How can there be a Heavan

Drathe_Blue · Post by **Drathe_Blue** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:07 pm

A man and woman are deeply in love with each other, they share the true and honest concept of its meaning. But one day whilst out, some snotty nosed muck kid in a cap runs a screwdriver down the man’s car damaging the bodywork. The man having seen this on his return to the car with his wife, snaps into a fit of anger and runs over to the boy stabbing the little blighter to death with the very same tool. On the way home there is a terrible accident, both are killed as the car collides with a police blockade.

NOW…

The man is judged in death and goes to hell for in many beliefs ‘thou shall not kill’, not only that but wrath is a deadly sin. Down to the fiery pit he goes. But the woman, whilst not without the odd sin, has lived an honest life, she goes to heaven.

BUT…

How can that woman spend eternity in heaven if she can not be with the man she loves, how can she be in perpetual bliss always aching to be with her love. Heaven can simply not be what it should with out the man and the love they share to complete it.

Some notes on this; She can not just have her memory erased of this man because that would be going against her free will, a will that god himself gave to us.

A clone of her love can not be created because that would be deception and again against gods morality.

Her lover could be excused from hell but then… couldn’t every sinner in that case?

So I ask you for an intelligent discussion on this, one I have induced with people and ministers of religion, which I am sad to say either become offended by what I have to say, or have no decent answer for it other than to quote obscure refrences from religiouse books. I would like to point out am not religious myself only curious.

Hell can so easily be created right here on the very earth you tread, but heaven it seems… well I find it impossible based on this for it even to be created in heaven its self.

redick · Post by **redick** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:06 am

It comes into your definition of "Heaven". I consider myself somewhat of a religious man, and base my spiritual conviction on the teachings found in the 66 books that make up the Bible.

Based on your proposition, heaven seems to center on the thoughts, wants, and desires of the individual. However, a Biblical stance on heaven focuses it squarely on God and secondarily on the individual.

An individuals admittance into Heaven is then depenant up his relationship with God, which should be reflected in his relationship with his wife. As the relationship with God is to be the over-riding factor in all we do, or will do, then to "go to heaven" literally means to "be with God", which is more desirable than anything else. If you believe as I do, that we are merely "creatures" before our Creator.

I would agree though, that the theory of heaven that appears to be peeking through your hypothesis as presented above, is completely impossible. Thankfully, I do not subscribe to it.

Golda · Post by **Golda** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:07 am

I'd agree with Red on this. But to further address this scenario, I would point out that the "love" the woman has for the man is not true love at all but rather selfishness -- a woman looking to meet her own needs thru the use and enjoyment of another person. Then how can this person, perhaps in Heaven due to God's mercy and not her own merit, be finally fulfilled in Heaven? Heaven in most people's views is a place where ignorance and misunderstanding do not exist or are continually being replaced with knowledge. If this were the case in your scenario, the woman would either be instantly or gradually enlightened to the nature of true love. True love does not come from any person, but rather from the Author of Love. People are merely vessels of such from time to time, in their limited ability and subject to their willingness to love. And to answer a larger question, God having loved humanity in the highest and most pure form, gave humanity the gift of free will. A total free will with all the rewards, dangers and responsibility that brings. This is why innocent people are made to suffer while God seamingly stands by and does nothing. Is it fair to blame God for something evil done or good omitted by the will of humanity? Humanity has completely in its power the ability to feed, cloth and properly house every person on earth and many times more. We could stop the spread of AIDS in one generation. We could chose the most healthy of all lifestyles and not have to treat the majority of health issues besetting the world. We could chose to funnel all our disposable income to finding cures for the causes of premature death. We could choose to settle differences peaceably instead of reverting to force. Even so-called "acts of God" like hurricanes and earthquakes are no match for people choosing to build wisely or not to build or populate in threatened areas.

After reviewing the likelyhood of our own poor choices being the cause of most evil in the world today, it is no wonder most revert to blaming God for the harm done to innocents. It is a lot easier than making a good choice. Hey, why should we give up what we want to do, just so someone else has it better?

Post by **Raaz Satik** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:07 pm

I found the original post here interesting so I copied it and sent it to a few people. Below is a reply that I got. It seems to agree with both Red and Golda, but I'm posting it anyway as it's nicely worded.

