Religion: text vs. interpretation
[NOTE: This is a very big topic, and I’m pressed for time at the moment so I’ll only scratch the surface.]
Earlier today, commenter “Fred” made the following statement:
The problem with religions is not the text in holy books but [what is] created by those who interpreted [those texts].
My response is to both agree and disagree; yes and no. I say “yes” in the sense that most religions of any antiquity have texts that feature problematic portions that conflict with current mores and beliefs. I’m not going to go into a long discussion of each one; suffice to say that they exist, and that various practices we have rejected could be justified by those who follow a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Some of these pronouncements were superseded by later statements in the text that overruled them, and some are either re-interpreted to be more in line with our thinking today, or are ignored. That’s where the importance of “interpretation” comes in. People could focus on the primacy of the earlier text, but few do.
I answer “no,” however, in the sense that it does matter what sentiments and prescriptions are predominant and seemingly basic in a religion’s texts. Islam has a very different mix of such texts, with a far more predominant militancy and number of statements about the need to kill apostates and infidels (that’s what most relevant in terms of terrorism), statements that occur later in the texts rather than earlier, with the later ideas thought to supersede the earlier ones. These violent statements are so common in Islam that they are much harder to ignore or reason away in that religion than in others. In addition, because of Islam’s lack of a strong and/or widespread movement that one might call a “reformation” or modernization that gets away from a literal interpretation of the Koran, a devout Muslim is generally more constrained by the text, believing that the Koran is the literal, unaltered, unmediated word of God
Therefore, it stands to reason that there are many Muslims who are vulnerable to exhortations to follow the letter of the Koran in those violent respects. Many Muslim clerics speak out against terrorism and terrorists, of course, but quite a few do not and some even promote it. So that increased vulnerability among the Muslim population remains, and it’s a vulnerability that isn’t present to anywhere near the same degree in Christianity and Judaism.
It can be convincingly argued that hundreds of years ago Liberalism tamed Christian Extremism, a sort of taming that Islam desperately needs today, which segues me to think about the Gé¼len movement.
Like you I am also busy and haven’t thought this issue through. But, it did highlight a question that has intrigued me for a long time. That is why people link Christianity to the Old Testament of the Bible. If you are Christian, the presence of Christ in the world, and his teachings as annotated in the New Testament are a near repudiation of the Old Testament. I put the word near in deliberately; and that point is arguable. I see the Old Testament as primarily an allegorical and historical document. In that sense it depicts a segment of the world over the ages leading to th birth of Jesus.
I assume that many who make the linkage between Christianity and the darker aspects of the Old Testament do so deliberately in an attempt to undermine Christianity. Others simply due to ignorance.
Dagon, I take your point. I am sure that when you use the term Liberalism, it is in the classic sense, and has no relationship to that mind set which has now thoroughly corrupted the concept.
not one jot or tittle
Oh yes, I mean Liberalism for that time, as a push back against the ”Rights of Kings” and more towards “The Rights of Man”.
The Koran appears to be pretty explicit.
Dagon–I would recommend Paul Johnson’s book, The History of Christianity, for a study in how the progression of a small sect arising out of Judaism became the foundation of what we know as western civilization. That first chapter is my all-time favorite non-fiction read, bar none. The rest of the book lays out the story of ascendancy. A truly excellent book.
Dagon –
Yes, and no.
The problem is that people need a religion that asks something of them. We see that in the modern world with religious denominations that actually ask something of their congregants, versus those that take a “just show up every now and again” attitude.
Some of the young men who’ve turned into suicide attackers show elements of this. They were basically products of Western culture who’d been inculcated with typical modern Western attitudes toward religion. But as they reached their adult years, they felt a need for something that actually required effort on their part, and fell in with toxic strains of Islam.
Oldflyer –
Much of the Old Testament is important because it shows the struggle to reach a state in which the message of “turn the other cheek” would be accepted. The Old Testament actually spells out the two great commandments (i.e. love God, and love your neighbor), and hints that the spirit of those two commandments is what animates rules like the Ten Commandments. But the people evidently weren’t ready for it until mch later (and arguably, most people still aren’t even today).
I often see people asserting that ‘all religions are peaceful’ as if this was some kind of postulate whose truth cannot be denied. Doesn’t pass even the simples test—how about those religions that demanded human sacrifice? Plus it would be easy to invent a new religion that worshipped, say, the end of the world via nuclear or biological warfare. There are people who would adhere to and propagate such a religion now, who is to say that there weren’t such people founding religions in the past?
About this, I HIGHLY recommend this article.
It’s the best one I have read about the matter by far.
Sharon — looks like I found at least much of it here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=e4XMZjLAUv8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Paul+Johnson+The+History+of+Christianity&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJo8Tty5bOAhVGKiYKHRVvDI0Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Point taken Junior. I was guilty of focusing on the violence and even anger depicted in the Old Testament. I do think that Christian detractors are guilty of the same myopic logic.
The Bible is correctly interpreted as Salvation History. The NT comes alive when you read the OT – Jesus came not to replace (or repudiate) the Law, but to fulfill it.
Actually, I think the word ‘read’ is incorrect. You need to study both Old and New.
My Bible Study group went on a ‘field trip’ to a synagogue for Friday night worship. We learned from them (as well as a PhD who was teaching us for 4 years) that the Jews have long interpreted the violent parts (‘and God told them to kill all who stood against them’) not as literal instructions, but rather as moral instructions. Attack and kill your sins, etc.
