Muslim and Christianity,what's the problem?

Many time's in quarell we forget that Muslim(Alah) and Chrsitian(God) have one and unified Lord.So basically they believe in the same things,just differently.Muslim also accepts the New Testament and consider the Jesus as a prophet.
So why are there so many conflicts between them?
Is it HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe?

My 2-cents worth: religionistic one-upmanship stemming from a profound and unconscious fear of not being real.

Originally posted by Arel

Is it [B]HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe? [/B]

Doesn't that become the same thing?

Originally posted by Arel
Many time's in quarell we forget that Muslim(Alah) and Chrsitian(God) have one and unified Lord.So basically they believe in the same things,just differently.Muslim also accepts the New Testament and consider the Jesus as a prophet.
So why are there so many conflicts between them?
Is it [B]HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe? [/B]

As most are batshit insane.

Originally posted by Arel
Many time's in quarell we forget that Muslim(Alah) and Chrsitian(God) have one and unified Lord.So basically they believe in the same things,just differently.Muslim also accepts the New Testament and consider the Jesus as a prophet.
So why are there so many conflicts between them?
Is it [B]HOW to believe more important,than in WHO to believe? [/B]

Not according to the extremist Muslims.

Extremism on both sides is the root of the problem.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not according to the extremist Muslims.

Extremism on both sides is the root of the problem.

I'll partially agree.

The root of the problem is that to see the underlying unities in the religions, one must view their texts and teachings as metaphors, not literal truth. Once you make it literal (Jesus as the actual Son of God, Mohammad as his prophet, etc.) you become dogmatic. This is right; ergo, anything else isn't right. It forms the base of the divide between any two ideologies, religious or otherwise.

Beyond that, yes, most of the outward animosity is due to extremism, which thankfully is in the minority in most sects. These minorities are highly publicized, however, due to the prominence of their actions, so stereotypes and widespread fear/hatred begin to occur.

The flip side of that coin is non-extremist Christianity and/or Islam. For such an emphasis on blind faith in either religion, at any level, added to the subjectivity of interpretation of religious meaning, and you foster a climate where extremist violence will occur. The "good" religious who don't condone such behavior are still tacit accomplices to it due to the fact that they endorse the ideas (faith; adherence to religious texts as dogmatic truth) that lead to such behavior. The fact that not all succumb to such violence is not the point; that some inevitably will when presented with such ideas is the point.

So long as those two things exist, faith and literal belief in outlandish paranormal religious claims, such animosity will exist.

Ummm

I hate to point this out...

but the conflict is entirely secular and its modern incarnation is American provoked.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Ummm

I hate to point this out...

but the conflict is entirely secular and its modern incarnation is American provoked.

There are people in both religions who hate or fear the opposing side for religious reasons. It might not be the majority, but it exists. Calling it "entirely" anything is clearly false.

And while I won't formally refute you, since you have a point that some of it is driven by American political and/or cultural forces, we also can't simply ignore 9/11 and its profound statement on this topic. I wouldn't exactly call that "American provoked."

You wouldnt call 9/11 American Provoked?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You wouldnt call 9/11 American Provoked?

Hrn. One could, I suppose, trace its roots through history to a myriad of causes that defy nationalistic boundaries, and would include American influence. But no, I wouldn't. Whatever transgressions were made by America (I'm not so naive as to pretend there were none) certainly weren't at the level that an act like 9/11 was an inevitable consequence of them. 9/11 was Muslim extremism waging their war on both another religion and another culture.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hrn. One could, I suppose, trace its roots through history to a myriad of causes that defy nationalistic boundaries, and would include American influence. But no, I wouldn't. Whatever transgressions were made by America (I'm not so naive as to pretend there were none) certainly weren't at the level that an act like 9/11 was an inevitable consequence of them. 9/11 was Muslim extremism waging their war on both another religion and another culture.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You wouldnt call 9/11 American Provoked?

I don't think the cold-blooded murders of approximately 3,000 people were provoked, no. Even if you think they were, I'd like to remind you of the Khobar Towers incident in Kenya and the bombing of the USS Cole. They were performed by Muslim extremists and what did America do about it? Nothing. Osama bin Ladin was put at Public Enemy Number 1 in the FBI and the United States military did not receive any special orders whatsoever, at least the US Air Force did not. If someone here was in the other services at that time, please correct me.