Heaven is simply put as "Being in the Presence of God". All other ideas of Heaven are human beings
trying to relate Heaven to earth. Our earthly experience is all we know so we always try to put it
in human terms. For instance, being with our true love, a white cloud, or my favorite, ...(edited).
Being in the presence of God for eternity is "Eternal Bliss". Nothing else matters after being in the
presence of God. Once being in the presence of God, the loss of a true love or beloved relative is
inconsequential becuase the joy your soul experiences while in the presence of God is its ultimate
goal. That is eternal salvation.

PS I kept using the presence of God, instead of saying seeing God, because do you really think
that we have eyes in heaven, or for that fact even need them. That is why the arguement below is
flawed. What you need here on earth is not the same as you need in the afterlife. Oh by the way.
the definition of Hell is simply the absence of God for all eternity.

EDIT: Couple more interesting replies from different poeple

I think this points out the inherent logical flaws in the concept of heaven as described in many religions. Simply put, the idea of a place where everything is perfect for everyone still with memories and desires in tact, is impossible. The only way to create peace like this would be a homogenization of the heavenly being through a spiritual transformation into something “purer”. If one accepts that idea, then it is very uncertain exactly what of our original selves would remain in that new body. This woman may no longer be obsessed with her man and may concentrate on “higher purposes.” It’s all silly anthropocentric application of our present lives onto some ideal paradise, usually used by the organized churches to scare the herd into submission. Logically it breaks down pretty easily. This thought experiment is akin to trying to determine who would win if the Easter Bunny fought Santa.

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:54 pm

I don't identify with a specific religion, but this thread seems to line up with a Christian perspective. Adding to Raaz's post;

Raaz Satik wrote:
Simply put, the idea of a place where everything is perfect for everyone still with memories and desires in tact, is impossible. The only way to create peace like this would be a homogenization of the heavenly being through a spiritual transformation into something “purer”.

This purification is called the Bama. Its documented several places in the New Testament. Essentially for the saved there are two judgments. The first is the Passover judgment, or blood of the lamb, which culls Christian from non-Christian. And by the way, if our murderer had accepted Christ at any point in his life, regardless of future sin, he would pass into heaven.

The second judgment, sometimes called the Bama Seat of Christ, is not punitive. It is a separation of the wheat from the chaff. In the crucible of this judgment Christ burns away all memories and emotions from earthly events that did not serve his Church - its kinda like the movie Fight Club.

All that remains are those memories and emotions that served the kingdom of heaven. You've heard of ethnic cleansing; think of this as spiritual cleaning. Through this process the wife would be spared the pain of loss of her unsaved husband.

Back to my murder comment... According the Christian religion, the easy way to reach heaven is by accepting Jesus as your personal savior. Sort of like, the easy way to be a soccer fan is to accept Manchester United as the only true champion. The hard way (the book says its easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle) is to follow God's laws. Once you are saved by the blood of the lamb, that gift can not be lost. The suffering for the Christian murderer comes at the Bama, sins burn bright in this crucible.

Again this is just a Christian perspective. Many of the other world religions have completely different views. Many of them are not polished enough to deal with a question like this. All religions are evolving entities. I believe Christianity has a head start on most of them. I can't think of another religion that has the age, sustained track record, and mass acceptance of Christianity. They have had a chance to fine-tune their craft.

Drathe_Blue · Post by **Drathe_Blue** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:58 pm

I would like to thank you all for your intelligent discussion and time spent in doing so, and now to further it…

Redick, you say ‘An individuals admittance into Heaven is then dependant up his relationship with God, which should be reflected in his relationship with his wife’. I can understand that… but it must be hard to find a woman that would be willing to be second best in your heart?

‘…The relationship with God is to be the over-riding factor in all we do, or will do, then to "go to heaven" literally means to "be with God", which is more desirable than anything else.’ So the woman who shows you love, gives you herself and so much more it to always be second best and when the time came… to be blunt, forgotten and cast aside "to be with God"?

