but there is a paradoxical commonality of basic rules of morality and human life in all existing monotheistic faiths.
All the stumbling blocks between different religions come from different interpretations of the sacred texts and from not emphasizing the most important things.
I just want to argue logically. Let us assume the truth of the Holy Qur'an. The Bible was written long before the Holy Qur'an, much earlier. And if we do not accept the concept of the Bible about the existence of the Lord God: the Father-God, the Son, in whom is the Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit, who is also the Lord, then it means that the whole Bible was written by fraudsters, because the testimony of various prophets about the Son of God, Jesus, is written in various books of the Old Testament long before the Gospel. Then everything in the Bible is untrue. However, when we compare the Qur'an and the Bible, it becomes clear that much is essentially the same. Moreover, many passages in the text are absolutely identical in meaning, as are many, if not most, names and historical events. So how could the "impostors" have written the divine text in the Bible long before the Holy Qur'an was written? It becomes clear that both books should not be questioned. The laws and rules of the Holy Qur'an are fully accepted and not denied by the books that make up the Bible. I will try to argue this in more detail below.
Everything I say about the common ground between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism certainly applies to the denominations of the major religions. For example, the Christians: Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism.
The eternal dispute between religions and their denominations is who is the most correct.
And the most correct is the one who lives closest to the laws of the Holy Scriptures (the Bible and the Qur'an).
After all, there are stories in the Holy Books of people who had no idea what religion and faith were, who simply lived by the commandments without knowing and were counted among the righteous.
Because of the stumbling blocks discussed in this chapter, religions fall into disagreement. Is it not written in both the Qur'an and the Bible that because of such disagreements, pagans, criminals, great sinners, and whole nations were destroyed as punishment?
What we fall into disagreement is a temptation for us. Why do people keep comparing themselves to demonstrate who is more true, more righteous, and so on? Competing to see who is the proudest and most arrogant! That's just the way it is.
We can only speculate. Our disagreements are based only on suppositions. Anything other than the pure truth (one Lord God) can be disputed, either justified or somehow proven not to be as it is written.
One can speculate that both the Qur'an and the Bible were not accurately translated into other languages. So many hundreds of years have passed. So many people have rewritten and retold these books. The translation can be misinterpreted and the meaning can be distorted. A mistranslation of just the words "son," "slave," or "love," which can have several meanings in one language, changes the understanding of the true meaning. Lots of different cultures and nations. You can speculate endlessly, and you can prove and find differences based on nuances, and make a big deal out of it. It's utopian.
For example, the Qur'an rejects all religions except Islam but recognizes righteous people within each religion, i.e., actions and ways of life that conform to the statutes of the Holy Qur'an. If a person is righteous, he is accepted by Islam as well as by Christianity.
There is a Sura (chapter) in the Qur'an that glorifies the Christians, and it says: "You will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant."
It is not the affiliation to a religion that counts, but the personal actions and the life path of an individual.
Do not Judaism, Islam, and Christianity know that one of the greatest sins is to dispute? This is what the Qur'an and the Bible say, God's covenant with believers, an unshakable set of rules for life.
So why should the monotheistic religions, which began with God's covenant with Abraham, the first true pleaser (who unswervingly did God's will), not rely on this common ground, which is much greater than that which prevents them from finding common points?
There is much debate and disagreement among religions about the semantic meaning of certain words. For example, what the Bible or the Qur'an calls Jesus. "Prophet" in the Qur'an, "Lord" in the Gospel. Is this what we should emphasize? It is not the words that are important, but the meaning given to them, which is always the same, but defined differently depending on what is written. But instead of focusing on common meanings that do not cause disputes and rejection in different religions (and such meanings are most likely to be true), the opposite happens. Most people look only for differences and reasons to question and reject one religion or another, not realizing that all Abrahamic religions are branches of the same tree.
Due to translations and multiple rewrites of the Holy Books, the meaning of the same word can be lost. After all, Jesus could have been called "Lord" as a person, which could have been spelled "the Lord" by the translator's hundredth author. But Jesus could have been called "the Lord," and thus God Almighty could have been addressed through Him. People appealed to God through prophets and messengers.
Should this bother the believer? It doesn't matter — Lord, son, slave, or prophet — the laws don't change for people because the laws and statutes of the Scriptures come from the Beginningless Creator Himself.
The main source of disagreement is over the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ.
The
