technically, the Inquisition can't be used in the list of Faith agansit Faith.... as that was mainly used on Christans...

You missunderstood me.
I said the similarties between Faiths allow (i.e. make it possible) for people of different Faiths to be friendly with eachother, and not resort to constant argument and such.

I find it insulting to group "Abrahamic" faiths together because it shows a level of ignorance and assumption. To be honest, I'm not sure what you consider a Abrahamic faith. I assumed you mean Christans Muslims and Jews.
I would include eastern religions into Abrahamic faiths.

Judaism is not an Abrahamic faith. Judaism would better be called a "Abraham/Issac/Jacob(Israel) Faith" In Judaism, its very important that it took three generations, and three archytypes to begin the Jewish People. These three people representing Kindness, Strictness and Beauty(or Truth).

Islam, is also not an Abrahamic faith. Islam cares more about Muhamod than Ishmael. (This is in direct contrast to Jews really not caring all that much about Moses. Moses is hardly ever mentioned in Jewish prayers or theological ideas. He is called Moses our Teacher, not Moses our Prophet)

Christianity is the most Abrahamic faith of those three, since its main focus is on Kindness and the heart more than anything else. (Thats the impression I get, correct me if I'm wrong.)

However, the eastern religions such as Confusionism and Buddhism (the orignal sect atleast) are the most similiar to the teachings of Abraham, and this is where most of his students and ideas went to.

To focus on the similiarties is to focus on the superficial aspects of the Faith and denies the Faith its most fundemental and fasinatiing aspects. And that is why it offends me.

The Inquisition was more faith based than the Holocaust was.
Hitler was an aethiest Socialist Fascist, or do people like to forget that?

No, I understood you perfectly. It is you who failed to see my point. Even when people from the diverse doctrines have been known to debate with each other regarding their faiths, and commonly highlighting the similitudes... This is completely turned void when exclusivism seems to prevail, in the dogmatic world of faith, leading to branching of the faiths or complete conflict between them.

Also, to make it clear to you by what I mean by Abrahamic religions is simple: Those faiths that had as place of origin the Semitic traditions accredited to Abraham. Or as I previously said... derive from the teachings of Abraham, even when they developed differently. Now, you point out that one could say that the religions of most similitude to the teachings of Abraham are Confusionism and Buddhism. It may be so that these "religions" may have close resemblance to Abraham's teachings... but when I mean Abrahamic, as explained means as Abraham as a place of Origin, not the complete developement.

In my opinion, it is the opposite, the ceremonies, the rituals, etc. Are what are superficial and may be different between religions, but the essence between them, the belief of a god, the creation of identity, life's purpose, stablishers of ethical and moral precepts, possible existance of an afterlife... that is the essence of religion. How the practitioners develope their faiths is what is superficial, but completely based on the above stated fundaments. Or else, religion would be nothing more than buildings and ceremonies.

Edit: Also, it is still debatable whether Hitler was Christian, of Jewish decendency, Atheist or something like that. What can be assured was that he was anti-Semitic.
Regarding the Inquisition, it can be clearly placed as an faith against faith ordeal. The Inquisitions normally was between Catholic Church and heretics. Heretics being all those who opposed the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes I mean by place of Orgin. The timing of history, the similarities of the teachings, and the fact that Abraham sent most of his students and followers to the east, point me in that direction.



I'm not talking about rituals. By superficial I ment exactly what you just listed.

1. The belief of a G-d. Christians believe that it is possible for Jesus to be both the Son of god and god, depending on the sect. Jews Beleive it is impossible for G-d to ever take a human or any other physical formm however G-d is given names and labels that stretch from 2 letters to 42 letters. There are more names for G-d in Judaism than there are Changs in China . In Islam, G-d has a single name and a single purpose as far as I'm aware. The fact that the religions belief in a god is superficial to the fact that the god in which they believe in are of almost completely seperate nature.

2.The creation of Identiy/Life's purpose. I'm not sure what this means so I can't really comment on it.

