[Reactor]

I can't comment on other world religions, but with regards to Judaism/Christianity you realize that although that may be the perception of said religions these days, it is not in fact an accurate representation of their core beliefs and doctrine.

Of course I realize it.

But big religion is giving it self a bad name, because so many religious institutions don't follow the core values they claim to represent. I'm not bashing any particular brand of religion, you can find a supporting evidence in just about any one of the big ones. You can also find good examples in pretty much any religion.

 

[MikeD]

Andyman, we've discussed this before, and you've written very convincingly about how Jesus, as a rabbi, was interpreting the old testament and basically freeing people from acting on (for a small example) the following biblical "laws":

Slavery Allowed



However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
------------------
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
------------------

So why is it that objectionable passages from the Koran can be taken literally or as evidence of some "inherent evil" in Islam, whereas objectionable parts of the Torah/OT can be written off)

I guess my own answer to that question is that there are Muslims out to kill "unbelievers" right now using religion as their philosophy, whereas the number of Christians involved in sex slavery using a religious justification is, at best, minimal.

However, that entire train of thought ignores the fact that the reasons for the worldwide conflict between extremist Islam and the west, is, in fact, POLITICAL, and not religious...the religion is a thin veneer and tool of popular control and education.

But Osama didn't wake up one day and say, "Damn, it's time to kill some infidels because the Koran said so." He woke up one day and saw what he perceived to be a deplorable set of political and economic circumstances in the Middle East (including the fact that there wasn't an islamic Wahabist theocracy in place to govern the entire Muslim population of the world-still a political stance inspired by his religious beliefs) for which he blamed the US and Western culture, so he started a war. Because he's an extremist Muslim, fighting to institute extremist Muslim government, the Koran is thus grist for his mill, just like the Bible is grist for other hateful people in the world.

That doesn't mean he's right, or that the West or the moderate Middle East should roll over to his demands, but the conflict is not a religious one at heart.

It does, however, mean that Muslims and their clerics can read and interpret the Koran just as peacefully and/or progressively as any Christian or Jew can read the bible...or the inverse.

MD

 

[Skookum]

This is why i get all my philosophy and spiritual guidance from the Dungeon Masters Guide. You can't beat the dice when it comes to making life choices like when to mow the lawn at your Moms house cuz she's complaining that you never get out of the basement.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Awesome post Mike, as usual I look forward to your questions and comments……….

Andyman, we've discussed this before, and you've written very convincingly about how Jesus, as a rabbi, was interpreting the old testament and basically freeing people from acting on (for a small example) the following biblical "laws":

Slavery Allowed

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
------------------
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
------------------

So why is it that objectionable passages from the Koran can be taken literally or as evidence of some "inherent evil" in Islam, whereas objectionable parts of the Torah/OT can be written off)

The Torah also says (Deut 21) that if you capture a woman and you think she’s hot you can make her your wife. But if you read those passages and compare them to (in my example) how other cultures at the time treated captured women you’ll see that by far the commands of Torah are light years ahead of their contemporary cultures with regards to human rights as we refer to it today.

See the dominate metaphor for the life of faith in the Scriptures is that of journey, and in my example from Deut. 21, God is “moving” His people along on the human rights scale to the next level. Just as today we have “moved” to a point on the human rights scale (for example) that slavery is outlawed in many nations (especially the Judeo/Christian ones).

The same holds true for the passages you cite on slavery, God is calling His people to treat these slaves not as an object product, but as a human – relative to the other contemporary cultures of the time.

This is at the core of Jesus’ interpretation of Torah (which is referred to as a rabbi’s yoke), is that literal observance and “freezing” yourself into one place on whatever particular “scale” is not the spirit of the Scriptures. Jesus interprets the Torah multiple “levels” on the scale up from the literal meaning, He does this with divorce – it was allowed pretty liberally, but according to Jesus that was not the intent of that command in the Torah. The same goes for adultery and murder, the Pharisee’s and Torah teachers of the time were content to stay “frozen” in where they were on the scale so to speak.

This whole idea is known as “redemptive movement hermeneutic”, William Webb has a good book on it. Now this idea of “movement” in the Scriptures can be misused or taken too far, so obviously historical, cultural and linguistic context need to be employed to prevent the, as I like to call it, Koresh factor.

Anyway, I hope that made some kind of sense.

I guess my own answer to that question is that there are Muslims out to kill "unbelievers" right now using religion as their philosophy, whereas the number of Christians involved in sex slavery using a religious justification is, at best, minimal.

