People of The Book (Spam and die)

[Curdis]

I decided to try and get to the bottom of some of the stuff I hear on the radio/read/see on TV, and read the Qu'ran to see if I could find where it did, or didn't justify Jihad (etc.). Now I haven't quite finished, but it got me thinking about a few things.

Rather than drag up a debate thread from 2002 that is only partially on this topic I thought let's get the wisdom out here. This IS NOT a see how quick we can boil over thread. I am not of any of the faiths involved and really only want to try to understand the context of other's beliefs. If we can have a friendly and informative discussion about the issues involved great. If not, then please opt out and let it drop.

So..

Is it fair to say the central message of the Tora (Old Testament) is the ten commandments?

Is it fair to say the central message of the New Testament is: We are saved from sin by being redeemed by Jesus' sacrifice if(And only if) we believe in him.?

The one I seem to be getting from the Qu'ran is 'Mohammed is the prophet of god'. Am I right? And if not, what is the central 'message' of the Qu'ran?

Reference to Chapter/Verse is not necessary, only heartily encouraged . - Curdis !

[VonDondu]

Is it fair to say the central message of the Tora (Old Testament) is the ten commandments?

No, not really. First of all, the Torah is not the same thing as the Old Testament. The Old Testament is a Christian collection of holy books, so to speak. The Hebrew Bible is called the Tanakh. The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh. In Christian terminology, those same books are known as the Five Books of Moses or the Pentateuch. Second of all, Hebrew law contains a LOT more than just the Ten Commandments. The Torah is sometimes called the Law of Moses, but it's actually more of a record of all of the things that Yahweh said to Moses. You could say that God dictated the first part of the Bible to Moses.

Rather than focusing solely on the laws given to Moses, the Tanakh as a whole is best viewed as a guide to the relationship between God and His people. "I shall be your God, and you shall be My people." The interesting thing is that God didn't "set the rules in stone" when He made His covenant with His people; their relationship evolved over time. For example, when Yahweh was seen as sort of a Hebrew war god, which was slightly different than the way He was seen as the Creator, He intended to destroy the human race with the Great Flood. But when the flood was over, He renewed His covenant with Noah and "hung up His war bow", which became the rainbow we see when it rains as a reminder of His promise never to destroy the world again. Yahweh later made a new, improved covenant with Abraham. When He set out to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham talked him into sparing the lives of the innocent people He was about to kill. Now THAT's a dynamic relationship when you can talk to God and change His mind.

There are also other Hebrew religious books, including the Talmud (a record of the discussions between various Rabbis throughout a long period of history), the Mishnah (the Oral Law which supplements the Written Law of the Torah), and the Midrash (a book of commentary on the Tanakh).

In short, you could say all of it is the history of the ongoing relationship between God and His people.

Is it fair to say the central message of the New Testament is: We are saved from sin by being redeemed by Jesus' sacrifice if(And only if) we believe in him.?

Yes, I suppose you could say the New Testament explains God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. Keep in mind that the New Testament is not a single book; it is actually a collection of various writings that was given the final stamp of approval by the Third Council of Carthage in 397, but even then not everyone accepted that particular collection, and it continues to be contested to this day. For example, Martin Luther (the founder of the Lutheran denomination, the church I grew up in) questioned the inclusion of the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Book of Revelation. Lutherans aren't really into the Apocalypse and speculations about the "end times", but other Protestant denominations are obsessed with it. No religious text has ever been accepted by all people of faith without controversy.


As for the Holy Qur'an, I'd rather not comment. It's a bit over my head.


You might want to start a review of individual books of the Bible if they interest you. A few years ago, I began an intensive study of the Book of Job in an attempt to figure out exactly what the message is supposed to be, but I never finished it. Despite what most people think, Job was not a patient man. He went around the country asking people, "Why did God let these horrible things happen to me?" Unknown to him, God made a bet with Satan, and that's why Job's misery began. Various prophets tried to answer Job's questions, but they don't agree with each other. 90% of the book is a long set of arguments that are rejected by the last prophet to speak. In effect, he says, "Everything that has been said up to this point is wrong." Talk about a frustrating book. In the end, the final argument seems to be that God can do whatever He wants because He's bigger than we are, but that just doesn't sound right. So I will declare the matter unresolved until I finish my study someday.


And by the way, I'll die even if I don't spam.

[Lady Dragonfly]

About the Qur'an: you can find a lot of information in our favorite source of it:

Qur'an - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Qur'an is a collection of the speeches made by the prophet Muhammad. It is divided into Surahs (chapters).

The main message, as I understand it, is essentially the same as in the other faiths: believe, follow the rules set by Allah precisely and you will be generously rewarded in the afterlife for your zeal and obedience.
"Islam is a message for the salvation of humanity".

Islam 101:

(by Imam Zaid Shakir)

Islam is the way of life for those who believe in God and want to live a life in worship and obedience to none but God. The reward is forgiveness from God and an everlasting life in the Heaven.

There are over one billion Muslims spread across the globe in all nationalities, languages and ethnic backgrounds. Islam was the religion of the first couple, Adam and Eve. It was also the religion of messengers of God like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. The essence of their message was the same:

Believe and obey the One true God and obey His messengers.

Jesus (peace be on him) was the second-last prophet of God. He foretold the coming of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). While the mission of the earlier messengers was generally limited to their own communities, prophet Muhammad's message and mission is universal and timeless till the end of this world.