Is the OT brutal with displays of people acting badly? Yes – they were quite open about how terrible they were as peoplle of God. But the main theme of the OT, if read with a mind of moving across time, is that God loves His people. They stray. He warns them. They ignore Him. He withholds His Favor, but begs them to come back. They finally come back to Him. Repeat ad nauseum.
Jesus came to call us to a closer relationship with the Father. This goes beyond the ‘tally sheet’ approach of the 10 commandments and the acts of Law (613 or so). Of course, many of us would improve if we ventured into the tally sheet area. But optimally, we’re to live as God’s children, and that was the message Jesus wanted us to live by.
But the NT as repudiation of the OT? No – same God, same relationship. One thing is that the people of the OT were an ancient one and didn’t perceive the world as we do.
18 months ago Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi called for an Islamic reformation. See,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/06/africa/egypt-president-speech/
Of course, there will still be the original texts underlying Islam, much like the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament underly all sects of Judaism and Christianity, respectively.
If I have my religious understanding correct, even the fundamentalists among Jews and Christians do not, without huge straining, have texts on which to rely to justify killing non-believers for merely being non-believers. Fundamentalists Muslims have several Koranic verses to plainly quote to justify such killing.
So, even if brave Muslim Imams venture into reformation and are reasonably successful, there will always be a likelihood that extremist Islam will rear its head.
“I see the Old Testament as primarily an allegorical and historical document. “ – Oldflyer
And so do many Christians.
As I understand it, the Jewish faith does not “recognize” the New Testament, so, one must assume that the Old Testament must not be merely allegorical, historical to them.
Notwithstanding, there seem to be many (Jew, Christian, Muslim) who like to take all texts literally, after all, it is supposed to be “the word of G0d”, per their/our faith. Therefore, the world WAS created in seven earth days, in some minds, hence, the big debate we have here in the US about evolution – just to name one outcome.
.
Reality is, the texts are used to justify all kinds of things, each interpreter claiming domain over the correct version.
As a modern Christian example, it is rather appalling to see religious leaders today endorsing trump, while referencing Bible quotes, be they from Old or New Testament. It is THEIR interpretations that they are cherry picking.
IMHO, trump is far from the model of Christian behavior I was ever taught (but, then, maybe that is MY poor and incorrect interpretation – doubtful).
Don’t know enough about the Koran to say that there is an overall emphasis on violence, as Neo implies, but knowing about the other texts, and the history of Christianity itself, we ought to be wary assuming that this phenomenon is exclusively with Islam.
.
Yes, we live in different times, where, in the western world, much of Christianity is no longer home to inquisitions and crusades (though there exists some level of a belief in Theonomy, as it is called – roughly, Christianity’s version of Sharia law). It is not a put down to recognize that. But standing alone, that statement doesn’t mean much. We need to contextualize it.
Were we living back then, would we be as appalled with Christian behavior (associated with inquisitions, crusades, etc), as we are today with violence in the name of Islam? Would we be ready to condemn all of Christianity for that behavior, thinking it is “inherent” in the religion? What about “carpet bombing” (if the technology were available)?
Has anyone bothered to ask how we (our ancestors) made the transition? Are there lessons learned that could be applied to Islam?
What of today? Are we troubled with not speaking out about Christian leaders who endorse trump, all because we “share” the “same” faith?
.
Indeed, these are rather uncomfortable questions for us all. Why? Because, we like to have a world of easy delineation, and ignore the inconsistencies. All evil, or all good. The reality is much greyer.
Could it be that Islam itself is not the problem, but several of the leaders are? After all, is it not they who are making these “interpretations”? Could it be that they are seeking power for themselves, so cherry pick their “interpretations” to justify actions they are calling for?
.
Make no mistake, we ARE in a battle, and I am for aggressively prosecuting it. BUT, it seems we may be making just as much a mistake painting too broad a brush as it is to avoid attaching “radical Islam” to the events that clearly deserve the label.
BOTH get the target wrong.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism are all based on a defining holy text. A lot of religions aren’t. I mean, there are important texts in Hinduism, for example, but a person can be a Hindu without making reference to those writings.
It’s interesting that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism all have a major split, between the group that treats only the central text as authoritative, and the group that treats subsequent writings of leaders as valid means for interpreting the text. There’s also a tendency for the group that focuses on only the central text to be prone toward fanaticism.
Junior raises the point of religion not asking anything of people today. I think that people who came from Islamic tribal areas were taught to submit to the strong men (be that imams or fathers), but when they came in touch with the West, there were so many more options and normally more free room to deviate from the way things were done in the homeland. In contrast, Catholicism says you should examine your conscience before you go to confession. That puts the burden on the individual to think about right and wrong. The priest may assign penance for something you confessed, but he is not watching your every move before you enter the confessional.
I agree with Neo about the difference between Islam and other religions – good work.
In my opinion if one examines the worst behavior of any group it will be so terrible that it will be hard for any other group to do worse. At their worst any group can be so bad that it is hard to exceed their badness. The real point of comparison of badness is how often the group indulges in badness, how they react to their own badness and whether they regret the badness in retrospect. This rejection of badness as a necessary evil which should be as limited as possible is encoded in the doctrine of a just war by Christian Romans, Byzantines. While Westerners regret their badness in the excesses of the Crusades or the mistakes of the Inquisition, or the treatment of American Indians or slaves, Islam shows no remorse whatsoever for past violence although Muslims have probably murdered more people in the name of Allah than any other ideology in history including Communism.
