Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Okay Craven. You're 'superior' knowledge of the Bible, which of course you have proved beyond any doubt here, and your interpretations of scripture, which you have demonstrably proved (cough), are far superior to mine. Be happy with the interpretation that makes you happiest.

I have explained in detail more than one errors in translations in other threads and frankly, since I think you have no intention of accepting anything but your own view of it, I don't care to retype all that. So I accept that you think I'm completely ignorant re the Bible and I will continue to believe you simply do not want to consider any other possible explanation or interpretation of what the orginal intent was.

Damn,( he said,) a potential disagreement with somebody who may be knowledgeable.

The thing is, as far as these issues go, you are basing your interpretation on a history of Christianity: "Scientific Enlightenment;" and modernity (as best as I can decipher - I may be wrong.)
In Judaism, there is a different history of the world.
We believe that the Torah (the first five books of Moses), and the Tanach (the old testament) is True.
We believe this based on 3,000 years of scholarship and intrepretation.
For instance, homosexuality is forbidden.
And there are certainly many Jews who hold the modern day religious intolerance of that particular sin. But that is simply accepting modern dictums on their part. In reality, today, in the Torah, it is a lesser sin than, let's say, slander or gossip. They don't even compare to each other in gravity.
And this is based on 3,000 years of Torah scholarship which is fully applicable to the modern world.
It really all depends on what you (a person) want (s).
Judaism is up to date and accurate in today's world.

Fox,

What "interpretation" do you speak of? You are portraying this as an understandable difference of opinion on subjective matters to evade having to back up specific claims you made on objective matters.

I mean, I can understand if you disagree with the accessment I made that killing homosexuals is "backwards", but that is not what I've been trying to elicit from you.

You alledge contextual and translation errors in the passages I cite that change the meaning of the passages in a significant way. Well, show us. <shrugs>

You claim that all the negative passages about homosexuality are about public acts. This is not true but it is your claim, so again, show us.

You wanted the last words right up to the point that I asked you to actually illustrate what you claim is there, but instead of doing so you immediately seem to want closure with a quip instead, and to portray it all as an "agree to disagree".

That's an admirable way out of a futile disagreement but...

Disagree on what? You haven't done anything but allude to arguments that you refuse to disclose.



Show us.

I claim that you have not shown any of the contextual or translation errors you allude to in the passages I quoted that change the meaning in a significant way.

The previous exchanges we had were just like this one, you would claim the presence of errors and flatly refuse to reveal what you are talking about. Now, you add to the excuses for not revealing the examples that you somehow had already done so.

I must have missed it. Show us. Let's have a look.



A) You don't know my intentions Foxfyre. This is a very odd claim, where you defend not making an argument on the basis of a claim about my receptivity to it.

I'm perfectly willing to "accept" objective examples of what you claimed, but you have not once, in multiple instances, ever even attempted to show us.

I mean, before you write me off as being unreceptive to an argument how about actually presenting it?

This strikes me as yet another pretext for not being able to reveal the items you claim exists.

As it stands, you have merely alluded to its nebulous existence in the face of an expressed interest in it, and now are justifying the refusal to reveal it on the basis of lacking interest.

B) No need to retype Foxfyre. If you have, in fact, presented these examples of contextual and translation errors in the passages I quoted (you haven't) then feel free to copy and paste them here or merely provide a link.

Come now, we all know that you know how to copy and paste a link, or even some text. This is a pretty weak excuse to continue to conceal these nebulous examples. :wink:



Fox, you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I've not said you were ignorant about the Bible, my posts have mainly simply attempted to get you to reveal the errors you claim exists in the face of your obdurate refusal to do so.

Furthermore I contend that you are unfairly characterizing me as unwilling to consider your arguments.

Fox, I don't know if you have noticed but I've asked you to show them many times now.

I'm very much interested in seeing what you allude to but won't reveal.

In fact, the problem seems to center on your inability or unwillingness to reveal your examples than any willingness on my part to accept them.

I state for the record that I am very much interested in seeing the nebulous substantiation you allude to.

You don't seem to want to show us though, and make excuses ranging from not wanting to retype (then copy and paste) or me not being willing to accept (accept what? You refuse to bring anything but a promise of an argument somewhere over the rainbow).

So again, show us. The evasion is transparent Foxfyre.

