That's a peculiar perspective coming from a pagan. Do you believe in any sort of precognition?
We're not talking about a coin toss here with 50/50 odds. Out of ALL the babies that were born in the entire world during that time, a very specific prophecy was written about that particular child and
coincidentally it just happened to come true?
Think about that. Mathematicians couldn't even calculate the odds for a prediction like that because there are too many variables.
First, I must admit my own sloppiness in even stating this as a case of one of the prophecies finally happening "to come true". The vast majority of Muslims do not create conflict with their neighbors, and thus do not fulfill the prophecy. So, selective interpretation for convenience. Vague pronouncements like this speak to fundamental aspects of human nature, specifically: humans fight each other, and they tend to want to paint themselves in a good light. Of course the writers of that story would not have their own people be the ones whose descendents would be wild and instigate conflict with everyone else. If they had, though, we might then have considered it a prediction of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, or even how in more modern times, the Jews have had faced persecution for so many generations. If applied later, to Christians, such a prophecy might have been said to predict the Inquisition. It is far too easy to read into such statements what we want to see. Same with other prophecies, e.g. Nostradamus.
As for my personal beliefs, I know that some people have better predictive abilities than others, but whether that is true precognition, or just a better ability to connect the dots, often subconsciously, I cannot say.
So we are all children of God, i have really heard and read way to much overlap and consistancy to believe otherwise. Some people just wanna cherry pick for stupid shit. Sounds like a family arguemnt of...he did thjs, no she did that. They did this, no they didnt. And we are so far disconnected we can take sides, but dont know for sure....faith
Exactly. I posted
this letter awhile back somewhere, because the original link had disappeared. Here is a new link. Same sentiment.
I must admit I have my own take on this. There is Christian theology and Islamic theology and they are different. However these theologies are pre-scientific, and take no account of geology, or biology, or astronomy.
So in my mind at least these ancient theologies no longer make sense.
However I recognise religion is entrancing, and induces a welcome trance in its members. And when we are entranced reason falls asleep and we take on faith whatever is suggested, from the very strange theology of Scientology to the mainstream theologies of Christianity and Islam.
Christianity has found a way to avoid violence amid different theologies by the separation of Church and State, while Islam is still stuck in theologic violence, by making no distinction between Mosque and State.
I'm not sure what a statement like "Christianity has avoided violence" is even supposed to mean. To paraphrase gun rights advocates, belief systems don't commit violence, people do. Christians have perpetrated plenty of violence and continue to do so. They just rarely do it in the name of the church any longer. Now it is for revenge/redress, territory or economic gain, change of government (revolution), self-defense, etc. But then those always were the real reasons, with religion just the pretext; an unassailable justification and potent rallying cry. Now Christians must make do with others.
As for Christian and Muslim theology, they are far more alike than different, and you have identified a key similarity here: both are pre-scientific. They are also "religions of the book", relying on an unchanging set of writings for inspiration, guidance, and moral law. They share much of the same history, many of the same prophets, and a monotheistic view of God. When I defend Islam, it is not because I believe in it of even agree with its teachings. It is because I see it as no worse than Christianity. Both have very similar shortcomings. I suspect that the fact that adherents of the two faiths have addressed these differently is as much cultural as anything else.
It does defy rationality (hence it's often described as a "mystery"). The modern interpretation is that Jesus was God made flesh, who died sinless as the perfect sacrifice to redeem all believers from their sins. So he was both the son of God, and was God. The immortal who embraced mortality.
It defies rationality, as well as utility. What purpose does such a doctrine serve, other than to confuse believers and provide endless material for the mental gymnastics of theologians? It is at best a morality play that has trouble presenting a cogent lesson. Aesop wrote better.
Well, traditionally there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Described together as "The Trinity." I believe mainstream Christian theology claims that all existing from (before) the beginning.
Why stop there? How about God the Mother, God the Maiden, God the Warrior, God the Lover, etc? To me, the trinity is a horrendously truncated allusion to the infinity of God.