The other point of comparison between groups which I think is better than trying to measure the amount of badness is to measure the goodness of the group. One of the indictments of Communism is that they murdered 100 million people and had nothing good to show for it in the end. Christianity despite all its flaws has Western Civilization to show for its efforts whereas Islam has produced little positive.
Daniel Pipes quotes a much criticized passage from the previous pope which says it much better than I can.
“”Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Pope Benedict XVI offered the above quote, expressed six centuries ago by a Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in dialogue with an Iranian scholar, neither endorsing nor condemning it, in his academic speech …
http://www.danielpipes.org/3968/pope-benedict-criticizes-islam
I don’t understand anything about Christian theology, but I know a lot about Judaism, and there certainly are a lot of misconceptions about it expressed here.
To mention a few, what Jesus taught was not a repudiation of Judaism in any way. Up until near the end, what he taught were simply variations on what he had learned in the School of Hillel, where his proud parents undoubtedly enrolled him after he showed himself, at his bar mitzvah, to be an “ilui,” a Torah prodigy.
Second, as far as the “violence and even anger” in the Torah, remember a couple of things: it was a very violent world back then, much more violent than today. Conquering another tribe and exterminating them was just part of life. The Israelites were only commanded to extirpate the Caananites, because they who practiced infant sacrifice and public orgies — they were a colony of the Phoenicians — and the Amelikites, who had attacked Israelite stragglers, the old, the sick, the wounded, as they marched across the desert. (Notice how the Israelites requested peaceful passage across several tribes’ territory on the way to Caanan, and only fought when it was denied.) The Israelites could fight other people, but only under a strict set of rules which prohibited extermination (“taharat mielchama,” purity of war).
As far as the death penalty for ritual offenses is concerned, to the Israelites, trying to establish a new nation in a hostile world, ritual offenses were considered treason. That may seem bizarre to us, but considering the tar-and-feathering and expulsion of Tories after our own revolution just a couple of centuries ago, I wouldn’t be so certain I was standing on the high moral ground.
The reason for the 613 detailed commandments in the Torah is simple: God gave humans free will, and most people exercise their free will by following their evil impulse (“yaytzer ha’ra). The idea is, if you have to constantly think about what God wants you to do in the small things, hopefully you will think of what God wants you to do in the big things — or at least, you’ll be too busy with the small things to have time to get into big trouble. Obviously, it doesn’t always work, but it’s a pretty good idea.
One more point before I take up as much room as the Dodger, Judaism permanently split with the literalists beginning around the time of the second rebellion against the Romans in 135 CE. Jews now consider them to be a separate religion — the Karaites. (I happen to think there’s a lot to be said for Karaism, but that’s a whole ‘nother story.)
Neo: “Many Muslim clerics speak out against terrorism and terrorists, of course, but quite a few do not and some even promote it. So that increased vulnerability among the Muslim population remains, and it’s a vulnerability that isn’t present to anywhere near the same degree in Christianity and Judaism.”
Moderate Muslim clerics, because of the Salafi/Wahhabist/political strains of Islam put their lives on the line when they speak out against the violence. It is only when the leaders of the West stand up with them that they will gain the courage to say what needs to be said. Namely that there is no place in a world shrunken by jet travel, instant communications, and satellite photography for the murderous philosophy of forced conversion or the mostly barbaric Sharia Law. Recognition of that fact by Western leaders would lead to a far different strategy to rid ourselves of Islamic terrorism than we have now.
I agree.
Nick Says:
July 28th, 2016 at 1:22 pm
“Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism”
There is only Islam Religion, not Mormonism??
Just to mention, in today time the most loses by terrorists crimes is the Muslims themselves far than any other nations and religions….
The Inquisition and the Crusades made mistakes to the extent that they were politicized. The Inquisition only really got out of hand in Spain. The Crusades fell apart when Christian countries stopped cooperating. I have nothing against the religious principles behind the Inquisition or the Crusades.
Spain and Portugal are the ONLY 2 countries to turn back from Islam of all the countries that were converted by the Muslims in that 100 year period of conquest. The crusades in Spain figure into that turn-around.
Sarah Hoyt talked a bit today about the Reconquista and how Islam affected her birth country, Portugal.
http://www.accordingtohoyt.com
She also made an interesting point. People name their kids after leaders that they like. And those names get passed down through the generations as parents name their kids after great-grandparents. There are apparently still a handful of obviously Arabic-influenced names in Portugal. But no one names their kid Mohammed (or any of the variations of that name).
As I understand it, the Jewish faith does not “recognize” the New Testament, so, one must assume that the Old Testament must not be merely allegorical, historical to them
If Judaism were to accept that Jesus Christ was the messiah promised by Moses, described by Ezekiel or Isaiah, then Judaism would collapse in on itself, because it would mean those adhering to Judaism had broken the covenants with their own god.
Many Jewish leaders in 1st AD Christendom, did not accept Jesus as a prophet, no matter what theological evidence or persuasive arguments he had. For one thing, much of what Jesus told people and taught them, abrogated the laws in the Torah, that came after Moses’ divine laws, the 10 commandments. It either directly contradicted the Jewish rules about the Sabbath day, or it undermined their moral authority in some other fashion, legally and theologically speaking.