You've already seen it Craven, and when I pointed out the flaw in your criticism, you never responded. I think it was the discussion of the Genesis account of Sodom. I can't remember which thread it was on, and frankly, as I've already conceded that nothing I will offer will pass muster with you, I don't want to spend the considerable time required to hunt it all up. There is other of my comments on other threads as well but they've all long gone inactive.

Oh just stop it and both of you admit the bible is utter nonsense.

In the sense of "utter" as meaning absolute, complete, or entire, I submit that to ascribe such to the nonsense of the Bible implies a perfection not evidenced; while there is no end of nonsense and absurdity to be found therein, the presence of the occasional truth or cogent observation scattered here and there throughout that work deprives it of meriting any such superlative.

Well I'll concede that what many Christians and non-religious alike believe about the Bible falls into the nonsensical realm all right.

Lol ya.



No i didnt mean complete when i said utter. The bible is a big book. I fon't think it can be "completely" anything. But for the most part it is nonsense. Some parts are ok and teach some hearty morals. The rest is just meaningless religious rhetoric.

Particle physics is meaningless gobbledygook too, if you have no interest in understanding it.
The original "bible," the Torah, is quite meaningful. Both today and tomorrow.
It depends on what you want.

Perhaps I haven't seen it. I certainly don't recall anything of the sort.



The only contextual error you claimed was that when I said I don't believe it was the whole city you said the Bible says it was.

Is that what you are talking about? I know the Bible says the whole town crowded the door, that doesn't mean I believe it Fox (note: I don't believe everything in the Bible).

Furthermore it makes no difference to the context of homophibia in the Bible.



Here you go. It took 5 seconds.

Fox, I hope you don't think this evasion is not transparent. You claim contextual and translation errors in the passages I cite over and over but won't ever even try to illustrate what you are talking about, you claim you have in the past (I know that you have not) yet refuse to show where (because they do not exist), you claim I won't accept anything yet you never bring anything despite my repeated requests, I really am interested in seeing what you come up with but you justify your inability to come up with anything as being because it won't be accepted.

<shrugs> Oh well.

Craven the Bibliography I'm working with is several pages long and growing. I'm writing my own stuff. In several different threads I've explained as well as I can without rewriting whole chapters why I look at the ancient texts in the way I do. The only wayI can 'prove' anything I say re the Bible is for you to accept that I know something about the subject. You have said you don't. So there we are. I can't prove it, and I've agreed to live with the fact you don't accept my point of view.

>shrugs> Oh well.

Wha?

Foxfyre, that doth not sense make.

I could easily demonstrate that it makes no sense, but that'd be pointless because the only way I'll prove it to you is if you accept that I know something about recognition of sense (the way you'll know I perceive sense expertly is based on the argument I could make). So first lets get that out of the way then I'll tell you my kickass argument about why it makes no sense.


Just messin' with ya.

1) That is a logical falsehood.

2) I'm not asking you to prove anything, just to indicate what contextual and translation errors you alledge in the passages I just cited.



What point of view? You have simply refused to illustrate what you are talking about.

Before anyone can get to an "agree to disagree" point the positions to disagree with need to be laid out.

Thus far your stock answer for any criticism of the Bible is that it's taken out of context and had translation errors... but that you can't or won't show that you even have any in mind.

Seriously Fox, I'm not asking for a tome. I quoted a couple of scriptures here.

As per usual you claim contextual and translation errors. I don't ask you to prove them, just to indicate what the nebulous errors are.

Quite frankly it's not asking much. You need not write much on them, you need not even make a convincing case or prove them. I'm beginning to believe you have no such errors in mind and that this is the basis for your refusal to disclose any.

Yes but its true whether you understand or not. And its (alot of it) been proven.

Which is exactly my point about the Torah. And it has (a lot of it) been proven....
:wink:

Ya ok we know a places like Jericho existed. Ok. The stories in it may have have some truth in it but are not wholly true. Its a Mythology and should be read as such. Unless u believe the religious aspects of it. But to me that's like believing Greek MYthology.

In my opinion the Bible is all true IF read in its proper context through the eyes and understanding of those who wrote it. It is important to understand that the Bible is a compliation of allegory, parables, poetry, philosophy, history, biography, and doctrine edited together in way less than perfect chronological order. It is as pointless assigning 21st century morality to 1000 b.c. people as it is to expect remote African primitive tribes to have the same culture and morality as 21st century Europe or America. Anything approximating accurate translation of the scriptures must be done through the perspective and understanding of the people who wrote them.

