The Abrahamic Faiths

[Aedes]

Several aspects of Abrahamic tradition, starting from the Hellenic period in Palestine, directly find their origins in Greek and Roman antiquity. They are just not directly acknowledged within the religions.

[Arjuna]

Abrahamic religions are obviously kin, they're monotheistic. Christians overtly accept the Israelite God as their own (except for gnostic versions which didn't become dominant) and the Prophet Muhammad accepted Jesus as an important person.

Good point though about how many non Semitic people have converted, each of them bringing their own values and images into the mix.

Roman and Greek religion is pantheonistic... and it evolved into one pantheon. Interestingly, though Romans and Greeks would worship the same gods and goddesses, their religious outlook was different. For the Greeks, the pantheon was more human. The Roman religion was more vacuous poetically. One way to describe it would be to say the Roman Bacchus was all human experience with alcohol... as opposed to a divine person (if I understand it correctly)

[prothero]

Originally Posted by re_turner_jr

I think the point Salima was making is that of origin. Greek and Roman mythology and religion does not find it's origins in the same place.

Well in the most general sense they all originate in basic existential questions intrinsic to self awareness.
Why am I here, what happens after death, what is my meaning or purpose, etc?

In a less general sense they are have the same archetypal patterns found in say Joseph Campbells "the power of myth".
And of course all new traditions or solutions borrow from contemporary or preceeding traditions.

The trick is too see all religions and myths as primarily human constructs seeking after the divine.

That is not to say there is not a divine just that it is always interpreted through the partial incomplete and limited understanding of man (through a glass darkly). It is certainty and lack of humility that causes the problems.

[jeeprs]

Emic and etic are terms used to refer to two different kinds of data concerning human behavior. In particular, they are used in cultural anthropology, to refer to kinds of fieldwork done and viewpoints obtained.

An "emic" account is a description of behavior or a belief in terms meaningful (consciously or unconsciously) to the actor; that is, an emic account comes from a person within the culture. Almost anything from within a culture can provide an emic account.

An "etic" account is a description of a behavior or belief by an observer, in terms that can be applied to other cultures; that is, an etic account is '"culturally neutral". (Wikipedia)

The reason I quote this is because you are considering the question from a etic perspective. It is one thing to be 'above', as it were, the three great traditions and think about them from the perspective of one who might not have any kind of stake in any of them, or in whether they are true or not, or whether there might or might not be any real consequences in believing in them or being part of them.

From an 'emic' perspective, the question looks very different. In other words, for a Jew, the relationship with Islam and Christianity, is redolent with all kinds of meanings and subtelties in historical memories which it is very easy to overlook or diminish as an outsider. The same could be said for each. Within each community, there are those inclined to emphasize the commonalities, and those inclined to emphasize the differences. And, when you think about it, even within these communities, there are tremendous schisms and divisions (Sunni-Sh'ite, Protestant-Catholic, etc) which again reflect the internal complexity of such relationships.

I think with respect to all of the actual communities of the faithful in these various religions, the idea of a commentary from the outside along the lines of 'don't you all worship the same God' would be met with 'yes, but...' followed by a considerable amount of qualification, explanation, exegesis, and so on, most of which we would probably find very hard to understand without quite a bit of hard study.

And that, I suppose, is a 'meta-perspective' and something to bear in mind when considering these questions. It ain't nearly so straightforward as it looks.

[xris]

Surely we must look at their similarity, now and how the dogma has become sanctified. Their dogma looks very similar but the emphasis appears to be racial or social.

The Abrahamic faiths have this inclination to dogma and the only way to ever overcome dogma is for the faiths to diverge and create differing dogma. So in my opinion dogma is their common currency, it describes them all and defines their differences.

[jeeprs]

I think the problem is with authoritarianism, not with dogma, per se.

Dogma is simply a systematic presentation of an opinion, doctrine, or point of view.