The Inquisition only really got out of hand in Spain.
Nick doesn’t include a lot of other incidences, such as the Council of Chalcedon or the pope vs France. Many of those incidents are required study, to understand the context of heresy hunts and the later inquisition.
Up until near the end, what he taught were simply variations on what he had learned in the School of Hillel, where his proud parents undoubtedly enrolled him after he showed himself, at his bar mitzvah, to be an “ilui,” a Torah prodigy.-Richard
Was healing on the Sabbath day, then a minor variation of Judaic law on the matter?
Mormons, I consider Christians, along with the Amish, Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and what not. Mormon Christians have a family reproduction scheme equal to or exceeding Hispanics, here or in Latin America. Between 3-4 children per family, and most people get married and stay married.
The society and stability of the other Christian communities and sub cultures, tend to have similar reinforcing methods. A lot of it is a “rejection” of the modern world, similar to the way Islam rejects First World decadence.
The Crusades fell apart when Christian countries stopped cooperating.
Personally, I think it was due to logistics, not ideology. That and feudal politics. Feudalism back then, wasn’t designed to project force over that distance, to the Middle East. And any kingdoms created there, were too weak to sustain themselves against their neighbors. Whatever the fervor of the popes who called the Crusades against Jerusalem and various other targets, doesn’t make them capable of overcoming military supply realities.
Heck, the US projected a force into Iraq, and people thought that alone broke the US military. No, it took Hussein and the Left’s sabotage to do that.
Sharon W Says:
July 28th, 2016 at 5:14 pm
Spain and Portugal are the ONLY 2 countries to turn back from Islam of all the countries that were converted by the Muslims in that 100 year period of conquest.
Sharon has a point, but some Indian areas should be looked at as other contenders to that title.
It may not be in that 100 year time period, which the Kingdom Leon (Portugal + north west Spain) pushed the Muslims back to Andalusia (Cordoba, Southern Spain). But there’s a possibility that Indian kingdoms were able to stall and then push back the Muslims. The Mongols, also pushed the Iranian Muslims back, pretty far, and burned down a lot of stuff. Iran still hates Ghenghis Khan to this day, while Mongolia reveres their ancestor… hah.
Maybe they should put a Cartoon of Mohammed vs Genghis Khan…
The state of education in general is very poor. The state of education on theology and history, is even worse. Even with the internet, it is not that the presence of knowledge gives people the virtue of erudition.
Muslims do not just choose to believe the Qur’an is the literal word of God, as they have no theological alternative.
Muhammad repeatedly insisted that the archangel Gabriel visited him repeatedly, dictating Allah’s words to Muhammad for transcription.
If you accept Muhammad’s claim, not one comma in the Qur’an can be changed, since fallible mankind cannot correct infallible Allah.
So, to reform Islam you MUST reject Muhammad’s claim, which makes him either a liar or deluded. Which in turn rejects Muhammad’s being a prophet. And… the entire theological foundations collapse.
Richard Saunders,
I agree, the OT’s violence is greatly misunderstood.
Mohammed used peaceful conversion and teaching, much like Jesus did, for much of his life. In that sense, Mohammed is like an anti Christ. Meaning, the opposite of Christ.
Jesus was born with a human body, and was subjected to human hate, anger, misunderstanding, jealousy, and all other negative emotions and power political plays, including betrayal, Roman state executions, Jewish city persecution. But Jesus’ spirit was still pure and had been sent on a mission, and he adhered to that mission, in the Garden of Gethsemane. Mohammed, was subjected to similar human poison and evil, except Mohammed decided to wage war and submit, by force, his detractors. And as a result, the life of Mohammed is his greatest testimony of which god he servers (Allah, meaning Lucifer). Lucifer has converted a spirit once loyal to God. Not unexpected given Lucifer also convinced 1/3rd of the host of heaven, the spirits and angels, to side with his vision.
Well, that’s the optimistic version.
Islam once had scholars who wanted to use reason to interpret Allah’s words. Much like Aquinas. But the Islamic scholars who adhered to “no change”, got rid of the reason crowd, using jihad and wars against heretics.
That’s why it is hard to find those arguments now, Islam has either destroyed them, or it is in Arabic or Hebrew or some other ME language.
Spain had some of those in the Umayyad dynasty, so perhaps the Spanish may have some existing records, when they retook Spain.
Richard Saunders, I didn’t notice anyone saying that the New Testament was a repudiation of the Torah.
I did discuss it as being in some respects a repudiation of the Old Testament. I guess I did not amplify my thinking sufficiently.
I said that the Old Testament was allegorical. I think of Daniel in the Lion’s Den; I think of the wall of Jericho. And so forth. I mentioned that it was harsh. I stand by that. The God of the Old Testament was a demanding and rather unforgiving God, who was concerned, it would seem, with the Chosen People. There was no outreach. Now, if you are Christian, you believe that he sent his son specifically to wipe the slate clean. Jesus softened the message; he introduced the concept of forgiveness of other humans, and God’s forgiveness of all who asked; he broadened the message to any in the world who embraced it.
Finally, I can’t imagine that anyone would argue that the Old Testament was a historical document.
i am not a Biblical scholar; but, I do not think I am off base.
With respect to the Torah, I leave that discussion to others.