And if you were to say a woman should not go to such lengths to love another nor devote her self to anyone more so than god… with out sounding childishly ignorant what makes you a better person to love god and hold another as second best? In a twisting of words and context that could sound like an affair.

Or as Masashi referenced from the second judgment, sometimes called the Bama Seat of Christ; ‘In the crucible of this judgment Christ burns away all memories and emotions from earthly events that did not serve his… All that remains are those memories and emotions that served the kingdom of heaven…. Through this process the wife would be spared the pain of loss of her unsaved husband.’ I find this… I do not know… aggressive, against the free will that god gave to us.

Why take away what makes us who we are morality and spiritually. We as humans are a culminate entity of memories and past experiences. So to enter heaven you must give up a gift from god, to quote from Golda; ‘God having loved humanity in the highest and most pure form, gave humanity the gift of free will. A total free will with all the rewards, dangers and responsibility that brings.' Your free will to retain your memories or those you loved? Must be sacrificed, in effect a large portion of your persona is erased.

Personaly I find Raaz Satik statment more agreeable to my way of thinking, but I find it frightening to think all of what I am, I was would be gone. In effect I would be no more, no more than if all life were to end in a coffin.

I would like to add I do not in any way mean to cause offence or personally attack peoples beliefs, I find the subject one of interest and curiosity and one if played nicely, of good hearty debate. Not being a religious man or one of much belief myself, I seem as you have probably found to look upon it with a child’s simplistic eye.

But in saying that I also understand there can not be an agreed on answer as views and beliefs differ so I look forward to hearing your views on my reply.

Sansake^ · Post by **Sansake^** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:49 am

Masashi wrote:Again this is just a Christian perspective. Many of the other world religions have completely different views. Many of them are not polished enough to deal with a question like this. All religions are evolving entities. I believe Christianity has a head start on most of them. I can't think of another religion that has the age, sustained track record, and mass acceptance of Christianity. They have had a chance to fine-tune their craft.

I have to say that there is very little in this final paragraph that I agree with. Firstly. "what happens to us after we die?" is the primary question asked of any religious scholor by the layman, and I cannot imagine any philosophy that has no "polished" answer calling itself a religion. Whether with honey, vinegar, or both, the promise of a given afterlife is what drives most folks to strive to maintain the tenets of one religion over another or none at all. Secondly, Islam is the only major world religion I can think of that is younger and enjoys less world-wide acceptance than Christianity and I expect the latter won't be the case much longer either.

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:11 pm

Yes SanSake, some of my anti-organized religion attitudes were showing in final paragraph of the first post. I was trying to be glib. I agree that almost every religion seeks to deal with transcendence into death. I believe this is because almost every religion, I can think of, is founded upon fear. The complexity I was referring to were the two people passing through with differing dispositions - sinner vs. saved.

- The American Indian religions that I've read about don't deal with this. There are 100's of them (I only know a little about a few).
- The African tribal religions don't either. There are hundreds of these too.
- And then there are the quasi-religions like: Falun Gong, Wicka, Yoga, Astrologists, National Rifle Association & on and on. Who really knows what they believe.
- The Greek pantheists would send both husband and wife to Hades and write an epic poem about the tragedy.
- The Buddhists dissolve the individual spirit all together, so both husband & wife get a fresh new start.
- The Coptics and Zoroastrians want to keep their perspective a secret.
- I think the Muslims are pretty clear that husband and wife would enter Heaven, but the wife would walk 3 paces behind, wear a berka and be transformed into 21 virgins. Which I personally think would be fun... for a couple weeks, but a nightmare long-term.
- The Jews would definitely condemn the man for murder, but also the wife for using a can opener on Shabbat.

You see the truth is we are all going to die. The Christian's have a leg up on all these other religions because they claim to have a guy that came back from death with all the answers. I think this becomes the "state of the art" for the framers of new religions. When I take the Church of Kentucky Fried Chicken public next year, I'm gonna resurrect Colonel Sanders. With his bow tie and cane, that guy just looked like he had all the answers.

I do apologize for the coarseness of my posts. I understand that by definition religion is sacred to each person. I don't mean to belittle anyone person's beliefs, and would like to apologize for any insult. I am just so deeply offended by the atrocities that have been committed in the name of organized religion. After careful consideration, I've just called the whole religion game on account of rain.