The real conflcts that have arisen between and within the Abrahamic faiths revolve around the power structures that have grown up around these dogmas. If an institution is dogmatic without being authoritarian, it could easily be dismissed or ignored. In the classical era, though, they could not be dismissed or ignored because they were institutionally powerful. This is why the separation of Church and State was such an important phase in European history. (It is interesting to note that this division has never been recognised, and may not even be conceivable, in Islam, which is why there is always such a strong tendency to theocracy in Islamic states.)

And aside from that, the basic doctrines, ideas, dogmas, and liturgy of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are worlds apart. Like I said before, if you look at them from 'the outside' it seems like they are branches of the same tree, and worshiping the same God, but I think that from inside, the view is radically different. I challenge you to find an evangelical who thinks that Allah and Jehovah are the same. Islam, meanwhile, insists that there is 'one God, and Allah is his name'. There is limited recognition of Judaism and Christianity within Islam on the basis that all three faiths share a common religious heritage, but the relations between them have always been (and if we're honest about it, continue to be) fraught with a great deal of tension and latent or actual hostility.

[Reconstructo]

Originally Posted by prothero

The trick is too see all religions and myths as primarily human constructs seeking after the divine.
That is not to say there is not a divine just that it is always interpreted through the partial incomplete and limited understanding of man (through a glass darkly). It is certainty and lack of humility that causes the problems.

Well said. It bothers me to see religion reduced to fraud, as if that is all that it has ever meant to anyone. This is an eyes-wide-shut view. I think much of organized religion is to blame. It's like that gnostic quote about institutions tending to become their own opposite.

Man makes Gods to mirror his most sublime moments. Myth understood as myth is a potent force, the center of living art. Just my opinion of course.

[xris]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

I think the problem is with authoritarianism, not with dogma, per se.

Dogma is simply a systematic presentation of an opinion, doctrine, or point of view.

The real conflcts that have arisen between and within the Abrahamic faiths revolve around the power structures that have grown up around these dogmas. If an institution is dogmatic without being authoritarian, it could easily be dismissed or ignored. In the classical era, though, they could not be dismissed or ignored because they were institutionally powerful. This is why the separation of Church and State was such an important phase in European history. (It is interesting to note that this division has never been recognised, and may not even be conceivable, in Islam, which is why there is always such a strong tendency to theocracy in Islamic states.)

And aside from that, the basic doctrines, ideas, dogmas, and liturgy of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are worlds apart. Like I said before, if you look at them from 'the outside' it seems like they are branches of the same tree, and worshiping the same God, but I think that from inside, the view is radically different. I challenge you to find an evangelical who thinks that Allah and Jehovah are the same. Islam, meanwhile, insists that there is 'one God, and Allah is his name'. There is limited recognition of Judaism and Christianity within Islam on the basis that all three faiths share a common religious heritage, but the relations between them have always been (and if we're honest about it, continue to be) fraught with a great deal of tension and latent or actual hostility.

Sorry but its the dogmatic held beliefs that separate them more than anything. For example, is Christ the son of god or just a prophet, the pope is the voice of god on earth. These fundamental dogmas will always define the beliefs.

[KaseiJin]

I'm going to be to the point here...due to lack of time...but hope to spell out details later on down the road, in other places (thread, that is).

The answer is no, the gods are not the same and they can hardly be the god that any person having come from the part of the world of which the figure is said to have come, can historically be determined to have worshiped. The better evidence tells us that the Jewish belief-system is simply not that old.

The earliest Christian cult members held the resurrection to be a truth, but also had some number (as can best be understood) slated to become angels along with the sons of YHWH in the heaven of the heavens (there were layers in Judaism as well).

The god models simple do not match, and neither do the worship systems which these models demand. If we were to take a first come, first serve, we'd have to say that the YHWH model has priority. Of course, in a very natural way, power concerns (just as jeeprs has mentioned) were and have been the big 'mover' in these systems.

You'll have to allow me this shortness here, but I will make effort to further demonstrate it . . . one of these sunny days.