Your question Stanley Wilkin of whether monotheistic religions created hatred is a complex one. Based on most provided texts, it is apparent that tensions and conflicts did arise due to differences in beliefs and practices, particularly around topics of idolatry. However, these conflicts do not necessarily mean that monotheistic religions inherently created hatred. Many monotheistic religions also teach principles of love, tolerance, and peace. These conflicts could be more accurately attributable to human interpretation and misuse of religious teachings, rather than the religions themselves. It is important to interpret any religious text within its historical and cultural context.

While there may be thematic similarities between the Aeneid and narratives from Hebrew society regarding territory and war, it is impossible to say definitively that the Aeneid was influenced by these Hebrew narratives without further evidence. The Aeneid, written by the Roman poet Virgil, draws heavily from earlier Greek and Roman literary traditions and mythology. Although the Romans did have contact with various Middle Eastern cultures, there is no clear historical record showing that Virgil was directly influenced by Hebrew stories or religious thought. Any similarities could be coincidental or could stem from broader cultural influences or universal human themes.

The virtue morality used by Virgil could with some effort be connected to Jewish thinking, but there is no intensity of fury and dislike, murderous intent, in any other literature. While there are ethical standards they hardly compare to the hatred. Its not about war, or idolatry, although Xerses, the Persian king, is said to have expressed hatred against idolatry.

The point of my claim is that the sheer power of the feelings was unusual-search through the literature-Egyptian literature, no, Sumerian literature, no. Greek literature, no, as the affect in Greek plays is connected to resolution. While Hebrew ethics is there and is a mirror of Greek and Sumerian ethics it exudes hatred towards others only seen in modern monotheism.

Dear Dr. Wilkin,

I understand hatred first appeared with competition among people, not as a result of monotheistic religions. It is intrinsic to humankind most primitive feelings.

Regards,

Vilemar Magalhães

Jose, but there was competition earlier and no sign of or signals to 'hatred' until the emergence of monotheism. Today, monotheism remains the reservoir of hatred. Because ideas are raised and agreed on there is no reason to think they are true. Monotheism is about absolutes and hatred is absolute.

José Vilemar Magalhaes Silva Very valuable contribution; most research approaches available do not specifically address the origin of hatred in relation to competition among people or its connection to monotheistic religions. However, they do touch on the concept that hatred and the desire to do evil can lead to an absence of peace and personal suffering. Ultimately, the notion of hatred appears to be portrayed as a personal choice and part of human nature in this context, rather than being linked directly to competition. However, this is largely based on interpretation Stanley Wilkin and further study of religious text and human behavior would be required for a definitive answer.

Stephen, I must admit my knowledge of history makes clear that certain affects and approaches occurred at certain points and not earlier. Again, using literature as a means of research, without discussing each book or text, until works such as the Moses narratives the kind of fervid, intense murderous narratives and experiences do not appear.

While there is competition as part of state development there is nothing more intense. Does Homer's work demonstrate this hatred? The destructive monsters in the Odyssey express these matters but they are outside of human environments and the contest is between gods for example and human culture.

While, Stephen, I have not done deliberate research I am throwing out the challenge for others to produce examples. Monotheism is the lever to this intense way of regarding the world. Sorry, but monotheist approaches to the world created new affects, yes, actually emotional change, and intentions. With the expansion of monotheism, hatred has expanded as a means of understanding as well as interacting.

The use of literature Stanley Wilkin as a means of research allows for a broad understanding of cultural narratives and experiences. However, it is important to approach and analyze each text with a critical eye, understanding the context in which it was written and its impact on the culture or religion it represents. The Moses narratives, for instance, hold significant importance in the Jewish faith and provide crucial insight into their religious and cultural perspectives. It is important to note that narratives of fervent faith and intense experiences may not be representative of all texts within that tradition, or of the beliefs of all adherents. Each text should be considered as a component of a larger body of work, contributing to a more complete understanding of that tradition or culture.