By and by, in answer to Drathe_Blue's follow-up... Christians believe God created man in an imperfect state, and that through resurrection the imperfections are removed. This is not to say that the entire relationship of the husband and wife would be erased, only those aspects that did not serve the kingdom of God would be wiped away. They emphasize that everything terrestrial, including man's freewill, is not permanent.

Post by **Raaz Satik** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:45 pm

Masashi wrote:- And then there are the quasi-religions like: Falun Gong, Wicka, Yoga, Astrologists, National Rifle Association & on and on.

That line made me smile but in general Masahi I think your last post dropped a little bit from the "deep thought" category into the "inflamitory" category. I know you say you don't mean to insult, and your trying to be light-hearted but many could find your post insensitive.

Shazam0 · Post by **Shazam0** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:58 pm

Masashi wrote: I believe this is because almost every religion, I can think of, is founded upon fear.

i disagree with several points but this most of all. the foundation of the christian religions is christ. Without him they do not have a religion. Christ teaches many truths that promise his followers a better life in the here-after. He also introduced many principles onhow to govern and to live ones life. Yes he spoke of burning in hell, but to say that the foundation of all christain churches is based on that one princple (sinners go to hell) is not true. While i'm not an expert on religions it seems to me that the asian religions place very little emphasis on fear, rather they emphasize how this life means nothing, and the worst fate is to be reborn again.

I can however see how an ignorant person can be manipulated by a cruel intelligent clergyman. We have ample historical events that show us religious leaders usurpt political power and wielded it by inducing fear in the ppl they governed. The fear was of course religous fear and simply used as tool for those men to keep thier constituents under thier influence.
btw i was a NRA member. but as far as i know i paid $25 for the annual fee once and got a $30 discount on my gun purchase. I was a member for one year, and havent paid the annual fee again. Never knew i joined religion that year

Shazam0 · Post by **Shazam0** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:18 pm

To reply to the first post: The woman goes to heaven and experiences saddness for her lover. She of course knows he is in hell and cannot be with her in peaceful heaven. She will always live with that sadness until she comes to terms with it. I believe in God and beleive he allows us to reap what we sow. If that woman did indeed want to be with her lover MORE then be with God and all else who made it to heaven (her parents, children?) I beleive she could abondon God and burn in hell with her lover. However i dont think ppl can really enjoy each other in hell cause i saw a documentary on Sudam Hussein and it showed how he used to torture ppl for enjoyment and later when he didnt have the time to he had ppl torture others and video tape it so he could still watch ppl suffer and i got the feeling the ppl being tortured didnt really care who they were with, they just wanted to die.

Also, in speaking about loving your spouse or your drug or whatever and then loving god... why is there a conflict? If you love god and your spouse hates him how can you love your spouse? I mean if you are a christian for example and live a christian life and your spouse hates Christ and lies/cheats/steals/basically not a nice peron...

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:21 pm

Shaz you know I was joking about that NRA thing right? Even though Charlton Heston has been NRA president since 1995. And Charlton did portray Moses in The Ten Commandments. Coincidence? I think not...

You're right Raaz, religion and politics are two subjects that are best avoided to maintain harmony. I did attempt to atone for my sins.

I know I get upset at the talk of any of it. Not really too much, but I am sure there are people who do get upset over the talk of it. I personally am more put off by righteous indignation.

One measure of free thinking societies is the way they deal with dissenting opinions.

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:45 pm

Shazam0 wrote:
Masashi wrote: I believe this is because almost every religion, I can think of, is founded upon fear.
i disagree with several points but this most of all. the foundation of the christian religions is christ.

The fear is right there in the Gospel. Remember that guy at the Super Bowl with the John 3:16 sign?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is the old "carrot and the stick" style of management in the Biblical proportion. It follows one of the universal tenants of almost every religion, "Believe in me, or be dammed." There is only one true prophet of God and Allah (er.. em.. Jimmy Buffet) is his name. The dismissal of all other religions has to be at the core of a religion or else people wouldn't follow.

Hey man your karma ran over my dogma.