The controversy concerning Jihad sprang from this (just one example here):

from Surah 47

47: 3. But as for those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in that which has been revealed to Muhammad - and it is the truth from their Lord - HE removes from them their sins and sets right their affairs.
47: 4. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus does ALLAH set forth for men their lessons by similitudes.
47: 5. And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them, bind fast the fetters - then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom - until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if ALLAH had so pleased, HE could have punished them Himself, but HE has willed that HE may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way of ALLAH - HE will never render their works vain.
47: 6. HE will guide them to success and will improve their condition.
47: 7. And will admit them into the Garden which HE has made known to them.


47: 13. Verily, ALLAH will cause those who believe and do good works to enter the Gardens underneath which streams flow; While those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat even as the cattle eat, and the Fire will be their last resort.
47: 14. And how many a township, mightier than thy town which has driven thee out, have WE destroyed, and they had no helper.


47: 34. O ye who believe ! obey ALLAH and obey the Messenger and make not your works vain.
47: 35. Verily, those who disbelieve and hinder people from the way of ALLAH, and then die while they are disbelievers - ALLAH certainly, will not forgive them.
47: 36. So be not slack and sue not for peace, for you will, certainly, have the upper hand. And ALLAH is with you, and HE will not deprive you of the reward of your actions.


I hope that helps a bit.

[Curdis]

Well that got the ball rolling.

The issue that fascinates me is the 'one god' one. Especially in light of the Qu'ran's emphasis on being part of the ongoing tradition.

There appear to be insurmountable inconsistencies in the way the Qu'ran relates to the Jewish tradition and especially the Christian one.

This is what prompted me to question what the central message of these traditions are. While it may prove to be an impossible task, until this becomes apparent I would like to pursue this further.

@Vicsun, Well it had to be one of those "T" words . From what you have written would it be fair to say that the central message is; "I am your one true god, obey only me (and my teachings)."?

I understand that the level of simplification is obviously going to round off some of the (possibly important) nuances. For instance I have heard it argued that Job was included not because it in anyway furthered the tradition but because it was considered to be a worthy peice of literature. The Song of David likewise is not obviously consistent with the spirit of the rest of the writings.

While we all will surely die, spam here may hasten the process. See Surah 47 (apparently) for details..

@Lady Dragonfly, While the Wikipedia is an amazing resource, I feel that if you are to truely gain understanding you must have reference to the source material. Following commentaries, however well researched and considered, is where many of the subsequent problems set in. A case in point would be that the word Jihad doesn't actually appear in the Surah quoted. The reference is to 'regular battle' and this meaning would completely invalidate the use of this Surah to justify much of what is being done in the name of Islam by the more radical.

A further difficulty is the ambiguity in interpreting for instance:

47: 35. Verily, those who disbelieve and hinder people from the way of ALLAH, and then die while they are disbelievers - ALLAH certainly, will not forgive them.

Apart from some doubt as to whether this is extolling followers to actively take a roll in the extermination of unbelievers, elsewhere the Qu'ran explicitly includes Jews and Christians in the set of persons who are believers in "ALLAH" (why are we shouting? ). That would seem to exclude them from Jihad (if this were to be the meaning).

There appears to a systemic problem with the way the Qu'ran portrays the Jews and especially the Christians. There is much text given to the use of Jesus as a prophet (foreteller) of the coming of Muhammed to add to the case for the legitimacy of Muhammed When push comes to shove the whole (and here I am contending that this is the central message) of the Christian belief (That salvation is only by beleiving in Jesus as the Son of God dying to redeem our sins), is specifically said to be an abomination in the eyes of Allah. It would appear that to some extent then, that an element of inevitable conflict is built in, as indeed an element of inevitable conflict between Jews and Christians is built into the bible(NT/OT see below).

On another tack; While I can see some immediate attraction to many of the ideas in both the "T" word book(s)[Can we call it the old testament OT or something else as short hand?] and the NT, I am honestly stumped as to what the atraction is in the words of the prophet (Qu'ran). I suppose that is also a theme that I want to tease out. - Curdis !

[wing]

i couldnt give a big long comment, since im by no means an expert on the bible, but i do know...

the old testament is about way more than just the 10 commandments. it tells the story of how God created the world, heaven and hell, and angels and people and all living things. it tells stories of prophesizing(sp?) Jesus' coming. it tells what went on and why.

the new testament is, in a big part, about Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection. its also about the 12 disciples, what they did after Jesus ascended, etc. and it has the book of revalations, a picture(albeit a confusing one) of Christ's second coming. it has tons in it.

i dunno anything about mohommad

[Curdis]

i couldnt give a big long comment, since im by no means an expert on the bible, but i do know...

the old testament is about way more than just the 10 commandments. it tells the story of how God created the world, heaven and hell, and angels and people and all living things. it tells stories of prophesizing(sp?) Jesus' coming. it tells what went on and why.

the new testament is, in a big part, about Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection. its also about the 12 disciples, what they did after Jesus ascended, etc. and it has the book of revalations, a picture(albeit a confusing one) of Christ's second coming. it has tons in it.

i dunno anything about mohommad

I hear you but I wasn't intending to discuss the narrative elements of any of the literature (unless it had a direct relationship to the issue of central message).

The Qu'ran makes extensive mention of the previous literature what I'm at least partly interested in is how the three main religions who claim a common god are able (or indeed not) to reconcile themselves to this.

