What are the key theological differences between Islam and Christianity?
I don't mean
>lol one believes Christ was the son of God and the other believes Mohammad was a legit prophet
I mean in terms of real-world outlook.
What are the true points of pragmatic contention between the two religions? What makes the moral decisions of a Christian different from that of a Muslim?
Depending on which branch of Christianity we're talking about, it is purely a religion, a source of beliefs and morals
Islam has been from the ground up both a religious and societal project. Remember that Mohammad was not only a prophet but a ruler
There are a lot of other differences but I feel this one can't be ignored
>what are the key theological differences but I don't mean key theological differences but "real-world outlook"
One interesting thing that takes a bit of knowledge is that the Muslim God is an arbitrary God while the Christian is not. For example, this world is the best it can be. How do we know this? The Muslim: because what God decides is good is good. The Christian: because God is good and strives for the best in all things. The Christian considers the good to be a part of God's nature which we see and understand in this world, while the (knowledgeable) Muslim knows that no description, no definition, not the 99 or any other, can truly be ascribed to God and to do so is blasphemous. I think about it sometimes and find it interesting. Both, your average Christian or Muslim knows nothing about this.
the difference between Christianity and all other religions is grace.
The key difference is structure of the holy books.
The bible is structured like every story ever. One sentence next to another means that they're related to each other.
The Koran on the other hand is more like a bulleted lists of quotations that are entirely free of context. This allows for hadiths and tsafirs to become more important than the original text in shaping beliefs which translates to becoming a method for essentially becoming a choose your own religion.
Didn't Constantine do something similar with (modern) Christianity?
>I think about it sometimes and find it interesting.
That is interesting. I think I heard something similar from a Christian point of view (ex. the guys who say God neither is or is not), but I could easily be mistaken. Is there significant overlap between the two views? -- ex. the Muslim might say that what is good is also otherwise good?
>Both, your average Christian or Muslim knows nothing about this.
As usual. To what extent do you think Christian based/Muslim based cultures differ based on their religious backgrounds, aside from anything else?
People often say, as a kind of received wisdom, that the main "problem" with Islam is that it is not interpretable due to its direct line to God, meaning it can't be "modernised", but stays in the 6th century. Would you say that the "bulleted list of quotations" contradicts that view, or is it more complicated than that?
To give an example: when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his first-born, the Christian is bound to believe that because God is good, he asked this for some reason, though we do not understand it, which in the end was good. A simple but divisive answer would be to say that it was intended to test Abraham and thus the evil of the act was never wished. But the Muslim needs not do so. If God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, it was good, because it was asked of God. Of course a Christian might believe the Muslim way and vice-versa, and some Christian sects might have entirely adopted it, and vice-versa. We're talking generally here and I am specifically using Catholic theology ie St Thomas etc.
>Didn't Constantine do something similar with (modern) Christianity?
Constantine was more about putting the Church in a position of power so he could benefit from it, not basing a State around a religion so much as its cult
In a stupidly imprecise example (these kind of things have dozens of aspects and have been constantly revisited over the centuries) Christianity (I'm mostly familiar with Catholicism though) doesn't have anything resembling Sharia Law which (very broadly gain) is supposed to be the law Mohammad and the caliphs instituted in their territories
Islam a a social project justified by the word of God
Christianity is a theological project that influences the society
>People often say, as a kind of received wisdom, that the main "problem" with Islam is that it is not interpretable due to its direct line to God, meaning it can't be "modernised", but stays in the 6th century. Would you say that the "bulleted list of quotations" contradicts that view, or is it more complicated than that?
It's more complex than that.
I was typing that on my phone so I didn't really go into detail.
At the top you have the Koran
Just below that, you have hadiths, which are basically stories about what Mohammed did from 3rd parties. The Koran is fairly worthless without these because it basically was just his ideas written down as they occurred to him with little to no context for why he was thinking about that. Like there are some versions of the Koran that try to ape the Bible's Book:Chapter:Verse structure, but that's not an indication that there's any unity or cohesion of ideas and context even from verse to verse, much less within a book. The hadiths provide context. They help give you insight into what prompted Mo to write x or y.
...and then you have the tsafirs.
Tsafirs are basically random fucks at some point or another writing a book that tells you what the Koran and Hadiths mean. This is the primary of the different sects of Islam. Like sunnis believe/listen to a different set of tsafirs than shia, and both think that their version is the legitimate version -- it's kind of akin to the Book of Mormon with Christianity, but without pretending that the tsafir is an additional holy book on the same level as the Koran or hadiths.
I said all of that to say this:
The key to updating Islamic belief lies in the tsafirs. It's entirely possible to modernize the beliefs, and it's been done...the problem is, those tsafirs just aren't as popular in shithole regions of the world.
isn't it "tafsir"?
This is pure bullshite, get checked
Also tafsirs not tsafirs.
Probably.
Sure thing buddy.
Jesus: I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me,
but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
Jesus: But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.…
Jesus: However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.
Muhammad: Jesus said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah {Almighty God} (sent) to you, confirming the Law (Torah or Old Testament) before me, and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad."
[Holy Quran 61:6]
John of revelations: Wisdom is needed here. Let the one with understanding solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. His number is 616.
Anyone care to peace this together?
would probably do better than Veeky Forums.
It's cool I got it now.
Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity which is kind of a mess as a concept, the two other are The Father (God) and the Son (Jesus). However, they are one and equals so go figure
Muhammad is basically acknowledging Jesus as a prophet but Jesus is not the son of God in Islam (Trinity doesn't exist in Islam too)
The most popular explanation to the whole number of the beast thing is that it's actually a code. In Hebrew letters have a numerical value (like in ancient Greek I believe) so that means each word as the value you get by the addition of its letters. 616 corresponds to the numerical value of the name Nero Cesar which wasn't exactly liked by the Christians with the whole massacre business. What lends credence to this theory is that some versions state 666 as the number of the beast, and Nero Cesar can also be written NeroN Cesar. Guess the numerical value of the equivalent of N in Hebrew
It is more that Jesus is acknowledging Muhammad, the point being made.
And the 616 translation is purely by chance coinciding heavily with the number on scripture; and, I know these boys weren't messing around with silly morse-code messages, such as is implied by the Nero theory.
I know the koran is a number spell (am I supposed not?), a template on the holy spirit breathed by God by death of the shinier Lord of Hades, that it breathes in number, and the 61:6 passage relating heavy to prophecy, to names, and to end times.
Doesn't that create a situation where you have a system of government that is basically indistinguishable from and thus supported by the religion? Constantine was just the first of many Christains who used Christianity to prop themselves up via the destruction of first infidels (Roman pagans) and then heresies (other kinds of Christians).
How is this different in a practical sense from constructing a theocracy around the head (or at least a claimant to the head) of your religion (i.e. a Caliph)? There has been more than enough diversity in Muslim governments both during and after the Golden age, and more than enough diversity in the interpretation and application of Sharia law, that I find it hard to strongly argue that the political and religious are inseparably linked.
Islam:
>has the Tawhid doctrine which is similar to Origen's and Arius' thoughts
>doesn't own an ecumenical doctirne
>has the Caliphate system which combines the monarch "ulu-l emr" as a religional and political leader.
>didn't affected by a reformation
I think that's pretty much a non-topic. Every religion is used by some who purport to follow it to gain/secure power. Some are more successful than others. Some do honestly believe what they're doing is right by their beliefs, and some are just scumbag conmen.
>insert opiate of masses quote here
I think his main point is the origin of the religion, rather than its use. His point being:
>Islam was born in the political, moulded by it
>Christianity merely adopted it
Here come the papal! Haha.
>It is more that Jesus is acknowledging Muhammad
Shit I can't read, you're right
As for the numbers I don't think both theories are mutually exclusive. The whole 616+50 is just too convenient for me to be a pure coincidence
It's not like we can be sure of what they meant by this
That's what I meant exactly but, I feel OP is mostly asking about how these two religions affect people nowadays. And then you run into the problem of And that's way out of my league, there are just so many profound variations in each religion that explaining the moral differences seems daunting a task at best
>I feel OP is mostly asking about how these two religions affect people nowadays.
I am OP. I don't mind nowadays or historically -- I just didn't mean the "dressing" of the religion, like whether X story is believed real or not, so much as the deeper philosophical thinking around that.
And yeah, I was thinking it'd be pretty daunting. I was just wondering why you'd choose one over the other, other than simple "I believe this thing happened and that thing didn't".
>didn't affected by a reformation
That makes it more shit than not. Everything positive isn't resistant to sociocultural change it adapts
>Islam was born in the political, molded by it
And more or less stopped after the assassination of Ali. So as and have asked what the practical and theological differences between the two? Because it certainly isn't Islam as a social project.
>Everything positive isn't resistant to sociocultural change it adapts
Everything at all isn't resistant to sociocultural change.
Islam has consistently adapted across ages and cultures.
>I was just wondering why you'd choose one over the other, other than simple "I believe this thing happened and that thing didn't"
Place of birth mostly
>Islam has consistently adapted across ages and cultures.
Then you would see reformation, or some kind of ideological shift away from total orthodoxy to tradition in the face of outside social pressure. You see the exact opposite here.
>Then you would see reformation, or some kind of ideological shift away from total orthodoxy to tradition in the face of outside social pressure
You see that.
>You see the exact opposite here
No, you don't. It is simply that Islam has adapted in the opposite direction to what westerners are used to.
>It is simply that Islam has adapted in the opposite direction to what westerners are used to.
By becoming more and more orthodox and resistant to certain kinds of questions. Gotcha. Resistance to questions is a great hallmark of long lasting cultures lately, historically.
As imperfect as it may be, Indonesia is an example of Islam adapting to the dominant political ideology of our age
ISIS isn't the be all end all of Islam, it is one of its various expressions
Yes. That's what adaptation is. Constantly marching in one direction in spite of actual circumstances is the opposite of adaptation.
Of course, if the current situation breaks, and Islam is changed into something new -- then that is adaptation, too.
And this is compared to Islam adapting in India, or under the Ottomans, or even its change to fundamentalism before that, and so on...
Jesus as Heart.
Muhammad as mind.
One left hand.
One right hand.
One devil
One destroyer.
One God.
One creator.
One created.
One destroyed.
Jesus says, defy this illusory world and I provide for you after death.
Muhammad says, defy this illusory world and there will be provisions after death. Here is how to do it.
They both said "There's the enemy, now watch out!"
>Yes. That's what adaptation is. Constantly marching in one direction in spite of actual circumstances is the opposite of adaptation.
pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
I wasn't making a pros and cons list. Regardless of good or bad, that's what Islam is.