Finally, every organized religion is susceptible to manipulation and abuse by those who set themselves as the guardians and interpreters. It was much easier when people were illiterate and ignorant. Some have advanced beyond that, others have not. Here, we are fortunate to have access to our God for the most part without those intermediaries.
Neo sez “a devout Muslim is generally more constrained by the text, believing that the Koran is the literal, unaltered, unmediated word of God.”
That is not a belief. That is what Mohamed averred. Mohamed merely took dictation from Allah via Gabriel. Which is why “Kill the Christian, kill the Jew” cannot be “interpreted.”
Geoffrey Britain is right on, as usual.
Any attempt to liken Islam to Christianity, and to temper it as Christianity was tempered is preposterous. The bishops, particularly in the Middle Ages, were corrupt. All power corrupts.
Christianity itself has never been corrupted. The messages and parables of Jesus are peaceful. Hearken unto the Lord’s Prayer, which Jesus taught at the Sermon on the Mount. It touches every base.
Ymarsakar,
I’m mostly in agreement except for the claim that Muhammad spent most of his life in peaceful conversion and that he endured poison and hate. He started publicly preaching in 613 and left Mecca 9 yrs later (622) from then till his death ten yrs later, he preached the ‘truth’ of Lucifer. The only ‘poison and hate’ he encountered was a refusal to accept him as a prophet, which historically is arguably the norm.
Oldflyer –
Finally, I can’t imagine that anyone would argue that the Old Testament was a historical document.
——————–
Much of the Old Testament is nothing *but* history. Books like Kings and Chronicles are explicitly laid out as the historical events of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. They’re basically a long drawn-out history of the fall of the two kingdoms.
As for other events –
Yes, I believe quite literally in the story of Daniel in the Lion’s Den. One can draw allegories from it, but I’ve no issues with the accuracy of the story itself. I’ll note that the Creation as described in the Old Testament, mentioned above, is a much later retelling of the event by Moses, and I won’t argue that it took 144 hours(Isaac Asimov wrote an amusing short story touching on this). Fantastic creatures seen in visions may very well be allegorical types. But specific events that are laid out in an easy to understand format are things that I take at face value.
So, yeah, the walls really did come tumbling down.
With God, all things are possible.
Jewish scholars use the “pardes” approach toward understanding scripture. At the first level there is the literal meaning (an ox is allowed to eat grain while it is working). The second level is the reasonable conclusions that may be drawn from it (all working animals are allowed to eat while they work). The third level teaches something ethical or metaphysical (the worker is worth his labor). The fourth level teaches something supernatural (even the inattentive ox gets fed for the lumbering work he does; how much greater will our reward be who make an effort to do our duty!).
Note that the first level calls for a literal reading, but doesn’t demand a literal interpretation. The assumption is that a literal interpretation is correct, but it’s not always the case when G-d speaks in metaphors. But the Jewish scholar would generally look at the story of Jonah as presumably literal, but finding value in the symbolism and insight that could be drawn from it.
Yamarsakar — certainly since the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism, from sometime between the first Exile in 586 BC to the emergence of the rabbis, after the Maccabean revolt, Jewish law has been that saving life – which includes healing in all forms – takes priority over everything, including the Sabbath. By the time of Hillel, that was unequivocal. I don’t know if that was different beforehand.
Oldflyer — since the commandments part of the Old Testament is in the Torah, I can’t imagine what else you meant by repudiating the Old Testament. As I said, I understand nothing about Christian theology, but I’ve never heard of a Christian saying, “We repudiate the Psalms! We repudiate the Prophets! We repudiate Kings!” So I don’t know what you mean when you say Christianity doesn’t repudiate the Torah, but does repudiate the Old Testament.
And yes, I do believe the Torah is true and the Prophets are true (except for Ezekiel, whom I repudiate!). We may not understand HOW they’re true, but they’re true. (And while we’re at it, I believe the Chronicles are accurate, the Proverbs are full of wisdom, and the Psalms are beautiful poetry.)
As far as “no outreach” is concerned, I suggest you go back and read the Book of Ruth. Or the many, many places in the Torah which say things like “You shall have one law for yourself and for the stranger who lives within your gates. Do not oppress the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Eternal.”
A Roman asked Hillel to teach him the Law while he was standing on one foot. Hillel replied, “Do not do to your neighbor that which is hurtful to yourself. The rest is commentary. Now go and learn.”
Nick:
You write:
That’s incorrect regarding Judaism. I am unaware of any subdivision of the Jewish religion—Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox—that treats “only the central text as authoritative” and that regards subsequent writings of leaders as an invalid means for interpreting the text
In Judaism, what Christians refer to as the “Old Testament” is known as the Tanakh. I have never read of a type of Judaism that considers it the endpoint; every form of Judaism of which I’ve ever heard considers it the starting point for an enormous amount of commentary, discussion, elucidation. and argument and disagreement from many many authorities, compiled into the major Jewish post-Biblical texts, the Talmud:
Even though Orthodox Jews consider the Tanakh the word of God, they do not read it literally. It is not only open to interpretation, it is required to be interpreted. The Talmud somewhat resembles a law library of commentary, including the majority opinions and the dissents.
The matter at hand is what do you individually accept as the final authority in all matters relating to God. I am a Christian man. My authority is the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation sans the apocrypha. I believe that is the word of God, therefore I reject all other scriptures as being the imagination of men or doctrines of devils. By faith I confess that: there is only one triune God; that all men are sinners and can do nothing in of themselves to merit salvation; that Jesus is indeed the Christ, God in the flesh, who came as an atoning sacrifice for all men who would believe on Him; that all men must give an account of their lives before God to be judged; a resurrection of the blessed to eternal life, and for the cursed, eternal death; finally, God establishing His eternal kingdom on Earth.