Clarifying what the major thrust, doctrine, message, what have you, of each is seemed a logical and reasonable start to this project. - Curdis !

[VonDondu]

@Vicsun, Well it had to be one of those "T" words . From what you have written would it be fair to say that the central message is; "I am your one true god, obey only me (and my teachings)."?

I think you're focusing way too much on laws. Look at this way: nobody signs up for a religion because they like the rules they have to follow. There's something much more important than that. Yes, God wants people to know that He's the one true God. But more than anything else, His people want to believe, "We are His Chosen People. We are the Children of God."

The story of the relationship between God and His people covers a lot of ground. A lot of things have happened to God's people--wars, famine, slavery, exile, and generally getting their ass kicked a lot. God's Chosen People relate the events that have happened in the earthly world to various changes in their relationship with God. When God created the world, He gave people free will and He let things play out to see what would happen. Sometimes He got very angry at His people. Sometimes He vowed to destroy them. Sometimes He abandoned them and let their enemies overcome them. Even God's own Temple was destroyed.

Through all of that, God's people always wanted to return to God. They wanted His love. They wanted His protection. They wanted to be the Chosen Ones. They spent a great deal of time and effort trying to figure out what it would take to stay in God's favor and be the people He wanted them to be. In a way, that's what the Hebrew bible is all about.

On another tack; While I can see some immediate attraction to many of the ideas in both the "T" word book(s)[Can we call it the old testament OT or something else as short hand?] and the NT, I am honestly stumped as to what the atraction is in the words of the prophet (Qu'ran). I suppose that is also a theme that I want to tease out.

The simplest explanation is that Muslims want to be God's chosen people, too. They cling to the words of the prophets in their effort to remain close to God.

There appears to a systemic problem with the way the Qu'ran portrays the Jews and especially the Christians. There is much text given to the use of Jesus as a prophet (foreteller) of the coming of Muhammed to add to the case for the legitimacy of Muhammed When push comes to shove the whole (and here I am contending that this is the central message) of the Christian belief (That salvation is only by beleiving in Jesus as the Son of God dying to redeem our sins), is specifically said to be an abomination in the eyes of Allah. It would appear that to some extent then, that an element of inevitable conflict is built in, as indeed an element of inevitable conflict between Jews and Christians is built into the bible...

It's a lot easier to understand the meaning of those religious texts if you put them in historical context. Let's start with Abraham. God made a covenant with Abraham and promised that he and his descendants would be God's Chosen People. That makes Abraham's lineage extremely important. When God told Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars, Abraham said, "OK, I'd better start having children then." But there was one problem: his wife Sarai was 120 years old and she was "barren". When the angel of God told her that she and Abraham would have a child, she laughed at Him. He told her that her new name would be "Sarah", which means "she laughed at God".

Since Abraham was worried that Sarah could not bear children for him, he started sleeping with her Egyptian handmaiden, Hagar (in Arabic it's Hajar). Can you see what's coming? Hagar bore Abraham's first-born son, Ishmael. Muslims believe that Ishmael inherited God's blessing and that the descendents of Ishmael are God's chosen people. But Sarah also became pregnant, just as the angel had said. When she bore Abraham's other "first-born son" Isaac, the rivalry between Hagar and Sarah intensified. When Isaac was weened, Abraham threw a big party. At the party, Ishmael, who was about 16 at the time, laughed at Isaac. Sarah became furious and demanded that Abraham expel Hagar and Ishmael from their home, and Abraham did so. Understandably, Hagar was perplexed and distraught, and she appealed to God. "Haven't I been a good servant? Please don't abandon me and my son." So God promised to protect them.

Up until the point when God made his covenant with Abraham, Jews and Muslims share the same story. But the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac changed everything. "We're God's Chosen People." "No, WE'RE God's Chosen People." Do you think that will ever end? As I wrote earlier, "These are God's laws" is not really the main point of the Bible. "This is how you can be one of God's Chosen" is closer to the mark.

The Jewish tradition claims that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac to test his faith, and when it looked like Abraham was actually going to do it, God intervened and said, "I'm impressed." The Islamic tradition claims that Ishmael was the son whom God told Abraham to sacrifice, not Isaac. Which story should you believe? Well, I guess it depends on whether you want to be a descendent of Ishmael or a descendant of Isaac.



Isaac had a son named Jacob, who later became known as Israel. He had twelve sons, who in turn engendered the twelve tribes of Israel, who are collectively known as the Children of Israel.

You need to understand that since the world was created, it has been evolving. For example, Adam and Eve's son Cain invented agriculture. Abel invented animal husbandry. Jacob improved upon the techniques of animal husbandry to cheat his father-in-law out of an entire flock of sheep. (His father-in-law hired him to tend the sheep and told him that he could keep all of the sheep that had spots, so Jacob bred them so that all of them would have spots.) In one of my favorite novels, God Knows by Joseph Heller, which is based on the life of King David, David's wife Bathsheba invents underwear and the color red. (All of the existing colors mentioned in the Old Testament are rose, crimson, amaranth, etc.--there is no red.)

But anyway, the idea of a Messiah wasn't part of God's original plan; it's something that He thought of later. See--evolution at work. (That special moment is captured beautifully in a play called "The Green Pastures" by Marc Connelly.) The idea of a Messiah started sometime before 800 B.C. and it was featured prominently in the Book of Isaiah. His book condemned the enemies of Judah (which was more or less the state of Israel), but it also condemned Judah itself and predicted the coming of the Messiah. About two hundred years later, Judah was conquered by Babylon, and the Israelites were taken to Babylon in chains. The time they spent there in captivity is called the Exile. That's when the idea of a Messiah really took root.