I'm not saying America is entirely innocent, but it is not entirely to blame, and you certainly are not saying that terrorism is the solution to a conflict, are you?

There can be religious tolerance since both religions encourage charity and thoughtfulness and I'm sure the Koran has a passage about loving one's enemies as the Bible does. It is the personalities of some extremist people who like to bully others that keeps evil in the world and they will use religion and anything else they can to justify it. Bin Ladin, for example, if brought up in a secular country versus a theocracy, would use something other than his twisted version of Islam to justify his crimes, be it money or politics or whatever. Think what you want of America's leaders, but for a country whose population is mostly Christian, they are not resorting to using religion as an excuse for their actions. If you believe in their choices, fine, but if you don't, you probably think that money is behind their choices. So religion is not the sole underlying factor on why the Western world and the Eastern world have so many conflicts.

Yes, ok thats an interesting point.

On an issue such as terrorism I don't think its possible to argue with the 9/11 Zealots.

So I do not see how much of the US/Arab-world conflict is US provoked. Great lengths were taken to the point of President Bush addressing the nation that mainstream Islam is not to blame for all the violence in that part of the world.

What it is is greedy people who take advantage of the fact they live in a theocracy and brainwash people who are already desperate and uneducated into thinking new ideas about their religion, like it's okay to be a suicide bomber because it makes you a martyr. People like the Taliban don't dislike America because of its Christians. The Taliban dislikes America because it is one of the only countries in the world who stands up to them.

At War College and also in World Studies, we learned the agendas of Al-Quaida and the Taliban.

1. Establish themselves as leaders of their region.
2. Kick out outside forces (this includes tourists, expatriots, missionaries, etc in addition to military forces)
3. Destroy Israel.
4. Conquer the rest of the world a little at a time.

None of these goals have anything to do with Islam. They use Islam as a crutch and expect people to let them go ahead and do their thing because it is part of their religion. Meanwhile, the rest of the population in that area suffers and does not have the means to change their situation. There can be no uprising because these regimes give the people the bare minimum and tell them that they should be grateful for what Allah has given them and leave it at that.

I think the fact that many American Muslims and American Christians can get along and even be friends proves that it is not the ideals of these religions alone that causes conflict. It is the personalities of certain individuals.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
So religion is not the sole underlying factor on why the Western world and the Eastern world have so many conflicts.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Think what you want of America's leaders, but for a country whose population is mostly Christian, they are not resorting to using religion as an excuse for their actions.

Have you looked at your dollars or coins lately? "In God We Trust"

Politicians always say "god is on our side" or "god is behind america."

what's the diff?

Other than a few instances of President Bush mentioning God in terms of the war on Iraq (which is not based on religion), I have not heard a politician reference God like that. Most of them are pretty open about their belief systems, whatever they may be, but it's usually considered a bad move in politics to use God's Will as your chief motivation.

I fail to see how a few hangers-on of the Revolution like the designs of our coins makes America a religious country. I consider it quite secular, due to its "melting pot" emphasis and its focus on a separation between any church and state.

muslims do not beleive in the new testament. and to answer your question RELGIOUSLY{which accounts for less than half of the problem at best, the other half being political} both relegions are intolerant, self righteous and zeolous, as well as imposing and nihhlistic. conflict was bound to happen. but yea, america is currently the major reason due to its long standing foreign policy.

I need some clarification, leonheartmm, as to what foreign policy you are refering. President Clinton's foreign policy was very different from President Bush's.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Other than a few instances of President Bush mentioning God in terms of the war on Iraq (which is not based on religion), I have not heard a politician reference God like that. Most of them are pretty open about their belief systems, whatever they may be, but it's usually considered a bad move in politics to use God's Will as your chief motivation.

I fail to see how a few hangers-on of the Revolution like the designs of our coins makes America a religious country. I consider it quite secular, due to its "melting pot" emphasis and its focus on a separation between any church and state.

What does the "melting pot" have to do with God?

Anything concerning "God" and secular meaning are polar opposites:

sec·u·lar Audio Help /ˈsɛkyələr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sek-yuh-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages

So what are you talking about? The mention of God is inherently religious = fact.

And pretty open about their belief? Name some non-Christian politicians.