The expansion of monotheism did bring about significant emotional change and impacted intentions. Monotheistic beliefs emphasize clear dichotomies of good and evil, worshipping one God and condemning idolatry, which can often lead to strong emotional responses, interpersonal conflicts and societal tensions. Such teachings may inadvertently provoke feelings of hatred or animosity against those who hold different beliefs or practices. This indirectly contributes to a change in how individuals interact with each other, notably leading to both positive and negative engagements. But it's also important to note that a central tenet of many monotheistic religions is the call to love one's neighbor, encourage peace, charity, and forgiveness among fellow mankind. Therefore, the effects of monotheism on societal interaction are complex and multifaceted.

Monotheism has indeed brought significant changes in the way humans perceive and interact with the world. It emphasizes the belief in a single, all-powerful deity, rejecting other gods, and could be said, in some instances, to lead to intolerance for other religious beliefs or practices. This could potentially lead to feelings of hostility or hate. At the same time, monotheism has provided many people with spiritual comfort, moral guidance, and a sense of community. Regrettably, like any belief system, it can be misused to justify negative emotions or actions. It is crucial to separate the inherent teachings of a religion from the misinterpretations or misappropriations by its adherents.

Come, come, Stephen you know I have done that. But your position fits in with mine.

I will make several additional points.

Monotheisms are absolute and emotions are heightened and tunnelled. It encourages a narrowing of perspective and thereby intolerance. Look at the religious belt in America, Russian priests. While the positive ideas you itemise are true to an extent, they can be found in pagan religions, where perhaps they originated.

Nevertheless, the Assyrian approaches to others must be explored, destructive and violent, but much of its violence was propaganda. The nastiness of their god, Ashur, was a means of encouraging their armies and building their empire. I write this because the Assyrians influenced Judaism. But the dislike of others is not evident outside of an imperial context.

The Assyrian Empire, Stanley Wilkin ,like many ancient civilizations, utilized violence and intimidation as tools of conquest and control. Their propagandistic portrayal of their god, Ashur, as a fierce and overpowering deity served to emphasize their military prowess and drive fear into the hearts of their enemies. Regarding their influence on Judaism, it is complex. The Assyrians' conquest of the Kingdom of Israel and their exile of the Ten Tribes in the 8th century BC clearly had major impacts on the Jewish people, both culturally and religiously. However, it was also during this period of upheaval that many core Jewish beliefs and practices were solidified. The Jewish texts indicate a nuanced view of the Assyrians. While they are often portrayed as enemies and oppressors, there is also recognition of their power and the role they played in shaping Jewish history. In the context of these texts, the “dislike” mentioned may be less about personal animosity and more about the immense power disparities and the effects of being under Assyrian rule. Interactions between different cultures, even in cases of conflict and subjugation, often result in mutual influences. Despite the often brutal Assyrian rule, their influence seeped into Jewish religious, political, and cultural practices. However, this influence was likely a result of interaction and adaptation rather than a conscious adoption of Assyrian ideologies. It's important to note, though, that these interpretations can vary among scholars, and current understanding may change as new historical and archaeological evidence comes to light.

It's vital to remember that ideas or concepts being present in multiple religious or philosophical systems doesn't necessarily denote a shared origin. They could have developed independently due to shared human experiences and reflections on life's essential questions. It's also common for different societies to integrate and reinterpret ideas they encounter from other cultures to fit their own existing beliefs and practices.

Stephen, much of this I agree with although the symbolic use made of cruel practices, while propaganda, is alive with meaning. The king and his queen, in one instance, sitting in a garden with the heads of their enemies hanging from trees as exotic fruit takes us to origins preceding Adam and Eve and yet connected to it. The violence and life and death paradigms can be traced to the earliest urban religions in the region. The cannibalistic intentions again merely confirm their desire to terrorise and also their imperial ambitions of consuming other polities.

I think the exile of the ten tribes needs historical proof and again may be just another metaphor to do with identity.

But, Ashur was a particularly militaristic God that the Assyrians attempted to impose on others and in these aspects resembles Yahweh, although this tribal god's emergence from local deities like El is sound, and the Storm god of Ugarit. Imposing gods or god is a monotheistic trait and it is clear from local testimony that the Assyrians were hated. The connection between this and later medieval terror imposed on those who reject monotheism is not coincidental. Imposing reflective terror involves its reception by states around Assyria. The Persians, more successful conquerors, were not hated. Now this is less a cultural aspect than the development of responses and even, using modern phrasing, evolution of responses. That Yahweh exhibits a number of the destructive traits of Ashur should be considered and thereby the connection between terror, if largely symbolic, and hatred.

