[didaskalos]

A certain Turk has written: "I know enough to tell you that Islam is a continuation of Christianity and Judaism. Just like the New Testament builds on top of the Old, the Koran builds on the Old and New Testaments. None of these Books are complete by themselves (if you're ignorant, then you'll take issue with this). The Old Testament lacks the lovingness of God. The New Testament lacks His harshness. The Koran lacks the endless narratives of the Bible stories, but brings perspective and simplification. 99.99% of Islam and Christianity are the same. There is a bigger difference between Muslims in general and Christians of the west, but there is that same difference between the Christians of the west and let's say some Balkan and African Christians." Reply: I have seldom read anything so laced with the very thing you dare to disdain: ignorance. 1) You don't know "enough" as you claim, and here are several reasons 2) Islam is not a continuation of Christianity and Judaism. They are mutually exclusive and mutually condemning of each other. Documentation for this is plentiful in both the Bible and Koran. 3) The Koran does not build on the Old and New Testaments. There is a big difference between borrowing and building. Mormons and Jehovah's Witness are 2 more false religions which both borrow from the Bible, as does Islam. But they do not build on Judaisim nor Christianity for they are antagonistic against them both, as also is Islam. 4) When you say, "None of these Books are complete by themselves (if you're ignorant, then you'll take issue with this)" you discredit yourself. Where did you get the mandate to set yourself up as judge of all that is ignorant and declare that all who take issue with you are automatically lacking in knowledge before a word has even come out of their mouths? We could possibly accept such a statement coming from Jesus Christ, the immortal Son of God. But for any mortal to make such a sweeping generalization based on self-authority is a bit presumptuous. Moreover, if what you so dogmatically assert is true (that none of the books in reference are complete in themselves), are you implying that this is still the case? Are the Old and New Testaments and the Koran still being supplimented today? Or are you concluding (on your own authority and richness of research) that these books now have somehow reached a completeness after all? Unless you propose that they still are in need of correction, you have a problem: irreconcilable systems of salvation which cannot be combined without serious compromise of each system's claims and presuppositions. It is impossible to blend them without creating an entirely different religion which none of the originals would recognize. On the contrary, each system declares itself to be complete. You may refuse to acknowledge each system's claim of completeness. But that is another issue. Belief of each system's completeness is what has kept them separate and irreconcilable. Only one of two conclusions is possible: (1) only one of the 3 religions addressed contains the correct prescription for salvation, or (2) None of the three contain it. It is untenable to suggest that a combination of these 3 (or of other mutually-exclusive systems for that matter) holds the key of salvation. (By salvation I speak in terms of a blissful life hereafter and the acquisition of an immortal body as promised to the righteous according to Judaism and Christianity.) 5) The Old Testament does not lack the "lovingness" of God, as you say. Other colleagues have aptly refuted you on this. But we have been presuming that you meant "lovingkindness." I suppose on technical merits you are correct. Neither Judaism, nor any other religion for that matter, has the "lovingness" of God since "lovingness" is not a word. 6) The New Testament does not lack God's harshness as you claim. Have you never read the last book in the Bible: John's Revelation? Have you not overlooked Christ's denunciation of His opponents and the cities who rejected Him? And what of Jude's condemnations of the ungodly? About this you are so very, very wrong. 7) You say "The Koran lacks the endless narratives of the Bible stories, but brings perspective and simplification." Pardon me, but in what way can it be said that the Bible's narrative stories are endless? Exaggeration is not a wise tool to use by someone claiming perfect accuracy as you imply of yourself. Bible narratives are not endless, period. Infinity is somewhat bigger than you have assessed. Moreover, you have not given any basis for concluding that the Koran brings either perspective nor simplification. What kind of perspective? Simplification of what? Generalizations without basis are just empty suppositions. Unfortunately for you, naturally intelligent, not to mention academically trained persons, are compelled to disregard them. 8) You say "99.99% of Islam and Christianity are the same." On what basis? Have you lined up the claims and teachings of each religion side by side in collumns and mathematically proven that not 50%, not 60%, not 70%, not 80%, not 90%, not 99%, not even 99.9%, but unequivolcally a full 99.99% happens to be identical? I suppose we should be thoroughly impressed with your research efforts. However, we would like to review your documentation for this. Please do not be insulted that we request this even though it betrays our obvious ignorance of what is so elemental to you. Far be it from us to doubt the authenticity of your claims. I am quite sure you would not have put in writing such forthright dogmas without all the necessary years of research and published statistical proof. Take your time. But don't waste ours, please. 9) Finally you say that "There is a bigger difference between Muslims in general and Christians of the west, but there is that same difference between the Christians of the west and let's say some Balkan and African Christians." Oh please... If similarity doesn't prove relationship, then how much less does differences. Men don't come from monkeys due to similarities and the Koran doesn't come from Christianity due to any superficial similarities that might be cited. The differences between them are philosophically insurmountable. Branches of true Christianity hold sacred several uncompromisable truths which make them kingdom-compatible regardless of cultural differences. The comparison is flawed and inconclusive at best. I have seldom seen such an unbroken string of empty opinionation in one place. The only thing I have heard that approximates it was, sadly, in a Sunday School class. One day a sincere-hearted guest remarked that the reason the Romans killed Jesus is because those Catholics hated the Jews. I was practically stunned speechless, but I managed to say, "Brother, have you ever thought about teaching a class on religious history?" He answered "No" I replied, "Well, if the thought ever crosses your mind, rebuke it!"

[TopQuark]

On what basis? Have you lined up the claims and teachings of each religion side by side in collumns and mathematically proven that not 50%, not 60%, not 70%, not 80%, not 90%, not 99%, not even 99.9%, but unequivolcally a full 99.99% happens to be identical?

Your writing suggests that you have done some scholarly studies yourself. If so, you probably know that "full 99.99%" was used by the writer as an expositional tool to indicate "almost all." This could not have possibly been misleading, since the context was neither data collection nor statistical analysis of data. This tool is permissible thus even if you demand the highest degree of scholarly duty on the part of the writer.

I suppose we should be thoroughly impressed with your research efforts. I personally did not conclude --- did not even, in fact, suspect --- that this was the writer's intent.

However, we would like to review your documentation for this. Please do not be insulted that we request this even though it betrays our obvious ignorance of what is so elemental to you. Quite a few of unsupported and irrelevant value judgments that, additionally, obscure your own thought.

Far be it from us to doubt the authenticity of your claims. There is no such thing as "authenticity of claims." Claims are evaluated for their validity. You seem to confuse claims, facts, and documents: it is the latter that may be evaluated on their authenticity.

I am quite sure you would not have put in writing such forthright dogmas without all the necessary years of research and published statistical proof. Again, unsupported (why should this take years?) and irrelevant (why is the duration of the project relevant to the value of its results?).

Further, an author cannot put forward --- whether forthrightly or not --- any dogmas. It is others who may subsequently hold his statements as dogmas.

Furthermore, the use of "published" sources is only one of the two modes of data collection (referred to as secondary). One need not be constrained by such in his research.

Finally, there is no such thing as "statistical proof." This point is typically emphasized into introductions into most texts on statistics.

As you can see, your post contains no new information but opinions that ill founded or outright counter-factual. You clearly lack qualifications to critic the writings of others and should stick to producing your own. Envy of your opponent's skill is a poor weapon in a debate, and the reliance on it only reveals your own shortcomings.

Are you sure that you even wanted to address the content of a_Turk's posts rather than attack ad hominem? Or, was your real agendum hidden? Are you fighting some war here under the guise of a purportedly scholarly critique?