The prophet Daniel was what you might call the member of an underground resistance movement. He had four apocalyptic visions, which appear in the Book of Daniel along with other prophecies. Daniel eventually became the top advisor to the King of Babylon. Many of prophecies found in the Book of Daniel later came true, which has prompted many skeptics to suggest that the Book of Daniel was written after those prophesied events had already taken place. What are you going to believe?

During the time of King David and King Solomon (approximately 1200 B.C.) when THE Temple was first built, things were going pretty well for the Israelites by their own accounts. But there's actually no historical proof that King David and King Solomon ever really existed. (It's a problem that has stumped archaeologists for a long time.) Their lives were chronicled in stories that were told when the ancient Israelites were hiding from their enemies in the mountains. Maybe the people who passed on such stories to their children wanted to imagine that things used to be a lot better for the Jews. But there's something even more important than that. While the Israelites were hiding in the mountains, that's when they really solidified the idea of one true God and God's Chosen People. That is where they cemented their faith.

The historical record suggests that the ancient Jews were actually Canaanites. Their oral traditions, their liturgy, their technology, their hymns, their poetry--all of it was distinctly Canaanite. You might say that when that special group of Canaanites invented monotheism, THAT is when they became "Jews". One God, one Chosen People, and one Covenant between them. It's a wonderful story.



I'm not acquainted with all of the ins and outs of Islamic history. But their literature and traditions seem to have evolved over a long period of time, just as Hebrew literature and traditions have evolved. If you put everything in context, I think it will be easier to see what it's all about.

[DesR85]

But anyway, the idea of a Messiah wasn't part of God's original plan; it's something that He thought of later. See--evolution at work. (That special moment is captured beautifully in a play called "The Green Pastures" by Marc Connelly.) The idea of a Messiah started sometime before 800 B.C. and it was featured prominently in the Book of Isaiah. His book condemned the enemies of Judah (which was more or less the state of Israel), but it also condemned Judah itself and predicted the coming of the Messiah. About two hundred years later, Judah was conquered by Babylon, and the Israelites were taken to Babylon in chains. The time they spent there in captivity is called the Exile. That's when the idea of a Messiah really took root.

I'm not really a bible whiz but I did read the bible twice a long time back and the bible has mentioned the coming of the Messiah starting from Genesis onwards. Well, the explanation given by God wasn't really that direct at that time. All he said was that someone great will come out of your family line. The reason is that he already have that plan a long time ago but he will only tell what is appropriate to certain people that were around in certain years (particularly Abraham, the prophets) Only when David was crowned King of Israel, then God told him that the messiah will arise from his line.

If I recall correctly, the Jews started longing for a Messiah when they were under Roman occupation in the New Testament. The Messiah they envisioned was more of a warrior Messiah who will lead a resistance against the Romans and finally chase them out of Israel. Sad to say, in 132 A.D., the Romans sacked Jerusalem and expelled all the Jews from Israel.

The prophet Daniel was what you might call the member of an underground resistance movement. He had four apocalyptic visions, which appear in the Book of Daniel along with other prophecies. Daniel eventually became the top advisor to the King of Babylon.

I don't recall Daniel being part of an underground resistance movement. That would be more to Maccabees during the Greek occupation of Israel.

Many of prophecies found in the Book of Daniel later came true, which has prompted many skeptics to suggest that the Book of Daniel was written after those prophesied events had already taken place. What are you going to believe?

I remember a while back in catechism classes that there were historians who were doing extensive research on the books contained in the Bible. They did background research and came to the conclusion that they were authentic and were written before the new testament (can't remember the dates). As for the new testament, the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, John and the Acts of the Apostles were found to be written after the year 70 (the year Jesus died).

As for the rest of the new testament books, particularly the letters written by St. Paul, they're genuine. There were some gnostic gospels that appeared, one of which is the most notorious of them all, the Gospel of Judas. Further research found that the Gospel of Judas was written at 80 A.D. or around 100 A.D., a few centuries after the death of Christ (along with the other Gnostic Gospels). Now, logically speaking, a historian will never accept a source written a few centuries after the event took place as true.

[moltovir]

i couldnt give a big long comment, since im by no means an expert on the bible, but i do know...

the old testament is about way more than just the 10 commandments. it tells the story of how God created the world, heaven and hell, and angels and people and all living things. it tells stories of prophesizing(sp?) Jesus' coming. it tells what went on and why.

the new testament is, in a big part, about Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection. its also about the 12 disciples, what they did after Jesus ascended, etc. and it has the book of revalations, a picture(albeit a confusing one) of Christ's second coming. it has tons in it.

i dunno anything about mohommad

Genesis does not try to explain the creation of the world. When it was written, the idea that God had created the world was universally acknowledged, so there was no explanation necessary. Rather, the OT explains the identity of the jewish faith, the way in which the jews see their God. The OT doesn't tell us about God, it tells us about the jews, how they lived and what they believed in.

[Lady Dragonfly]

@ Curdis

The central message of all religions is salvation, I refer you to my original post.