Within early Sumerian and Akkad text responses to conquerors are seen through fate or gods, hatred, certainly the very word, is not employed.

Dear Stanley Wilkin,

Don't you agree that on tablet VI of the Epic Gilgamesh there are serveral manifestations of hatred?

Ishtar is furious.

she can watch him gore Gilgamesh to death.

Her father does not understand her anger,

She threatens to let all of the dead people out of the underworld so they can feast on the living

Source:

The Epic of Gilgamesh Tablet 6 Summary & Analysis | SparkNotes

Vilemar

Thanks, Jose,

That episode did strike me but it seems a tirade against goddesses, especially the omnipotent Ishtar/Inanna. This seems independently composed and concentrates on Ishtar's patronage of prostitutes and her strange undoing by mortal men. A new masculine religion thereby reflecting later Hebrew religion.

The Ishtar story may simply be misogyny in line with the Adam and Eve tale and the positioning of men at the heart of civilisation, but of course this became a fundamental trait of monotheism. Hatred? Yes, I think so, but this story may be relatively recent as the epic was composed at intervals until 700 BCE.

Maybe misogyny, associated with monotheism, is the link to hatred. In the Assyrian image wife and husband seem equal.

Christianity stresses the only God which is triune. And God is love, and He sent His only son Jesus Christ to be crucified for men's sins, showing forth God's love.

Paul. yes. but there is hatred towards the group itself and against the Roman occupiers. Nevertheless, Christianity has expressed terrible hatreds towards other Christian and monotheist groups and was culpable in exterminations of colonised groups.

Dear Dr. Stanley,

How do you see these quotes?

“Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another.” ― Homer, The Iliad

“Achilles glared at him and answered, "Fool, prate not to me about covenants. There can be no covenants between men and lions, wolves and lambs can never be of one mind, but hate each other out and out an through. Therefore there can be no understanding between you and me, nor may there be any covenants between us, till one or other shall fall” ― Homer, The Iliad

Have you seen this text below?

DOI: 10.2143/BIJ.71.2.2051600

Regards,

Vilemar Magalhães

My first thought was the matter of translation as these describe natural enemies whereas hatred here concerns irrational, deep, powerful reactions.

I find that although the devaluation of other cultures and peoples and so-called religious wars are often justified on religious grounds, in reality religion is usually misused to legitimize conquest, expansion of power and economic goals. In my opinion, Karl Marx correctly calls this “superstructure”.

August, while I find this explanation functions as a get-out clause for religion I think we need to start there. All of the books have questionable ethics, but that is not the issue here. I will make the point that both the Qoran and Jewish books have questionable ethics and the emotions felt when these religions are discussed justifiably leads to violence and increased hatred.

The teachings in both the Quran and Jewish books, like the Talmud, are deeply complex and should be approached with careful study and understanding. It is important to remember that interpretations can greatly vary and that many teachings should be contextualized within their historical and cultural timeframes. It is incorrect to attribute violence and increased hatred to the emotions felt when discussing these religions. These negative emotions typically stem from misinterpretations, lack of understanding, and misuse of religious texts. Both Islam and Judaism, like many other religions, fundamentally promote peace, compassion, and understanding among people. Simplifying these religions to justify negativity or violence is not only misinformed but also harmful. Dialogue and education are key to understanding and respecting various beliefs, which ultimately fosters peace and unity. We should strive to promote these values instead.

Yes they do. Not really much too it. I believe we as humans overcomplicate simple logical issues which have a clear answer due to personal internalization of logical fallacies. Probably all religion is like this.

Although I will read and support this work, and see if you can change my mind.

Religion is a more complicated version of what I said in my first sentence. I don't really believe it's much more past that being a scientist.

Statistically, you could compare this against historical standards of the most egregious acts ever committed towards human beings, and weight them on a scale which assigns different values the complexity and amount of human lives lost, and then further correlate and weight those with social constructs such as religion against other potential causes of statistically identifiable hatred, especially related to genocide or other crimes.