3. Establisher of ethical and moral priciples. No where in the code of Jewish Ethics is it acceptable to kill yourself, for any reason, ever.. Not even Martyrdom. Islam loves its Martyrs to death. Jewish ethics says it is better to allow the mother to live and have the baby die. Christian ehtics says its better of have the baby live and the Mother die. The fact that all of them establish some sort of ethics is superficial because the ethics they establish are often antithesis of eachother.

4. Possible existance of an afterlife... This is probably where all relgions divert the most. In Judaism for example there is no concept of Eternal damnation. The various different afterlifes, and the purpose of those afterlives differ greatly. Thus when the goal differs, the actions taken and perceptions held to reach that goal differ. Thus the existance of an afterlife is a superficial concept when the purpose and goal of that afterlife is so different.

Rituals and such are even beyond superficial as they have no true coherancy to them, and many practioners, even within the same sects, will do rituals differntly. Its rare for a new sect to be founded because of a ritual, its often a new sect is founded because its views of these "fundementals" become so diverse that its the Foundation of those Fundementals that begin to differ.

A true fundamental of Judaism for example would not be that G-d exists, but rather as the bible puts it "I am the Lord. I took you out of Egypt" This is very different than the other possible statement what would have been "I am the Lord. I created the Universe."





I don't know who Hitler's parents were, but I do know that based on what he wrote and his favorite operas, if Hitler had any leanings towards a religious belief it was paganistic.

*cackle* Finally, I have bothered to look at the religion thread.

I am a non-sequiterian, a practitioner of guerrila ontology, and art sabotage. Im am a chaote amongst the Id. I would be a Discordian if I didnt view them as possessing far too much order. Though most times I pose as Roman Catholic and nobody can tell the difference.

Zorastrianism was a trip, so was Odin, and the attempted saviour of mankind, the man formerly known as Jesus Hershfield Christ was pretty trippy too.

Morality lost all meaning when man first killed in its name.

I guess the title one could best ascribe to my faith would be Apostacy. The abolition of all belief, by presenting flaws, absurdity, and images violently opposed to the human psyche. Religio-anarchy, either there is no god, and man is free, or there is a god and we must kill him/her/it and sieze the universe for ourselves.

Then again on Tuesdays I'm just your normal LaVey's Church of Satan adherant. Or at least I think I was/will be.


(If you haven't guessed by now, I've had enough religion blasted through my brain to lose all sense of reality when the subject comes up.)

Er, no, that's wrong. The actual joke goes, 'there is always time for beer', at the end. That is just what happened to it after a bunch of overzealous soccer moms (Who were likely, ironically, drunk themselves) decided to religiousize it.

On another note, what is the differance between 'atheism' and 'science'? Or were you just stretching for options?

Since I detest religion and all aspects, but I still believe in God and an Afterlife, but not the bible, what do I vote for?

Bob?

What if I'm a Satanic Worshipper? Where do I fit in?

But in actuality, I'm Catholic. Not devout at all, and not exactly the same faiths, but that's how I'd label myself.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the religion Christian Science? I believe they are the ones who practice Faith Healing.

Heeey, Jedi was in England, not only Australia.

Jedi is also in the U.S. Hence I voted for it.

I am the other Gnostic around here, and as a technical clarification we aren't really a religion. A religion is an organised belief structure, Gnosticism is very personal to the individual. In its most simplest form you could say that we believe Jesus had some fantastic ideas about being nice to everyone, and how we should all get along, and we try to live by that. It does get more complicated, with concepts such as non-judgemental thinking and achieving different stages of conciousness but I don't want to bore you all

I keep getting mixed up.
Which sect is it that believes Jesus was God incarnate, and which sects believe Jesus was just a Prophet, and which ones believe he was the Son of God?

Was that directed at me talking about Gnosticism and the Council of Nicaea or just a general question?

LDS Church believes that Christ was the Son of God. That he is a distinctly diffrent being than God the Father.

I thought the faith healing sect thing was called Spiritualists. We've got a Spiritualist church in Sleaford, is that not the same ones?

Totalitarian, not socialist. Hitler used used the term socialist because it was the buzzword of the era.

I believe in Judaism, Jesus was just another prophet or disciple or something.