A few "facts":

Critics say the Jewish Old Testament is a compilation of myths originated from different more ancient mythologies.
Jews believe themselves the Chosen People of God.
The Qur’an was revealed to Mohammad by Biblical Archangel Gabriel.
Muslims indeed claim their religion universal and trace their genealogy up to Adam and Eve. And so do Christians.
However, Christians historically persecuted Jews because their religious leaders did not recognize Jesus as a Messiah, betrayed Him and demanded His crucifixion.
Muslims don’t recognize Jesus as the Son of God. They accept him as a Prophet only.
And neither Jews nor Christians accept Muslims’ claim that Islam is a continuation of the universal tradition and the only true interpretation of God’s will. They don’t recognize Mohammed.
Muslims view everybody outside Islam unbelievers and therefore unworthy.
That is my highly simplified take on History.

Ismail Sloan:

"The biggest gulf between the Bible, the Torah and the Koran comes in the Story of Abraham, where Abraham took his son up the mountain to be sacrificed. All three books tell almost exactly the same story. There is only one significant difference: The Bible and the Torah say that Abraham took his younger son, Isaac, to be sacrificed. The Koran says that Abraham took his elder son, Ishmael, to be sacrificed. Which is correct? Which is wrong?"
......
"The Bible has been transcribed and re-transcribed a thousand times over the centuries. What we can see here is that somewhere along the line, some scribe wrote in that Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac, whereas in reality he intended to sacrifice Ishmael. The motivation for this alteration is obvious, because it forms the basis to the Hebrew claim to have the legal right of ownership of the entire Land of Canaan."

Since Arabs claim to be descendants from Ishmael, the implications are obvious. Both sides lay claim to the same land...

Few words on Jihad:

Jihad can be a religious warfare and can be peaceful.
Muslims claim their religion is peaceful and others say otherwise because it is all politics.
For hundreds of years people interpret more obscure verses of Bible or Qur’an the way that serves their agenda.
The most horrible crimes against humanity were committed by the name of God(s).

Anothe citation here, of different nature:

From the Qur'an

"1. "…We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul - unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And, whoever saves one, it is as if he had saved mankind entirely." [Qur'an, 5:32]
This verse establishes the sanctity of life.
2. "…And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right…" [Qur'an, 6:151]
3. "And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of] taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by the law]. " [Qur'an, 17:33].
4. "And [the believers are] those who do not invoke any deity with Allah, nor kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by right, nor commit zina." [Qur'an, 25:68]
5. "And fight, in the path of Allah, those who fight you…" [Qur'an, 2:190]
This verse indicates that only those involved in combat are to be fought, which excludes non-combatants such as women, children and civilians;
6. "Among mankind is he whose speech impresses you in worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the fiercest of opponents. And, when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein, and to destroy crops and lives. And Allah does not love corruption." [Qur'an, 2:204-5]

These verses indicate that wanton destruction and indiscriminate killing are tantamount to working mischief /corruption upon earth."


Religion is the hell of the topic, you know.

[VonDondu]

It isn't easy for people who live in the modern, Western world to understand the way that ancient people viewed the world. Most of us here think that the physical world around us is real and that we have a large measure of control over it. But the ancient Hebrews had a completely opposite view of the world. To them, only what happened in the primeval world and the apocalyptic world were real; anything that happened in what we call the physical world were merely echoes or ripples caused by events in those unseen spiritual worlds. Unlike us, ancient people did not feel like they had much control over events in this world. Unseen powers and forces were in control. They believed that they would "pass into the next world" when the time came. But when you're talking about the ideas people had over a period of time spanning over a thousand years, you have to realize that their ideas changed a lot over time.

When the ancient Hebrews were defeated and subjugated by the Assyrian empire during the time of Isaiah, they, like nearly all ancient peoples, hoped they would be released from their captors by some type of outside force since they couldn't do it themselves. Jahweh Himself had led the Israelites out of Egypt. He made His first appearance on Mount Sinai in the form of a burning bush. With an entrance like that, you get the idea that the writers were talking about a new character, a God who was a little bit different than the one who had created the world earlier in Genesis. It's like they told the story of creation and then at the end of that chapter, they started telling a different story. Hmm...

But anyway, let's consider the Book of Isaiah. Isaiah was a counselor to the kings of Judah. The kingdom of Judah had two neighbors--the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Syria. All three of them were subjugated by the Assyrian Empire. The kingdom of Israel wanted to revolt against Assyria, so the did the only logical thing they could think of--they made a pact with Syria and attacked Judah. The king of Israel thought if he could take control of Judah, then he could break away from Assyria. When Judah was attacked, the king of Judah didn't want to ask Assyria for help because Assyria was sort of like a parent and Israel was sort of like a sibling, and Judah didn't want to be a "tattle-tale". Besides, it would have been dangerous to ask Assyria to send their army into Judah since conquering armies tend to remain after the fighting is over, and Judah did not want to be occupied by the Assyrian army. It was such a crazy situation, some people thought the end of the world was near. (They tended to think that a lot back then.) But Isaiah didn't think it was time for him to pass into the next world. I can't remember everything that happened after that. The birth of a child signaled that Ahaz, the king of Judah, would die and Judah would fall while the child lived. I don't know how the Messiah was supposed to fit into all of that, but the Messiah wasn't supposed to be an earthly king. When the Messiah took His throne in the apocalyptic world, it would have a ripple effect in the world we can see, and it would rip apart earthly empires. The idea of a Messiah as some sort of personal savior was an alien idea to those people; it was an idea that wouldn't become popular for at least seven hundred more years.