If you do this, you will see the same trend I pointed out here.

I encourage your philosophical debate, and I will look into this from an analytical perspective..

Stanley Wilkin Stanley Wilkin

If I consider ancient Egyptian literature there is a surprising lack of violence and quite a lot about emotional love between the young. Clearly there is something of that in the Bible, and some of the poetry there is a reuse of Egyptian love poetry. In Egyptian literature there is a lust for life, a desire for the pleasures of the present, which is substantially interrupted by Biblical literature in which violence, xenophobia and incitements to violence appear. Monotheism carries this perspective into the present.

The inhabitation of particular monotheisms is demanded with encouragements to destroy others. Yes, they come together but uncomfortably.

These monotheisms are colonialist with a grab for land in which their own impress can be situated. Thereby, again, violence. I suggest that the exhortations to love can initially be found in pagan religions, and that love is spiritual not physical which has often been banned!

The MAGA in the USA, the exhortations from political platforms by those embracing this queer form of Christianity, are violent, negative and destructive.

Be it religious, political, or social, promoting violence, negativity and destructiveness is generally considered harmful and counterproductive. The teachings highlighted throughout all wisdom schools emphasize the importance of justice, kindness, humility, and peaceful discourse. Therefore, it might be beneficial for all parties to strive for understanding, dialogue, and unity rather than discord.

Stephen

The wisdom in the biblical texts developed separately from the bible and was part of a literary tradition, which goes back almost 5000 years, and was subsumed within Judaism quite late. The quotes of Jesus are or were part of that, and other, traditions. Within Jesus' pronouncements are a tendency towards rhythmic balance and central core that was part of ancient Egyptian and Middle Eastern religion.

Egypt

Whether they all portray justice, etc, is another matter. The eye doesn’t go higher than the brow.

Silence is the best answer to the stupid.

No discussion can throw light if it wanders from the real point.

Be patient with a bad neighbor: he may move or face misfortune.

Source: https://proverbicals.com/egyptian-proverbs

This more effectively comes under lived experience and commonsense.

Godly

The positive side of sayings reflects the courtly wisdom of Egypt and represents thereby a continuous thread and literary understanding, but is not the only thread. Although violence is not always preferred it is seen as cleansing or can be, such a view coming from Ancient Assyria and Babylon as they extended their empires and seen vividly in the Moses/Joshua conquests of the high country. Cleansing becomes genocide seen in WW2 and the Ukrainian conflict, the latter motivated in part by religion or at least a nationalistic interpretation of Christianity.

From your provided information, Stanley Wilkin ,it appears that ethical complexities and societal perceptions can significantly influence our understanding of conduct, particularly in terms of violence and peace. The texts describe violence sometimes characterized as necessary or redemptive, particularly in circumstances of conflict or conquest, such as the Moses/Joshua conquests. However, these incidents are generally framed within larger moral or religious contexts. Conversely, positive or peace-promoting behavior is also highly valued in the texts. The societal or historical norms of a particular group or civilization, and their religious and cultural contexts, can greatly impact interpretations of such actions. Inappropriate aggression can be reframed as justifiable violence in certain situations, while other times, peaceful and harmonious behaviors are particularly valued and lauded.

The wisdom in the Biblical texts, particularly in the wisdom literature such as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job, does share connections with other ancient Near Eastern literary traditions including Egyptian and Mesopotamian wisdom literature. This is in part due to the trade and cultural exchange that occurred among these civilizations. Some of Jesus' pronouncements in the New Testament also reflect wisdom traditions and may use forms such as parables that were common in the surrounding cultures. However, while there are shared elements and forms, the content and theology of the Biblical texts, including Jesus' teachings, are uniquely centered on the God of Israel and His relationship with His people. This sets the Biblical tradition apart from these other wisdom traditions.

Stephen,

Your points are valid but do not detract from mine. Similar wisdom frames are found in disparate cultures such as the Americas, but it reflects environmental influences. The violence in the Bible, which actually exists within the New Testament but viewed within bad spirits and demonology, but nevertheless the cleansing template is appalling and cannot be dismissed. In the Quran, cities are destroyed by god for not obeying him. This is complex but still repeats the cleansing mode.

