise, Christianity and Islam would neither except a more universal view of the relationship between humanity and God I described.

[Adrift]

the three stooges Duck, Bob and Weave..

Its only because you use it all the time, but I gotta say, this is the weirdest mixed metaphor...

[Pilgrim]

No prejudice at all the simple non-negotiable doctrines and dogma of the three religions is a bottom line fact. It is more rant an abuse on the part of your posts, and lack of touch with reality, and a heavy dose of the three stooges Duck, Bob and Weave..

No, it's not a bottom line fact. So we'll chalk it up to ignorance on your part rather than prejudice. One down then.

The Doctrines and Dogmas related Trinity are not accepted by Judaism and Islam, which they consider heresy.

And this has what exactly to do with reconciliation> Reconciliation is not about 100% agreement. It's about different points of view being able to exist work and relate together. And I notice you conveniently did not address the inconstancy of of your non reconciliation...

[Tanakh Keeper]

Contemporary Judaism, Christianity and Islam reject any sort of reconciliation.

that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on Theology web. For someone who claims to have this very tolerant, open minded faith, you sure do a lot of unpleasant stereotyping.

This post and others got me thinking. Perhaps, we all have a different definition of the word ‘reconciliation’. While I didn’t watch any of the youtubes in the OP, firstfloor’s usage of the word “reconciliation’ was to mean that the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would merge together into a single religion. He said

The bosses could have a conference. They could call the new religion Judachrislam, redraft the Tanakh/Bible/Koran…

The posted intent was for ALL three religions to change parts of their theology and parts of each of their holy books to merge into a single religion and holy book.

Shunydragon and I are posting is that there is no such movement in any of these three religions to do this. Perhaps I’m just out of the loop. So Pilgrim, Headheart, Cerebrum123, or anyone else, do you know of any Christian effort to change your bible and of reciprocal efforts from Judaism and Islam to change their holy books, to make all three identical?

The alternative possibility is that each of you are defining “reconciliation” as meaning something else. Please clarify.

[Pilgrim]

Really good points, TK. I think the need to define reconciliation as some sort of unified field theory of the three is a misplaced need. They are all different and rightly so. To try to make them all the same is to devalue each one. What can and does happen in many and varied settings is members of the three agreeing to work together despite the differences and I think this is good.