Ezekiel came along about one hundred and fifty years after Isaiah, a few years after Judah fell to the Babylonian Empire. (The Assyrian Empire had a history of rising and falling back then.) Ezekiel was fed up with kings because they were always corrupt, and he declared that Judah had fallen so that there would be no more kings. That was an unusual position for a prophet to take, since the general rule of the day was that you can't have prophets if you don't have kings. It was also strange for Ezekiel to say that the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem was also God's will. But there was a strange logic to it that makes sense if you think about it. The forward-thinking prophets of Jahweh were looking for a new identity for their people and a new relationship with their God that wouldn't be corrupted by corrupt kings or foreign conquerers or other earthly things. Jahweh was associated with a particular country and a particular Temple, so you could say that His people believed in "Jahwehism". But if you take away the country and the kings and the Temple, what you have left are the people and their faith. Judaism (named for the people who were taken out of Judah) thus became associated with a people instead of being associated with a specific country. Judaism became a powerful identity that people could nurture inside themselves no matter where they were.

Ancient Hebrews were considered to be shrewd and intelligent (as well as quite unlucky), but unfortunately, they were not very well educated. Compared to the Israelites, the Philistines were not "philistine" at all. During their Exile in Babylon, the Israelites became well educated and they became particularly adept at writing and producing literature. (Nowadays, of course, Jews down the ages are admired for their literary talent.) Much of the Hebrew, or Judaic, bible was amassed over the next hundred years or so. Can the historical accuracy of their stories be verified? No, not really. But that didn't really matter to them. They wanted to remember the land they came from and they hoped they would return to it someday. But in the meantime, they wanted to retain their identity as a people.

That sort of talk was considered to be seditious by the Babylonian authorities, so Daniel had to do most of his writing in secret. That's why I said he was sort of like a member of an underground resistance movement. He didn't want his people to be integrated into Babylonian society. And of course, he wrote about his apocalyptic visions of the "end times", and that was sort of a threat to those in power because they didn't want their orderly world overthrown by events inside OR outside this world.

Of course, it's interesting to note that the first part of the book of Genesis, which was written while the Israelites were in Exile in Babylon (Moses didn't actually write the book), is essentially their own version of the creation stories of Babylon. Hmm... Maybe that's why the God you see in the Burning Bush looks like a new character. That should tell you something about the Bible.

[Curdis]

@Lady Dragonfly

I agree it is one hell of a topic.

Unfortunately the importance of it has become very immediate in our lives. There are far too many people out there trying to put "spin" on the details and intents. That's what prompted me to go looking for the good oil, and led to this thread. I am in the middle of forming a view and want to ensure that it is a clear and supportable view.

I think Salvation is taking the level of detail back at least one step too far.

Critics say the Jewish Old Testament is a compilation of myths originated from different more ancient mythologies.
Jews believe themselves the Chosen People of God.
The Qur’an was revealed to Mohammad by Biblical Archangel Gabriel.
Muslims indeed claim their religion universal and trace their genealogy up to Adam and Eve. And so do Christians.
However, Christians historically persecuted Jews because their religious leaders did not recognize Jesus as a Messiah, betrayed Him and demanded His crucifixion.
Muslims don’t recognize Jesus as the Son of God. They accept him as a Prophet only.
And neither Jews nor Christians accept Muslims’ claim that Islam is a continuation of the universal tradition and the only true interpretation of God’s will. They don’t recognize Mohammed.
Muslims view everybody outside Islam unbelievers and therefore unworthy.
That is my highly simplified take on History.

I'll go with the highly simplified because much of that is disputable, but that is a nice consise precise of the more salient features. There remains a danger in missing out subtlties, like the importance of the lineage of Issac and Ishmael.

Jihad can be a religious warfare and can be peaceful.
Muslims claim their religion is peaceful and others say otherwise because it is all politics.
For hundreds of years people interpret more obscure verses of Bible or Qur’an the way that serves their agenda.

This gets more closely to one of the facets I'm trying to comprehend, but which verses and by which people?

The whole Christian apocolyptic tradition appears to be based on an obviously wrong interpretation of Revelations. Forewarned is forearmed.

Thank you for the passages of the Qur'an I have quite an extensive list myself and none of it shows any tendancy towards the 'understanding' of Islam being portrayed in the West. Unfortunately it also doesn't appear too prominently on the lips of Iman's either.

*Shrugs* and *Sighs* maybe I'm being too naive in thinking that by adherence to their respective scriptures all sides could perhaps find a way to back off. It does however help me write effective letters for Amnesty International, so all is not in vain.

@VonDondu, Thanks for pointing out the importance of the Ishmael/Issac thing. I was aware of it but hadn't fully figured out it's overall importance in the context.

I can understand why you feel I might be focused too much on laws. I'm not really, it just appeared in my shorthand way of expressing myself. I don't feel the narrative is unimportant, I just want to ensure that I am properly comprehending the message.

You appear well versed in the subject matter, how come?

So what propelled this belief system West across North Africa and then East into South East Asia? Obviously there are cultural contexts and politics at play, but what is the hard(good) word from the tradition that takes an absorption of a tiny regional religion into the Caanite monotheistic tradition and impels it so explosively across two continents. (Answers of 'God is great' score negative points). - Curdis !

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Lady Dragonfly

Thank you for the passages of the Qur'an I have quite an extensive list myself and none of it shows any tendancy towards the 'understanding' of Islam being portrayed in the West. Unfortunately it also doesn't appear too prominently on the lips of Iman's either.