Shazam0 · Post by **Shazam0** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:29 pm

Sansake^ · Post by **Sansake^** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:35 pm

Shaz more or less touched on a point with the final paragraph of his last post as well. Namely, some (the true "fire and brimstone" types) would argue that the woman probably didn't deserve Heaven herself. First for accepting who her husband truly was. Secondly, she would take a hit for not accepting God's judgment of him.

As to Raaz's worry that some folks might get upset with Masashi and his counter argument regarding intelligent dissenting opinion, I can only offer my personal experience. I used to be Masashi. I had just enough religious knowledge to be dangerous (limited to Christianity into which I was raised). I used to think that God (not to be confused with religion) had to make sense to my limited perspective. I took great joy in pulling the wings off of Christian flies most of whom knew less of what they spoke than I. What fascinated me most was the anger I could instill and I came to think that I must have shaken their faith. "After all" began my coup de grace, "if you are right, I am going straight to Hell. Wouldn't the proper Christian response to that revelation be pity?"

While I still believe this to some extent, it has since occurred to me that they might just be pissed off over my total disrespect for them as a human being. I was being arrogant which most people do not like. I have since rationalized that as well. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". Is there anything in the world more arrogant than faith? I think not so I now wear it (arrogance) proudly, as a badge. As such, I am unflustered by folks who insist on interjecting logical arguments into questions of faith. I am left to pity them and move along. God is like guns, Harleys, and flying, either you get it or you don't.

When I die, I will eat lamb in paradise surrounded by (I believe the correct number is 74) virgins whether I am still unmarried at that point or not. You see, in Islam, we are allowed as many wives and concubines as we can afford and we are all rich in Heaven.

Sansake^ · Post by **Sansake^** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:52 pm

Masashi wrote:There is only one true prophet of God and Allah (er.. em.. Jimmy Buffet) is his name.

"There is no god but God and Mohammad is his prophet." As was Moses, Abraham, and Jesus. Islam does not "dismiss" Judaism or even Christianity referring to both as "people of the book". Truth be told, Muslims and Jews have a lot more in common than either would be comfortable admitting.

Masashi wrote:Hey man your karma ran over my dogma.

"I'm sorry my karma ran over your dogma." You stole my line.

I don't find the statement that "all religion is based on fear" particularly profound either. All law, whether canonical or secular is based on fear. There are times when murdering your wife or neighbor (sometimes the same thing if she's exiled you to the couch) is prevented only by fear. Whether you fear the reprisal of God and/or the local constabulary, restraint is still an act of self-preservation. Without fear, you have no restraint or consideration. Without restraint, you have anarchy. So, while I'm sure you are correct, I wouldn't be so quick to judge that a bad thing. The laws of man have, in fact, given the average person so much to fear that he has little time to consider those of God on which man's laws are theoretically based. My advice then is to follow God's law and you will find that you generally have little trouble with men.

Shazam0 · Post by **Shazam0** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:41 pm

I do not refrain from killing ppl because i'm afraid of burning in hell. I dont kill ppl cause i like ppl. or in other words I dont lie...Ok i have lied and the person i lied to always finds out, so i've learned it does no good. But i dont lie not because i'm afraid of being damned. Anyway in my life and in my religion fear plays a very little role. Fear is a powerful motivator, but is it the strongest?
Thinking abstractly if you were God and wanted your children you created to return to live with you wouldnt you provide a strong motivator for them to obey your laws so that they could come enjoy eternity with you in heaven? YES of course. And He does. Fear is one of the more base and gutteral motivators. I think pleasure is just above it. And i think love is on the top. It is the most powerful motivator. At least in my experience. Actually come to think about it God provides all sorts of motivation to obey His laws and Want to return and live with Him. he promises mansions, wealth, happiness, and if you chose not to he will punish you and cast you to hell. So there are all types of motivation at play in religion.

Golda · Post by **Golda** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:50 pm

Interesting point about Fear: it could be argued that Fear is Faith. Faith might have been thought of by most as being a belief in something positive, and Fear perhaps being a belief in something negative. You might be able to see here that they are both beliefs. Should the object of the belief dictate the meaning of words? How very unfair to these fine words! Fear is just Faith in an undesirable outcome.