Stephen,

The part played by monotheism in the acceptance of tyrannies and their prolongation also needs to be considered. Graeber and Wengrow in The Dawn of Everything posit the evidence for democratic institutions in Ancient Sumeria (301). A point I have made many times. In fact, the civilised values, which you are really discussing, Stephen, were far more evident here than in later Judaism.

In the 'Hymns of Gudea' a ruler or governor of the city state of Lagash (c2020 BCE):

Women did not carry baskets

only the top warriors did the building

for him; the whip did mot strike;

mother did not hit her (disobedient) child;

the general,

the colonel,

the captain,

(and) the conscript,

they (all) shared the work equally;

the supervision indeed was like

sift wool in their hands.

No stoning of women for transgression of sexual codes, or indeed class.

No public executions. Councils and Citizen assembles were widespread. No sign of an overbearing god enforcing dubious morality.

Monotheism was employed by Israel/Judah to 'big' themselves up after Assyrian armies destroyed the larger northern kingdom. Then Yahweh was a warrior dynastic god who failed to protect his children, mainly the royal family. Faced with a dire reality, they responded through literature. They reconstructed reality employing Sumerian and Persian myths. Stephen, what you see as complexity is merely the consequences of literature, indeed good literature. Although Christianity had less good writers it assumed the Old Testament and became thereby deep and consequential (Christianity otherwise is wafer thin and clearly reflects Sumerian myths and ideas, and too full of magic and demonology to have long survived). These monotheisms survived paganism because its believers wrote better!

Stephen,

You believe Christianity is unique because it is centred on the dynastic god of Israel and Judea thereby supporting ancient forms of nationalism, developed because Israel had been crushed and Judah was in threat of being overwhelmed and its culture destroyed. Thereby, write it down, develop the god figure through literature, recreate our historical past, as Islam does without obvious embarrassment, and keep our fingers crossed that no body sees through our ancient scam.

Lets praise these truly marvellous (it is) con tricks and embrace the trickster religions. Stephen, you know my work on psychiatry where I accuse them of doing the same! But this is not about the nature of belief, knowledge (or not alone) but of power and narrative. The powerful control the narrative!

Yes, it is true that there is also religiously based hatred, without any great economic intentions, but out of pure ideology, that the "one true doctrine" must be spread.

As in the Koran, there are sentences in the Christian Bible advocating violence, such as in Matthew 11:12 "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force."

or in Luke 12:52 "Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." Sometimes it was translated "but the sword".

But this is not the mainstream of the New Testament. Moreover these and similar phrases certainly were meant spiritually, that you can only get to the kingdom of heaven with effort.

But this has often been misunderstood in military terms and the history of Christianity's relationship with other religions and peoples is characterized above all by devaluation, demarcation, hatred and fight.

Building on the teachings of the important Christian church scholar Tertulian (ca. † 220), Cyprian of Carthage coined the fateful phrase:

"Extra ecclesiam salus non est." There is no salvation outside the church.

"Salvation" was understood in the sense of "recta doctrina" (right doctrine) and "legitima sacramenta" (legitimate sacraments).

“Salvation” was understood in terms of the “recta doctrina” (right doctrine) and “legitima sacramenta” (lawful sacraments). According to Cyprian, this was only to be found within a congregation associated with a legitimate bishop. The questionable phrase was soon understood as concerning the people’s “spiritual salvation” in general and was only withdrawn by the Second Vatican Council (1962 to 1965).

In connection with the Great Commission from the Gospel of Matthew 28:19 f.:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you,” the phrase had devastating consequences.

However, if the heathens did not want to be saved, wanting to keep their previous worldview and beliefs instead, violence was frequently used to turn the “savages” into “proper Christian citizens.” This was often initiated with good intentions – similar to using massive restraints to save a suicidal person from their death. According to this doctrine, it was all about saving them from eternal death! Given these ends, using violence was considered quite reasonable.