Just to throw in a little bit more fuel; after presenting sort of the "neutral good" quotes I am giving you these:

The Qur'an tells muslims to kill and go to war to fight for Islam: Quran, chapters (Surahs) 9:5; 2:191; 2:193; 3:118; 4:75,76; 5:33, 8:12; 8:65; 9:73,123; 33:60-62.

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers, (Quran 2:191).

"Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak," (Quran 4:76).

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter," (Quran 5:33).

"When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment," (Quran 8:12).

"O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand," (Quran 8:65).

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful," (Quran 9:5).

"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination," (Quran 9:73).

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)," (Quran 9:123).

"...the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist... 61Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. 62(Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah, (Quran 33:60-62).

"Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens..." (Quran 47:4).

"Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Quran 61:4).

quote:

So what propelled this belief system West across North Africa and then East into South East Asia? Obviously there are cultural contexts and politics at play, but what is the hard(good) word from the tradition that takes an absorption of a tiny regional religion into the Caanite monotheistic tradition and impels it so explosively across two continents. (Answers of 'God is great' score negative points).

Allah is great!

Both Christianity and Islam were spreading by sword for hundreads of years.
The conversion took long time. In the name of God countless pagans were tortured and killed; however, for long years pagan rituals persisted (largely in secrecy) until their original meaning was mostly forgotten and they became colorful festivities.
All Saints Day is an example of it.

All Saints Day in Todos Santos
November 1st is one of the most important days in Guatemala. On this day they celebrate the Day of the dead. Cemeteries are visited and decorated to remember loved ones. It is a mixture of acient pagan beliefs and Catholic traditions brought by the Spanish in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Another example of different points of view, by Rev. Kenneth Collins, B.A., M. Div.:

"There is a very widespread theory that Christmas began in Rome as a response to pagan festivities centering around the winter solstice, which was locally considered to be 25 December. The pagan celebration, which was first established by the Roman emperor Aurelian in AD 274, was called The Birth of the Invincible Sun. However, there is evidence that, some years earlier, Christians had made a sincere attempt to calculate the actual date of Jesus’ birthday. People commonly believe that Christmas was instituted on the date of a pagan holiday to supplant it, but it was actually the other way around. Christmas was there first. "


What is the good word?

Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith.

Saint Francis of Assisi

[Magrus]

The central message of all religions is salvation, I refer you to my original post.

Nonsense, mine isn't. Where did you pull that from?

[Maharlika]

A word of caution.

Nonsense, mine isn't. Where did you pull that from?

@Magrus: I do understand your sentiments about organized religion and I recognize where you are coming from. However, let's refrain from using comments (with their contextual meanings) like "nonsense." I think it is more acceptable and palatable if we use sentences like "I beg to disagree."

@Lady Dragonfly: Be careful when you use sweeping statements and relate them as factual. I don't think that all religions have the same central meaning. I think that your statement is a matter of opinion.

[Lady Dragonfly]

[QUOTE=Maharlika;899114
@Lady Dragonfly: Be careful when you use sweeping statements and relate them as factual. I don't think that all religions have the same central meaning. I think that your statement is a matter of opinion. [/QUOTE]

That pertains to the religions we are discussing, not all religions in the world. I am not able to express my opinion on all of them because I am not familiar with them.
I referred to my original post, where I quoted an islamic author: "Islam is a message for the salvation of humanity". And I hope you would not disagree that the Christian message is the salvation through Jesus Christ. So, I think my opinion is justified.
If you disagree, please explain your point of view. That is what we are informally discussing here - the central message of three main religions as we understand it. And the discussion is quite interesting.
I hope I did not break rule #4.

[Maharlika]

Just a need for clarification.

@Lady Dragonfly: It would have been clearer had you stated this way:

The central message of all THREE religions is salvation, I refer you to my original post.

It's all about clarification and proper articulation as not to be misconstrued for something that was not intended in the first place.

And no, I don't think you are breaking any forum rules.

[Magrus]

@Magrus: I do understand your sentiments about organized religion and I recognize where you are coming from. However, let's refrain from using comments (with their contextual meanings) like "nonsense." I think it is more acceptable and palatable if we use sentences like "I beg to disagree."

Eh, good point. That could come off as hostile I suppose. My tendency to be blunt has that effect with people who aren't used to it.

As for the main things here...Something to mull over for you all. I would disagree on the "Salvation" concept as the main message behind those three religions. I will agree that the people choosing to follow the religion did so in the hopes of salvation, yes. However, that does not necessarily mean that is the central message of the religion in and of itself, simply the motivational tool used to convert people into it.

The incorporation of the belief of a higher (good) and lower (bad) place on a metaphysical level after death into the "newer" religions should be taken into consideration here. Not simply salvation. Keep in mind the threat of damnation and punishment in the afterlife which was incorporated here as well. Which leads to the Morningstar, Lucifer and his fall. At least in Christianity, I am unsure of how that plays into the other two religions you are discussing?

I believe the central message in the religion was one of understanding. Not in the sense it is most often used today, but along the lines of Vondondu's latest post. I disagree most heartily with all three religions being discussed here, however my own beliefs focus on this in a very major way. The attempt to grasp at an understanding of the things no one can explain in a physical manner. These people, just like the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans and other cultures with religions of their own, simply wanted to understand why good and more particularly, bad things happened to them. They sought to understand why things were made to be the way they were at that time. They sought insight into the future for themselves as well.