Two flaws I find with this (with all due respect mind you Mike): First, the Koran seems to command such action (I could be wrong here), second, using your example of slavery, is not applicable to Christians (mostly Gentiles) as the only Torah requirements for Gentile Christians to observe are those outlined in Acts 15.

However, that entire train of thought ignores the fact that the reasons for the worldwide conflict between extremist Islam and the west, is, in fact, POLITICAL, and not religious...the religion is a thin veneer and tool of popular control and education.

I agree.

But Osama didn't wake up one day and say, "Damn, it's time to kill some infidels because the Koran said so." He woke up one day and saw what he perceived to be a deplorable set of political and economic circumstances in the Middle East (including the fact that there wasn't an islamic Wahabist theocracy in place to govern the entire Muslim population of the world-still a political stance inspired by his religious beliefs) for which he blamed the US and Western culture, so he started a war. Because he's an extremist Muslim, fighting to institute extremist Muslim government, the Koran is thus grist for his mill, just like the Bible is grist for other hateful people in the world.

That doesn't mean he's right, or that the West or the moderate Middle East should roll over to his demands, but the conflict is not a religious one at heart.

It does, however, mean that Muslims and their clerics can read and interpret the Koran just as peacefully and/or progressively as any Christian or Jew can read the bible...or the inverse.

The issue I have is that the Koran seems to command the execution of unbelievers, where as the Bible does not – the passages in the Koran seem (emphasis seem) to be prescriptive and not just a narrative. Executions outlined in the Torah are for internal Jewish matters not for punishing or exterminating those who disagree with Jewish beliefs. Now there are narratives of Israel killing unbelievers, but those passages are descriptive and not prescriptive.

 

[MikeD]

Awesome post Mike, as usual I look forward to your questions and comments……….

The issue I have is that the Koran seems to command the execution of unbelievers, where as the Bible does not – the passages in the Koran seem (emphasis seem) to be prescriptive and not just a narrative. Executions outlined in the Torah are for internal Jewish matters not for punishing or exterminating those who disagree with Jewish beliefs. Now there are narratives of Israel killing unbelievers, but those passages are descriptive and not prescriptive.

Looking at what H8R posted, you'll notice those prescriptions to kill unbelievers have a retaliatory tone...drive them out "as they have driven you out"[2.191], and resisting forced conversion and killing apostates[4.98]. There's context there. Sounds scary, but if you read them a certain way, they're reasonable in light of being products of AD 600 society.

But in any case, these sentences can be ignored and re-interpreted by moderate, modern people just like the more extreme laws of the Torah, even the dietary ones which are now simply inapplicable to modern Christians.

I just see the religion as a cloud which obscures the real issues...not to say that religion ISN'T one of the issues, but it's not the root cause nor the main issue.

MD

Ed: Interesting Wikipedia bit on apostasy in Islam:

In Islam, apostasy is called "irtidãd" ("turning back") and it is considered by Muslims to be a profound insult. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "murtad fitri" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "murtad milli" (apostate from the community).

Ex-Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali have criticized what they call cruel, irrational teachings in the Koran, unfair treatment of non-Muslims, and cruel behavior by Muhammad.

The question of the penalties imposed in Islam for apostasy is a highly controversial topic that is passionately debated by various scholars. On this basis, according to some scholars, if a Muslim consciously and without coercion declares their rejection of Islam, then the penalty for male apostates is the death penalty, or life imprisonment for women. However, this view has been rejected by some Muslim scholars both medieval (eg Sufyan al-Thawri) and modern (eg Hasan at-Turabi), who argue that the hadith in question should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general[2]. These scholars argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient confirmation of harsh punishment; they regard apostasy as a serious crime, but undeserving of the death penalty.

In Quran we do not find any verse regarding any punishments for leaving Islam .

* Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path.(2: 256)

* A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say: Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam)." (3:72)

* "But those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray." (3:90)

* Those who blasphemed and back away from the ways of Allah and die as blasphemers, Allah shall not forgive them. (4:48)

* Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them on the way."(4:137)

* O ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He (Allah) will love as they will love Him lowly with the believers, Mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproachers of such as find fault. That is the Grace of Allah which He will bestow on whom He (Allah) pleases. And Allah encompasses all, and He knows all things (5:54)

The Hadith (the body of quotes attributed to Muhammad) includes statements taken as supporting the death penalty for apostasy, such as:

* Kill whoever changes his religion (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, book 84, number 57, narrated via Ibn Abbas)

and

* The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, book 83, number 17, narrated via Abdullah)


See also: takfir, apostasy in Islam

 

[Andyman_1970]

Good stuff Mike, I'll have to digest that some more.