Yes, the Bible must be interpreted. How? By comparing scripture with scripture to arrive at the truth. I must be exceedingly carefull as to the context, to whom God is addressing, (is the message for specific persons, situations, or time or can I extrapolate it to all circumstances?) I must seek the “whole council of God.” It is not an easy task. The goal, though, is to know God, His character, and His expectations for man. I am to point to Jesus, the friend of sinners, and His work upon the cross. Ultimately, I am to be conformed to the image of Jesus by the work of the Holy Spirit. I am never to use violence or coersion to defend the faith, knowing that God will defend His person with perfect righteous judgement. I am, however, to contend for the faith through my voice, my pen, and the example of my life.
As to God in the Old Testament, know that God was trying to re-introduce Himself to mankind after the fall. He chose Abraham and the nation of Israel to be the light in the world until the true light, Jesus, would appear. The people in the OT were real people who were also types and figures of Christ (i.e., Able as a priest offering the perfect sacrifice, David as king. etc.). Was God hard on sinners in the OT? Absolutely! Most people, i have found, overlook the years of patience and striving with man to repent before sending His judgement. God has only one verdict for rebellion…death. Jesus is God in the flesh and the exact image of the Father. He showed us the tremendous love and forbearance of the Father, taking upon Himself our sin and verdict. We are in the season if Grace, but the Day of the Lord will arrive with Jesus as judge. The same verdict of death on unredeemed men in this Age will occur just as in the OT, for God never changes. So choose life my friends, and come to Jesus while there is still time.
There are all sorts of stark differences between Judeo-Christianity and Islam. It just occurred to me today that taqiyya (the practice of lying to non-believers) is widely accepted in Islam, while in J-C they have a commandment against bearing false witness.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg, of course.
In Islam, not consider Iblis or “Lucifer” a fallen angel since Muslims believe that Angels are not capable of disobeying their Creator. Rather, Iblis was of the Jinn as the Quran mentions quite specifically.
Matt_SE Says:
taqiyya??
Matt_SE, taqiyya
You should know that, Taqiyya, only been a practicing by Shiites, none of other major sector of Islam religion believe or practices a taqiyya?
Fred Says at 4:13 am
“You should know that, Taqiyya, only been a practicing by Shiites, none of other major sector of Islam religion believe or practices a taqiyya?”
I’m not convinced. If wikipedia is correct, jt is true that Shia use taqiyya frequently on both unbelievers and on other Muslims while Sunni limit taqiyya to unbelievers.
“The basic principle of taqiyya is agreed upon by Sunni scholars, though they tend to restrict it to dealing with non-Muslims and when under compulsion (ikrÄh), while Shia jurists also allow it in interactions with Muslims and in all necessary matters (á¸arÅ«riyÄt).[37]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya
In the West, Christians are frequently accused of “cafeteria Christianity” or “church shopping”. Which, in some respects, means their view of what’s right and what’s wrong, desirable and undesirable–wherever the views came from–is more important to them than what they’re told by….some religion or another. Thus, western culture has become more important than religion, even though Judeo-Christianity was the foundation of western culture.
Agree that high-demand churches are growing and the mailnline (“sideline”) Protestants are fading.
Too bad Islam demands murder and, say, Church of The Nazarene demands frequent attendance and good works.
A “Reformation” would require altering the text, which would be changing the word of God, which would be heresy – which is punishable by death, with the sentence to be carried out by anyone who can.
I’m not holding my breath on that one.
The Karaites hold to Judaism without the Talmud, as I understand it.
I wish to respond to Nick’s post of 7/28.
He starts with “Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism are all based on a defining holy text.” Not so.
Three of the four are based on events.
His phrasing suggests that texts were written by man that were somehow designated as ‘holy’, as if someone could write a new text today and so declare it (Which in fact our Democrats are doing).
Judaism is all about making a covenant with God, the ‘Old Covenant.’ God spoke to Moses and Abraham, for example. Judaism is not based merely on a ‘holy text’, but on facts of events recorded for all time. In many startling ways, the Old Testament anticipates the coming of a savior, as the New Testament records.
Christianity is directly the result of the words, teachings and conduct of the living Jesus Christ, who told of the ‘New Covenant’ (resurrection and infinite life with God) and designated Simon Peter(Petros) the rock on which to build ‘my church’. Petras is ‘Rock’ in Greek. Jesus charged the apostles to spread the Good News (Gospels) throughout the world. So Simon became renamed as Peter in translations, became the first bishop of Rome, was crucified upside down at his request when sentenced to death lest his crucifixion be an imitation of the Lord’s. So we have in Rome St. Peter’s Square and basilica.
Islam is based on a defining text, since Mohamed merely took dictation.
Mormonism does not deserve to be lumped into this group, since it is, in my view, only one of the thirty thousand or so denominations of non-Catholic Christianity.
Neo, mind checking the moderation/comments for this thread? Might be something stuck there.
Nick – not just the Talmud, but the whole notion of post-biblical law.
Ymarsakar:
I didn’t see any comments of yours in moderation or in spam.