So, the earnest ones among the “men of God” sought to bring God to the whole world. As a rule, it never occurred to them that God could already be there and his worship, already a longstanding practice – albeit under other names and with unfamiliar rites. Thus, they pressed on, without recognizing him or appreciating his foreign forms of worship.

August, is that all Christianity, or is it an interpretation? Didn't Tertullian leave Christianity as his religious views developed? As you rightly say Christianity like Islam involves, indeed maybe even invented, colonialism with all its problems and violence. So could this place both these religions among the worst ideas ever formulated?

No, I see that as a misuse of the original intention. Unfortunately, idealistic ideas and movements can be perverted. And not only can they, they will. Even Buddhism, which is otherwise so peaceful, has been perverted into a hate-filled movement against Muslims in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, for example.

August,

Looking at these religions objectively is important, because I have, like you I'm sure, listened to representatives of the same religion claim contradictory versions of the same religion. There are historians that work on them but never quite seem to separate myth, etc, from historical reality or determine whether it is worth doing so. My brief consideration of Islam determines that it had different beginnings. while the similarities between the Isis cult and Christianity seem interesting at least. The Isis cult began 2 centuries before Christianity.

Stephen has a very cheerful understanding of Christianity even though its ideas are dependent on Greek, Egyptian and middle eastern tropes. Why cannot we admit the cultural background to these religions.

Literature plays an essential role in preserving and propelling religions, beliefs, philosophies, and cultural narratives. Good literature often transcends the specificities of culture, time, and geographical location, and resonates with humans universally. The depth and complexity of monotheisms such as Christianity and Judaism, as well as their survival against several odds, can majorly be attributed to their written scriptures that have continually guided, inspired, and consolidated communal faith. Furthermore, the scriptures of these religions encapsulate not only spiritual wisdom and moral teachings but also historical events, prophetic revelations, and human experiences of divine, making these texts a rich reservoir of philosophical and metaphysical knowledge. Authors of these scriptures have employed refined, sometimes cryptic, literary techniques which have further deepened the intrigue and fascination around these texts, encouraging manifold interpretations, studies, and explorations over centuries. Therefore, it's indeed accurate to suggest that the perceived complexity of monotheisms like Judaism and Christianity is the outcome of their robust literary traditions. It is through their scripts that these religions have managed to sustain themselves, gain followers, provoke thought and discussion, and leave a profound impact on human civilization. In this sense, Stanley Wilkin , I do agree to your hypothesis of the powerful control of narratives and cultural (historical) background of religions, i.e. a radical critique of religion helps to understand the psychology (psychiatry) of men. I do see the historical sequence as: religion-philosophy-science-technology, in terms of cultural evolution.

Although Christianity was persecuted on a number of occasions by the Roman Empire its primary success was in competing with it, presenting a valid moral and social opposition and its development as a cult. There were similar cults at the time including ISIS, which also baptised new recruits and cherished similar ideals. Although ISIS perished as a cult, Christianity won through by imitating the Empire, the Pope, and Cardinals reflect the political system of the Empire.

Again, its originator reflected ideas current at the time while those who followed created an efficient bureaucracy based not on the state, which threatened the state, but the newly developed systems of heaven and afterlife.

Apart from Islam, where it appears many of its adherents believe that it is through conquering that they can win and or retain converts, Judaism and Christianity, in its current understanding of the Bible, affirm that their religion is that of peace, and that the isolated cases in the past where God required that certain persons be eliminated, were time bound and context based.

Others have argued that how Jesus Christ presents the gospel of peace and love is the exact pattern that God the Father required from the start.

Basil, the attribution of certain positive viewpoints to Christianity as the inventor of those viewpoints ignores the history of ethical development prior to Jesus-if the historical Jesus and his Avatar are one and the same. Jesus indeed seems to have been an itinerant preacher, a role created by the temple in Jerusalem in order to sustain Judaic culture under Roman rule.

We do not really know if Jesus was actually a pacifist rather than preaching opposition to Roman rule through a Gandhi like approach. There are instances in the New Testament when this does not seem to be the case. I will point out that there were other itinerant preachers at the time (see Josephus) whose aim was to challenge Roman rule and who failed just as Jesus initially did.