........... even the dietary ones which are now simply inapplicable to modern Christians.

Since the dietary requirements for Gentile Christians was outlined in Acts 15 (circa 40AD) I would not say that's a "modern" interpretation. Again, since most Christians these days are Gentile and not Jewish, they are not under the same "obligation" to be strictly Torah observant as Jews are. Although a Gentile believer is free to be observant if led to do so, whether one is or isn't is not an issue of one's eternal "destination" per se.

So again the context issue comes up, and I'm sure there is context with the Koran as well, which is why I said "seems" to say such and such - as I'm not as well versed in the Koran as the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures I added that disclaimer.

 

[Andyman_1970]

But in any case, these sentences can be ignored and re-interpreted by moderate, modern people just like the more extreme laws of the Torah, even the dietary ones which are now simply inapplicable to modern Christians.

Context comes into play I'm sure with the passages noted in the Koran.

But again I wonder if those are commandments that are still "in effect" for today similar to the commands of Torah. If (note I said if) that is the case, then the difference would be Torah does not command the execution of unbelievers, but that's predicated on a big "if" and void of context (in this discussion at least), which is not the best practice when wrestling with ancient texts.

 

[MikeD]

Andy, even if the Koran DOES command the wanton killing of unbelievers somehow or somewhere, regardless of context, what does it prove? That the religion is somehow flawed, evil, or inferior? Because of one sentence that was written by a human being over a thousand years ago? Hell, there are lots of passages to the contrary in the Koran, too. Certainly no moderate Muslim will be using one sentence or passage to justify murder in the modern world. The wackos? Yeah, but they're wackos...and so we must prevent them from attaining power, which we're not doing a very good job of...frankly, we're often fostering their cause by giving fuel to the 'the West hates Islam' fire.

I regard it as I regard all religions...as nothing concrete and nothing particularly divine, but something potentially inspiring and mind-opening if you choose to use it that way. So I guess I'm just not that interested in nitpicking the scholarly details, either. In a way, I know that's ignorance, but I think we need to remain focused on the right things in order to make progress in this world.

Ending or abating the destructive, wasteful fighting (not to say ending it at any cost, mind you) will benefit everyone all over the world. And I think, therefore, I'd rather look at the political, economic, and military solutions to the problem than to argue scripture, which is really a distraction from the issues.

(Not to say our discussion is worthless or insult anyone here, mind you...just pointing out why I think it's wrong to sit around and try and determine whose religion is better while we're fighting a war based on something else.)

MD

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andy, even if the Koran DOES command the wanton killing of unbelievers somehow or somewhere, regardless of context, what does it prove? That the religion is somehow flawed, evil, or inferior? Because of one sentence that was written by a human being over a thousand years ago? Hell, there are lots of passages to the contrary in the Koran, too. Certainly no moderate Muslim will be using one sentence or passage to justify murder in the modern world. The wackos? Yeah, but they're wackos...and so we must prevent them from attaining power, which we're not doing a very good job of...frankly, we're often fostering their cause by giving fuel to the 'the West hates Islam' fire.

Ok let me clarify. First, I’m not in “mine is better than that other one mode” – those arguments are useless and instead of proving which set of beliefs is better, or furthering the cause of said beliefs; it usually degrades into trying to prove who’s smarter – which is exactly why I don’t engage in “prove to me there is or isn’t a God” discussion.

Second, my comments regarding the comparison of the Torah and the Koran stem from comments made that the Bible commands similar killing of unbelievers as the Koran seems to. My comments were to show that comparison is incorrect according to the Text both literally and contextually – now can the Bible be misused or misinterpreted it sure can and has been and is currently. My point was at the base textual level one advocates killing unbelievers as a commandment, one does not.

As my knowledge of the Koran is limited I could be wrong in my reading of the passages presented I readily admit that.

However your comment of “what does it prove?” It proves you can’t compare the Torah and the Koran when trying to paint all religions as aspiring to kill those who will not convert. I’m not arguing “better”, I’m arguing comparing apples and oranges.

I think we need to remain focused on the right things in order to make progress in this world.

I agree, this is probably my biggest beef with “normal” evangelical Christians these days, we are WAY too focused on being right in some arbitrary moral shouting match with “those godless liberals” rather that actually doing the right things and living the right things out every day that Jesus teaches to change our world for the better, ie feed the poor, clothe the naked, water to the thirsty.

(Not to say our discussion is worthless or insult anyone here, mind you...just pointing out why I think it's wrong to sit around and try and determine whose religion is better while we're fighting a war based on something else.)

I would agree with you for the most part on this………………..