Nick:
Their numbers are few today. But the larger and more relevant point is that “without the Talmud” does NOT mean “a literal interpretation that does not take into account subsequent interpretations.” In fact, Karaites take into account interpretations and are not literal [emphasis mine]:
They are not literalists. They just don’t think the Talmud is on a “divinely inspired” level.
My response is to both agree and disagree; yes and no؟؟
Ok, let read this Is it YES?
“in the 15th and 16th century, people were fleeing from Europe to flee the Christian reformation and coming to the new world”
Is the TEXT or Holy Book Problem or Other things related to Human Greed and selfishness?
The Europeans – Why they left and why it matters
Frog – I’d go further than you and say that Islam’s and Mormonism’s founding texts were written by nutjob hucksters. But all four religions demonstrate an interplay between text and flock with regard to the authority of a secondary text for interpretation.
all four religions demonstrate an interplay between text and flock with regard to the authority of a secondary text for interpretation.
Again Its not the religion/ Text its those greed & “nutjob hucksters”
AN INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL T. FLYNN, THE EX-PENTAGON SPY WHO SUPPORTS DONALD TRUMP
The Intercept By: Ryan Devereaux, July 14 2016
Who is Zarqawi? Walk me through the details of his life.
Nada Bakos: How Zarqawi Went From “Thug” To ISIS Founder
Neo, ok thanks.
Reposting since last comment had two links and seems to have disappeared after submitting comment.
The only ‘poison and hate’ he encountered was a refusal to accept him as a prophet, which historically is arguably the norm.-GB
That is the norm, yes. Although some exceptional prophets and followers of Christ get the state persecution treatment.
Euphemia ‘s wiki.
Euphemia ‘s wiki.
According to Christian legend, the governor of Chalcedon, Priscus, had made a decree that all of the inhabitants of the city take part in sacrifices to the deity Ares. Euphemia was discovered with forty-nine other Christians hiding in a house and worshipping God, in defiance of the governor’s orders.[2] Because of their refusal to sacrifice, they were tortured for a number of days, and then handed over to the Emperor for further torture. Euphemia, the youngest among them, was separated from her companions and subjected to particularly harsh torments, including the wheel, in hopes of breaking her spirit. She was placed in the arena where lions were sent out to kill her but they refused, and, instead just licked her wounds. It is believed that she died of wounds from a wild bear in the arena.[2]
This is humans emulating the life and example of Jesus Christ, who they recognize as their Lord (King or vice deputy under God). Normally, getting humans to Disobey Evil authority is impossible or only 3% of humans can ever successfully do so. Islam is unique in that they create warriors and warlords, conquerors and sanctify rape as a weapon of war and a tool of the state. 1st AD Christendom principles is unique for how they mold and perfect human flaws, into virtues, taking them away from the strife of yin and yang, war and power, megalomania and domination. Those ideals, translated to modern prose, would be like freedom and liberty, or equality under the law (true equality only exists under Death or as a slave to Lucifer or evil).
Mohammed also didn’t like being made fun of. Old Testament and New Testament prophets, had the same experience, but reacted differently. They were human too, they must have wanted God to smite the unbelievers with fire and death, but how they react to human poison is what determines which side they are on. Western history talks a lot about prophets, seer, and martyrs. But to understand why this is a divine level act, people should really look at all the instances in which humans have chosen evil over good, a conscious decision, not one created by the state or environment.
Judas is rather ancient for people to relate to as an example, for most people to relate to. Benedict Arnold may be closer. Lincoln is also controversial, especially to Southern Baptists who preferred their cultural supremacy under the slave lords (white nationalists who were Democrats, now in RNC for Trum). Robert KKK Byrd was probably supported by them, even when the DNC ditched the “white trash” voters. After Byrd’s death, David duke got some of it, Stormfront, the KKK etc. But that is besides the point.
For those wondering what the subject was about. [timeline link from search]
Going back to the reference timeline link, the time he spent as an active preacher, was about 22 years. Half one way, half the other. His life before then, isn’t well documented. Although the stories I hear makes it sound like he was still spreading the word, even before he officially claimed revelation.
Back to the other topics above.
Finally, I can’t imagine that anyone would argue that the Old Testament was a historical document.
It is a primary historical document, but the accuracy leaves much to be deserved. Even from a non Atheist point of view. The common Atheist point of view is to reject the Testaments of Christ or the Jews, in order to undermine the mainline religion, in order to replace it with Atheist militants, fanatics, or Leftist death cults. But that’s besides the point. As a primary historical document, it has passed through too many hands, even though it still remains primary, it’s not as good as some other primary sources, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The point is that Christianity, Roman catholic, Chalcedon, Orthodox, decided to put certain things into the Bible. The other things, the apocryphal, they left outside or suppressed. The reason is because The Council of Chalcedon determined that around half of the remaining Christianity in the ME, Anatolia, and parts of Western Europe, were heretics to be burned out with fire. Thus the Christianity we see today, is a fractured, stump of itself. Even without Islam killing off Christianity in Egypt, the ME, etc.
I can only imagine what got lost from Divine “Revealed Truth” once you pass it through so many human hands. And no, “literal transcribing” it, is even worse in a sense. Jesus Christ and his apostles, disciples, taught people in the vernacular, using examples of kings, sheep herders, farmers, because the uneducated, illiterate masses they were speaking to, didn’t understand larger frameworks or philosophy, except for the educated Rabbis or noble classes. Trying to apply those stories to today’s complex world, is a feat so difficult, that accurately doing it would be a Minor Miracle in and of itself.