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:59 pm

Sansake^ wrote: Is there anything in the world more arrogant than faith? I think not so I now wear it (arrogance) proudly, as a badge.

Wow, This is an incredibly powerful insight. Sansake you've driven right to the heart of the matter. You express this thought so simply and so directly. This could be the founding thesis of a great Objectivist novel.

* I stand corrected, it is Muhammad in my previous statement. Muhammad is the prophet of Allah. Or was Ishmael the prophet? The names confuse me sometimes, that's why I use Jimmy Buffet. I like his tunes best.

I do also agree there is a great deal of good that comes from the various organized religions. As I wrote, these systems have been crafted over many generations. They represent the best practices that the minds of men can conceive. To disregard this wisdom would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However, I believe they all begin loose validity as they broach subjects beyond the understanding of men, subjects like what happens after I die?

Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it? Who can really answer this question authoritatively?

Shazam0 · Post by **Shazam0** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:09 am

Masashi wrote:They represent the best practices that the minds of men can conceive.

i thought it was our Creator that conceived them.

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:39 pm

No Shazam, the book that you keep in an exalted place was printed by men. The press that manufactured it - built by men. Men wrote the letters that make up its books. And men have performed translations upon it throughout the ages.

This is another of the almost universal tenents of organized religion, "These aren't a man's words they are God's words". This scripture is the word of God. You should memorize it. The Mezo-American Indians used to mutilate themselves in the process of learning scripture. We've all seen the Taliban schools. And what about those child beauty pageants - the horror! IMO something smells fishy.

I'd also like to address your post on motivation. You have clearly stated that the carrot motivates more than the stick, for you. I think this indicates that you are smart. It doesn't take a 2x4 across the side of your head to get your attention.

But I think you made a wrong turn when you elevated reward above coercion. Certainly rewards for proper and conforming behavior, attitudes and beliefs are at work in a greater degree. However coercion remains the last resort and final arbiter in any conflict. What's so funny about peace, love and understanding (name that artist) is that they are dissipated by the hard reality of overwhelming force.

Even John Galt makes this point, "I will do what you tell me to do, but only by the barrel of a gun."

Post by **Raaz Satik** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:02 pm

Just for the record I wasn't trying to kill this conversation, or deal with any dissenting opinions. To the contary this is a conversation my group of friends has argued passionately (and logically) for hours. I was just trying to say, lets keep the posts intelligent and respectful.

Shazam0 · Post by **Shazam0** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:57 pm

Masashi wrote:Men wrote the letters that make up its books.

True. While men recorded their dealings with the Almighty it was still the Almighty who was interacting with His children. The bible for me is Gods dealings with us, His words and His teachings. Recorded by prophets, or men that God spoke with one on one. One can see the same book as a record of mens thoughts... or something.

As for motivation... what i meant was that fear of physical harm is the most basic forms of motivation. You cannot win a war by driving your army with fear of your lash. Its just not as powerful as say greed, lust, love, ect.ect.

Post by **Raaz Satik** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:17 pm

If the bible is mans record of God's teachings, why is so much of the symbolism of the christian church based on the symbolism of prior religions?

musashi · Post by **musashi** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:50 pm

Now see Shaz, you proved my point. Not an hour after I wrote about the tenant of "these aren't a man's words, these are God's words" you post and confirm the perspective. I'm not surprised, as I wrote it is a very common perspective.

- Now of course, Sansake will post and say that only the Qur'an is the word of God.
- Some of my Latter Day Saints friends will come on and say the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the word of God.
- My Jewish friends will post and say only the Old Testament, the Torah, and the Talmud and the word of God, but not the new testament.
- The Satanists will post and claim that only the Necronomicon is the word of God, probably not the same God - the number of heads and stomachs are different.
- The Biblical historian will post and say that the Bible, the Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha are the word of God.
- Some burnt out Hippie will post and say the poetry of Bob Dylan is the word of God (but you just can't understand them.)[/list]

My point is the all these religions claim, "these aren't a man's words, these are God's words". And while some people don't force the point, other's defend their stance quite zealously. This tenant causes religions to not play nicely with each other. And in the final analyis, who has the strongest claim to God's word? ....