Tying this into my original point, I believe you may have the central message, and the central reasoning behind the people following the religion. Understanding of the world, and the hope of salvation rather than damnation. At least, that would be my take on it. However, that would be way back when it first started. Now, now is a completely different situation. These religions are used in a different way now.

[Lady Dragonfly]

@ Curdis
quote:
This gets more closely to one of the facets I'm trying to comprehend, but which verses and by which people?

It is well-known that there are opposing sects within each religion claiming to be the truest.
There are strong differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of certain words and verses in the Holy Texts.
The Shiite and Sunni are the two main opposing sects that make up the religion of Islam.
The Christianity is split into Western and Eastern Orthodox branches plus multiple Protestant denominations.
(Considering "Understanding": To better adapt to the modern reality(?), the Christians presented their theory of the "Intelligent Design" to supplement the Creation dogma. I think that might be a subject for another discussion).

Instead, please let me dwell a little bit longer on the spread of the religions (I MEAN THE THREE MAIN ONES ).

Let's start with the Islam since this carries a lot of political implications in to-day's world.
The Ottoman and Mogul invaders brought death and destruction to Europe, Asia, South Africa and Middle-East. In parts of India Hinduism was brutally crushed, the temples converted into Mosques, books burnt.

"When the Ottoman Turks reached south-eastern Europe in the mid fourteenth century, most Albanians and Bosnians and some Bulgarians became Muslims. Beginning in the fifteenth century, however, Islam did not spread rapidly in this area, perhaps because the population resented or disliked the centralized government of the Ottoman Empire. Strong feelings about religion and ethnicity in the region may also have been a cause."(from the Muslim outreach program).

A Pakistany Islamic writer Anwar Shaikh:

"The philosophy that lies behind Islam is stunning and proves the consummate political skill of the Prophet Mohammed: by declaring all Muslims as one nation and the non-Muslims as another, he created the Two Nation Theory, perpetually setting Muslims against non-Muslims.
................
"There are express commands of the Prophet, which state that a person is not Muslim until he loves him more than his own father and mother. The idea is that people must be weaned from their own nationalities and motherlands, and attached firmly to Mecca. This is the reason that the Muslims of India call their own homeland as the battlefield and Arabia the fountain of peace and celestial glory. Now, it is perhaps, easy for you to understand why the Muslims of India partitioned their own motherland for practicing the Arab cultural values in Pakistan (and Bangladesh). "
..................
"[Intercession] is the special power of the Prophet Mohammed. He will recommend paradise for his followers on the Day of Judgment. His recommendation is final and Allah cannot deny it. It is available to all murderers, rapists, arsonists, cheats, thugs, pickpockets and pimps provided they are followers of the Prophet. On the contrary, all Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians will be cast into a flaming hell, no matter, how pious and God-fearing they may have been. "

Of course, the opposite opinion is that the Muslims are practicing tolerance towards other religions; spread of Islam is portrayed as conquest of heart.
Both opinions are supported by citations and interpretations of Qur'an.

"Along with many other reasons, Islam spread because of its followers’ exemplary lifestyle and unceasing efforts to transmit its message throughout the world. These lie at the root of Islam’s conquest of hearts. Islamic universalism is closely associated with the principle of amr bi al-ma‘ruf (enjoining the good), for this is how Muslims are to spread Islam. This principle seeks to convey Islam’s message to everyone, without exception, and to establish a model community that displays Islam to the world: Thus We have made of you an Ummah justly balanced, that you might be witnesses (models) for the peoples, and the Messenger has been a witness for you (2:143)."(from "Discover Islam")

In his book, "Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography", the Azhar scholar, Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti says the following (page 134, 7th edition):

"The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: 'I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in God and his message ..."

[Curdis]

@Lady Dragonfly

At least in the early stages (Spread through North Africa to Spain) I am not aware of any spreading by the sword. I have been ill informed before of course.

Although one needs to be careful about quoting passages which are indicative of a defensive reaction:

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers," (Quran 2:191). - This one is not explicitly clear.

"Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak," (Quran 4:76). - Again not explicitly clear.

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter," (Quran 5:33). - Explicitly defensive.

"When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment," (Quran 8:12). - Not explicitly clear.

"Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens..." (Quran 47:4). - Not explicitly clear.

"Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Quran 61:4). - Not explicitly clear.

I hope that this does not appear niggardly, but when one discusses religious matters it is important to ensure that it is not an obvious mistaken meaning.

It is however as I am becoming to understand. There are many examples within the Qur'an where murderous behaviour for the cause of Islam is actively encouraged on the highest authority. This is of course also true of the Jewish Scriptures and the OT in the Christian tradition, so I don't see this as being a difference within the Qur'an to the other 'people of the book'.

I does however make any hope of bringing the three traditions together on the basis of their shared theology look scant indeed. The internal contradictions that exist within the individual theologies have been pointed out before, so when they exist between traditions it is less important, to the individual traditions, and as a consequence not the basis for a strong claim.

An aside: Magrus the topic here is "People of the book" your interjection was completely off the mark. As also Maharlika your proposed amendment is completely unnecessary in the context of this discussion. I also feel that the acknowleged tone of Magrus' post is contrary to my intention for this thread as made clear in the original post

If we can have a friendly and informative discussion about the issues involved great. If not, then please opt out and let it drop.

I would love to hear any opinion on the topic under discussion. Lets just be friendly about it. - Curdis !