One final response here: if the exact pattern of goodness comes from God (and this provides more complexity as any discussion on goodness goes on forever) then how must we account for Yahweh, Moses, and all the violent types associated with Judaism? Is it the same God or perhaps a different one? Another final response: an essential part of Christian ideas is the colonialism of the entire world, just like Islam, and on occasion done with equal violence. Europe, or parts of it, was converted with extreme violence.

Dear Stanley,

I can not see any groups as being reservoir of hatred. Or that hatred was once created.

Monotheism is about absolutes and hatred is absolute. I see that one common characteristic does not make two different things the same.

Hatred is a human reation and not something that can be stored, created, lost or modified.

Vilemar

Jose

Literature is indicative of a society and of course culture. Now if certain expressions occur only at a certain point in time, for example the idea of a soul, although it may enjoy a clear development, its clear expression is another matter.

We might guess that placing objects in a grave might indicate such an understanding or ideology that actually may not be the case and we can only accept its appearance once it is clearly expressed. That is the same with any ideas. Most of the ideas you have as an individual and within a group did not exist in the past and if you search through documents as well as poetry and novels, for example, you will not find them. Because you have certain thoughts does not mean your ancestors did.

We believe, and belief is the issue, that human emotions are connected to human identity in the past and in the present and that because we experience them now, or some do, human beings have always experienced them in the past but if there is no evidence of that, why should we accept they did? Human beings habitually define experiences and responses to experience, so why do we not trust the evidence? I think we must concede that some technologies have changed us as a species and language, writing, the examination of ideas are technologies (I must add music and film) we have slowly developed and which have subsequently altered us.

Certainly, religion develops certain intellectual positions and emotional traits through involvement and intellectual engagement. There is no Quran in the past prior to its being composed but there are drips and drops of the Quran in the previous millennium. Cultural development is the key. The enthusiasms of Christianity emerged slowly from many ancient societies alongside ideas of reverence for gods expressed emotionally, not only through rituals.

ان اختلاف الاديان لا يعني أنها من مصادر متعددة أو انها تدعو الى مبادئ مختلفة، انما كلها جاءت تدعو الى التوحيد بالدرجة الاساس، ومن ثم تقدم أحكاماً تنظم بها الحياة الانسانية وترعى بها الانسان.

لم تختلف الرسل في هذا ابدا انما وقع الاختلاف في الاحكام المتعلقة بالأزمنة الآنية والتي لم تختلف الا للتطور الحاصل في المجتمع البشري وحياته لذلك كلما جاء نبي من الانبياء من أصحاب الشرائع كانت الشريعة التي جاء بها ذات أحكام أوسع لتشمل الحياة في ذلك الزمن.

لذلك كانت الاديان مكملة لبعضها، لان الدين واحد، كما نجد ان الانبياء كانوا مبشرين بمن بعدهم وهذا خير دليل على وحدة الدين، قال تعالى (وَإِذْ قالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يا بَنِي إِسْرائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ مُصَدِّقاً لِما بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْراةِ وَمُبَشِّراً بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِنْ بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ).

Ali Mahal

I will answer your response as best I can, although my immediate reaction was that perhaps this does not fit the question.

You repeat the Islamic claim that the messengers and message in monotheisms are related, although I distinguish between the religion and type of religion/ideology/mindset. The relationship between Christianity and Islam is not clear as the thought processes do not match. Apart from the demonology in Christianity, the approach in the Quran is authoritarian, that is you do whatever I tell you, you submit. Such a position is not found in Christianity and in fact has to be rejected because of the choice central to Christianity. Islam is related to Christianity but not the same and the nonsense in Chapter 5 of Jesus claiming to be Muslim merely detracts from the authenticity of the Quran-aside from being silly.

Nor is the message similar or the same except each claims to be monotheistic, and except in certain ways that is having a king-type figure running the entire universe,although Christianity reflects the late Roman system of rule, is not true either. Allah leads an army of angels, which although evident in medieval Christianity, is otherwise not there in the original form of the religion, which was based on narrowly ethical standards and proclamations on peace and non-violence.

islam made the claims you present to gain legitimacy although honestly the violence of early Islam is not evident in early Christianity although evident in later manifestations of the religion.