Abrahamicism

[LuisDantas]

The Qur'an does not mention the name Ishmael.

You are making things up, projecting it on tp a book, just in order to call it "not the truth".

Try to be truthful instead.

Word has it that Ishmael is one of the Prophets of Islam.

Are you claiming otherwise?

Also, how do you answer people who say that Ishmael is in fact mentioned in the Qur'an by name, including specifically these verses?

1. Quran 2:136
2. ^ Quran 3:84
3. ^ Quran 4:163
4. ^ Quran 6:84–86
5. ^ Quran 21:85
6. ^ Quran 38:48
   

From where I stand this does not seem to even be a source of controversy among Muslims.

 

[firedragon]

Word has it that Ishmael is one of the Prophets of Islam.

Are you claiming otherwise?

Thanks for a bogus strawman. Go back and read the conversation again. It was about "being the chosen one".

Why don't you pick a good topic rather than create some bogus topic you can do cut and paste arguments of?

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for a bogus strawman. Go back and read the conversation again. It was about "being the chosen one".

Why don't you pick a good topic rather than create some bogus topic you can do cut and paste arguments of?

... are you having some sort of trouble at reading your own posts?

Did you not write this?

The Qur'an does not mention the name Ishmael.

How is my pointing out that the name is in fact mentioned in the Qur'an - and not so rarely at that - in some way making a "bogus strawman"?

I guess I should not care even this much.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Indeed, there are many controversial groups that claim Abrahamic origin yet have a hard time either accepting or being accepting by others of presumably similar origin. Mormons (Last Days Saints) and Kardecist Spiritists come to mind.

Apparently Abrahamics tend to easily develop bitter conflicts with other Abrahamics, arguably far more so than other creeds do. Interestingly, the worst conflicts are often those involving very similar creeds. Which in itself should encourage some reflection. How avoidable are those disagreements? What generally causes them? What can be done to solve them? Is that goal of reconciliation worth the trouble? Will the healing of those bitter rivalries be considered a worthy goal by the believers themselves?

Not really our problem. We have many sects among Vaishnavas - Srivaishnavas, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Madhva, Chaitanya, etc. Like to food shops lined on a mall, God sends customers to all. No need to have conflicts.

 

[firedragon]

... are you having some sort of trouble at reading your own posts?

Read the context.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, we have many sects among Vaishnavas - Srivaishnavas, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Madhva, Chaitanya, etc. Like food shops lined on a mall, God sends customers to all. No need to have conflicts.

Indeed.

Abrahamics could (and should) learn a lot about constructive ways to deal with doctrinary differences from Hindus.

 

[LuisDantas]

Read the context.

I did.

You are welcome.

 

[firedragon]

I did.

You are welcome.

Read again.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Indeed.
Abrahamics could (and should) learn a lot about constructive ways to deal with doctrinaire differences from Hindus.

The problem is that Abrahamics cannot share with anyone. Everyone wants to have the whole - (Under the banner of .., you remember?).

 

[Harel13]

The three books cannot be accepted in their entirety by followers of any Abrahamic religion.

Oh, I know that. I just find the parameters of this new religion too vague. I was looking for clarification, in light of recent prior statements from the OP.

 

[The Hammer]

You were just making things up on the go mate.

Sure, that's exactly what I was doing. Silly boy.

 

[firedragon]

Sure, that's exactly what I was doing. Silly boy.

Not good little girl.

 

[The Hammer]

However, I would seriously question your characterisation of Christianity as being about "belief and surrender" whereas Judaism is about "law and action". That sounds like a very Protestant understanding of Christianity and Judaism, with the former as a religion of grace and freedom contrasted with the latter as a religion of works.

Yeah it was a creative attempt at pointing out that Judaism is orthopraxic, Christianity is Orthodoxic, and Islam a mix of both. Yes that's not 100% accurate across the board, but I find it's mostly correct. Most Christians are concerned about right belief then action (faith over works), even in Catholicism, unless you get to the level of lay-leader or clergy. Most of your average Catholics don't know all the symbolism or even process of the ritualistic elements of Catholicism (in my experience).

 

[The Hammer]

Not good little girl.

*Shrug* everyone's neuter on the internet. Use boy, much the same way others use the term dude (neutrally).

 

[Polymath257]

The religion in the future.

A religion that believe Jews, christians and muslims believe in the same God. A religion who believes the Tanakh, New testament and the Quran is from God

I think this thread shows the futility of this idea.

 

[JustGeorge]

You were told wrong. Must be someone you met on the road or something. You should look for better sources.

A friend said that, when I kept using the term 'Abrahamic'.

Any ideas on why they would not like that?

Objectively, they do indeed trace their doctrine to Abraham, so it would seem fair enough.

Nope, no idea. I was told(which I can no longer remember) why 'People of the Book' was used, but not why the Abrahamic term wasn't preferred.

 

[Secret Chief]

A friend said that, when I kept using the term 'Abrahamic'.



Nope, no idea. I was told(which I can no longer remember) why 'People of the Book' was used, but not why the Abrahamic term wasn't preferred.

What you need is wikipedia

- People of the Book - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

A friend said that, when I kept using the term 'Abrahamic'.

That's not an Islamic view. The Islamic view is that Abraham came before Judaism and Christianity. Jews and Christians will not accept Islamic views, and no disrespect intended. I am only presenting the Islamic view. So Abraham came before Judaism and Christianity. Thus, he is a good anchor for unity for all to hold on to. That's the reason we should investigate a little about what people say. You know JG that people have always been gossipers. So most Gossip are just based on conjecture. People tend to be the same even when they are speaking about important matters.

Abraham is a common Messenger between Christians, Jews and Muslims. We are urged to unify under this banner. Jews believe in the Torah and Christians believe in the Gospel. Abraham thrived in this world before both of them, thus we have Abraham as a common understanding between Christians, Jews and Muslims. Contrary to common belief of Muslims and Christians, we are urged to unite thinking of Abraham as a commonality. And mind you JG, this was said way before the world heard of the word Abrahamic religions. And it was the subject of the earliest so called Muslims immediately after Muhammed and that's based on Muslim scholars as well as non-muslim scholars. Even Atheist scholars.

• “O people of the Book, why do you debate with us regarding Abraham when the Torah and the Gospel were not sent down except after him? Do you not comprehend?” – Quran 3:65
• Here you have debated in what you knew; so why then do you debate in what you do not know? And God knows while you do not know. – Quran 3:66
• Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Nazarene, but he was a monotheist who submitted; he was not of the polytheists. – Quran 3:67

 

[firedragon]

*Shrug* everyone's neuter on the internet. Use boy, much the same way others use the term dude (neutrally).

Haha. Okay okay.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That is what they say. Sunnis and Shias do not consider them Muslims.

Well many Sunnis do not consider Shias Muslims, and vice versa. If you haven't seen it, I have.