For example, consider Hussein’s “G Damn America” rhetoric, from his pastor or Rev. Is that a Christian? What about Sharpton and Jackson shaking down rich white boys, cause of Rainbow black racism? Is that really the 1st AD Christendom people speak of, I have to wonder.
If not, it is pretty strange they are called Christians and given the umbrella protection of that in modern society. Nation of Islam didn’t get too far in American society, but if they change their name to a Christian belief system, then it’s sort of like taqiyya, extreme version.
The minor miracles I speak of consists of prayers being answered, but also humans being used by a divine knowledge and inspiration, to help other humans who have prayed for it. Also, there are minor miracles in evidence, by people who avoided danger because of listening to a voice. As demonstrated when they ignored that voice, they got into danger or trouble. Some of that is hard to differentiate from intuition and gut instinct, however. Generally that kind of intuition doesn’t take verbal form in them mind, it is indistinct by the nature of how humans sense danger.
So that would be divine inspiration or revelation, when the spiritual conduit to the godhead, direct affects a person, in however minor a fashion. Using the words of some other human, recorded in the Bible, to attempt to apply it to this world and this context, would be an act of human knowledge, not one of divine knowledge or power.
Government is a work by human hands. Charity, can be done by any human, no god or divine powers are needed.
Information transfer, seeing the future, predicting danger, being protected from the state or all powerful entities via coincidence or happenstance, relaying information amongst the faithful without use of rumor or technology or speech, these are all hard to categorize. Some of it humans can do, but not without our technology. Transfering information from one person to another, without the use of words, speech, friends, associations, the internet, or other methods, is something at the divine network level, I would judge.
Islam is unique in that they create warriors and warlords, conquerors and sanctify rape as a weapon of war and a tool of the state.
These are not quite correct and represent the historical facts.
Prophet Mohammed starting his call for Islam in Makah he did not wage war on the inhabitants there, he kept calling for Islam and the people who come forward start buildup which angered the elders in the city who control the trade and the authority of the city.
Then retaliations started between the two sides, The “‘poison and hate’ he encountered was a refusal to accept him as a prophet” forced Prophet Mohammad and his follower to leave the city first south Makah, to the Ta’af City, then he went to Medina when the hatred and danger by those refusal to accept him as a prophet .
The second point Prophet Mohammad never was as head of state rather Prophet Isa/Jesus, during his time.
The last saying “warlords, conquerors and sanctify rape as a weapon of war and a tool of the state.” This is some sort of self-necessity to draw a bad thoughts about Islam as religion, the early and later warrior goes to war as are per believe in Islam driven by their believe not a seeker to be “warlords,” historical facts, you may not knew those worriers get their share like other follower not more than others or been “conquerors and sanctify rape” using them as a weapon of war and a tool of the state.
As rape the historical fact is they married and take the women make families take care of new born family member and hold their names, totally different as a rape?.
How and Why Muhammad Made a Difference
Same source as above.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW AND THEISLAMIC SCHOLAR
So we have Fred the apologist for Islam, the opposite of Geoffrey, quoting George Bernard Shaw the playwright and progressive. A diversity of opinions and viewpoints
“Even with the internet, it is not that the presence of knowledge gives people the virtue of erudition.” – Yarmsakar
Well, this seems the most accurate statement in this line of comments.
All the back and forth here even on the basic facts of the religions just reinforces the notion that these texts are easily used to justify all kinds of things, each interpreter claiming domain over the correct version.
Doubt anyone here really knows enough about Islam to say conclusively it is the religion itself and NOT some jerk at the top of the pyramid(s) that is the ultimate cause of all this violence done in the name of Islam.
Doubt anyone here really knows enough about Islam to say conclusively it is the religion itself and NOT some jerk at the top of the pyramid(s) that is the ultimate cause of all this violence done in the name of Islam.
The problem B, is you don’t have the knowledge to even begin discussing the topic with us here. That’s the real problem. Your “entry level” knowledge doesn’t exist.
I doubt you have the intellectual fortitude and assets, to be able to determine whether “anyone here really knows enough about Islam”.
As rape the historical fact is they married and take the women make families take care of new born family member and hold their names, totally different as a rape?.
Tribes took captives and married 9 year olds? Perhaps, but they didn’t say God ordered them to do it.
Islam is unique because it allows a state to flourish and survive based on this. Normally, tribal raiders cannot organize together to create an empire or a kingdom. The kingdom of the Vikings and of Genghis Khan, didn’t last that long. Because once the dynasty dies out or dilutes out, the lack of warriors make it impossible to hold the allegiance of tribals. Islam allows a state to survive on sustainable terms, while adopting the conquering raiding of tribals. Normal tribals would kill any leader too weak. But in Islam, you are not allowed to slaughter or raid Muslims, faithful ones at least.
Islam as a religion, is unique in that. The Vikings had the Norse Sagas and gods, but that religion was pagan and thus did not have a religious head or ability to pass that down as an inheritance. The Vikings also didn’t reserve their violence for infidels, they also used it on each other.
Islam is based on Mohammed. But if Mohammed’s life is not evil enough for people’s rationalizations, they can look to Mohammed’s companions, who continued his conquests in the same manner. That was the fruit and generation which Mohammed brought up.