Craven--
(and Monger, Fox and glad to be muslim, and, I guess, everybody else--)

I know my personal beliefs are a bit murky...

I have long had problems with passages that contain intolerance of homosexuals in the Bible, and I have long rejected the harshness of the 'old laws' that Monger has shared here.

TO ME, the teachings of Christ are incompatible with rejections of people because of sexual orientation, race, or anything, really.

I choose Christ's teachings--and reject anything that opposes it. So, TO ME, if these passages have merit, and if these judgements are "ordained by God"--it is for Christ to judge. My job is to treat others as I would like to be treated, to love them, help them, pray for them and wish them the best. I am thankful that I do have this basic feeling toward other people, muslims, jews, Christians and others...

Craven asked if it was problematic to reject large parts of the Bible, and cling to Christ's teaching. Not at all, once I decided this was right for me. I do think the Bible in totality was meant to be read--and I also believe the Holy Spirit translates it faithfully to those, who are sincerely seeking a relationship with Christ. There are hideous stories and confounding behaviors by God that may give many pause... And, I will leave those for others.

If Christ had said those things, I would indeed have faced quite a decision, and in all likelihood, would not be a Christian. But He was too pure, too right, too forgiving and compassionate. Perfect.

Anyway, I was assured that Jesus hadn't incited anyone to violence--however, I must respond to extra medium, who found an interesting quote.

In Luke 22, around the thirties (verses), it is during the last supper-- Jesus is trying to tell his disciples that he is soon to be gone from them--and though they'd been following him around with no money, no possessions, no physical protection--that they need to get some.

As usual, they took it literally, and said, "Look, we have two swords...is that enough?" I don't like to speak for Christ, but I imagine he was disappointed again, because of his response when someone used one of the swords later that night. (Luke 22:49) Peter (I think) swiped off the ear of one of those arresting Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, and in verse 51, Jesus said "No more of this!" and healed the earless guy. So, to me, this answers Jesus' belief against violence.


Belief in this story isn't what I'm driving at. One doesn't have to believe Islam or Christianity--

What I AM driving at, though, is -- the central figure in Christianity disavows violence, rape and all sorts of disgusting behavior, while the central figure in Islam approves it and perpetrated it.

Mohammad married a 6 year old, and doesn't have one negative mention (that I have found) against rape.

I brought a link to secular Islam on a couple of pages back, where former Muslims detail some of the horrible hadiths that should show anyone how awful and dangerous that religion is.

Anyhoo, not trying to convert--but to draw distinctions between these two religions.

The primary difference between violence in the Bible and violence in he Qu'ran is that the violence in the Bible is ancient history reflecting the understanding of God as understood by an ancient people. Jesus definitely had a different slant and emphasis. At the same time, it is difficult to make a case that Jesus would have forbidden violence to protect the innocent or effect justice--he just demanded absolute intellectual honesty when doing that - no manufactured rationalization or blatant hypocrisy allowed.

The Qu'ran, by comparison, is used as modern directions for a modern people. In that sense, when taken literally, it does become a more dangerous document as Sofia suggests. Fortunately for us, as Islam is the fastest growing world religion, most Muslims do not take every teaching the Qu'ran as literal mandates for people today.

Of course it is. But that is mainly due to lack of knowledge of the Torah.

There is a distinction to be made. Greek Mythology is much more than a bunch of stories - Many of the stories are profound psychological dramas that reveal much about the nature of Man and they were written (or told to be more exact) to do exactly that. All religions have parables or teaching stories. They are meant to appeal on different levels to different kinds of people.
There are those who try to gain wisdom learning on the literal level of scripture.
There are those who try to gain wisdom learning on the psychological level of scripture.
The ethical codes; the moral levels; the legal levels; the levels of simple common sense - these are all different ways to interpret scripture.

I can only make the point about the Torah as distinct from the bible, but what you do call the old testatment - it is a profound work which addresses Man on many levels.
Admittedly, to you, it seems a bunch of fables and stories. But that is simply due to lack of knowledge.
To use the earlier analogy, Quantum mechanics is "hocus-pocus" if you have no knowledge of rudimentary physics.
Quite frankly, all "advanced" sciences (much of which it is difficult to "prove") involves a great deal of background knowledge to understand and believe.
As we live in a "scientific" culture, you take much of this background knowledge for granted, but it is still required to go on to understanding anything more advanced.
I would suggest that most religion is similiar. Certainly Judaism is.