I’ll try and make this as clear as possible. Most of this comes in response to those who claim Christianity as a religion but then say that doesn’t include gay people, etc. and those within Islam who claim that the extremists aren’t the real Islam and that Islam is peaceful and loving.
I just don’t understand it.
Yes, you can say that they’re taking an extreme interpretation of the original documents, but the fact is that it’s still there for them to make an interpretation of. The Bible really does contain old law and Jesus really does say that he’s not there to abolish the Old law and God really does remain mean and capricious throughout the New Testament. If that doesn’t jive with your personal beliefs then that’s awesome, but just realize that, if it doesn’t, then you start to have to call into question the whole text that you base your entire belief system on that continually says that you should take the whole thing as one entire sum.
In the same way, I would never count every single Arabic person as terrible and that they’re all going to strap a bomb to their chest. But you can’t sit there and say that the religion is a religion of peace when the penance for leaving the religion is death. I believe that Islam (and every other Abrahamic religion) promotes violence and isn’t built for a 21st century society. People selectively forget those parts that the extremists get their theology from and say that their religion is a religion of peace but the text itself, which the whole thing is based on and is our truest link to what the prophet said, clings to those violent roots.
So what is religion when no one follows the religion? Should there be a new community of those who gather around principals of Islam but don’t adhere to it strictly? If you don’t have a strict construction of your original text, are you truly a follower of that religion? Should you claim that religion if the text is presented as a whole but you don’t agree with the whole of the text?
Not all Islamic leaders decree death for those who leave.
Not all Christian denominations refuse to perform same-sex weddings.
It’s still Islam and Christianity, just a new denomination. That’s how we got Protestantism in the first place: a bunch of people didn’t agree with the interpretation that was extant, and made up their own. Then, within Protestantism, there are a thousand other sects, all making up the rules to suit themselves.
We get to do this. We’re free participants of the process of deciding what we want to believe. No one has the right to tell anyone else what they believe; honorable people can have disagreements.
There’s a great deal that you clearly don’t know. Your reference to the words " your original text" makes your whole argument quite muddled. Your attempt to talk about Islam and Christianity simultaneously makes things worse.
Islam takes the Koran as the supreme revelation; also the Hadiths to some extent. They are the centerpiece of Islam. No Muslim denies that the Koran or any part is a revelation from God.
Christianity existed for generations before some parts of the New Testament were written, and for three centuries before the official canon was finalized. The centerpiece of Christianity is Jesus Christ. While the Bible surely plays a very large role for many, thousands of Christians throughout the centuries have lived without the entire text of the Bible. There’s been ongoing debate since the early centuries about which books belong in the Bible, and of course still disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. So the role played by the Bible in Christianity is different from that played by the Koran in Islam.
In your paragraph about what the Bible “really contains”, you set forth your opinions about what the Bible contains. Many people have studied the Bible far more than you have, and haven’t reached the same conclusions as you. Thus it’s likely your conclusions are wrong. “Jesus really does say that he’s not there to abolish the Old law”; you refer to Matthew 5:17-20. Why your interpretation of this passage is incorrect has been explained in a vast number of prior threads, so I won’t repeat it here. If your interpretation of the Bible isn’t correct, there’s little reason for any Christian to care what judgments you make about us. I’d go out on a limb and suggest that most Muslims aren’t terribly concerned about your judgments either.
Why are you assuming that a “strict literalist” approach to religious texts has an authenticity that other approaches lack? Sure, strict literalists themselves obviously do believe this, but why would an external observer accept this? There’s nothing inherent in the concept or phenomenon of “religion” which places fundamentalist textual literalism at the centre. The observed reality of both Christianity and Islam is that most adherents are not simplistic textual literalists. Why should we take that to be inauthentic?
And there’s a wide variety in “official canons” in Christianity. You have the general Protestant canon with 66 books going all the way to the Ethiopian large canon with over 80 books.
OP: Muslims around the world are not forgetting that certain verses are in the Qur’an; they’re familiar with the concept of abrogation. The same goes for Christians, Jews, and members of other faith groups. While you may believe that those religions are based on those particular verses, it’s patently obvious that the actual practitioners of those religions do not hold that view.
Neither of these items are in their respective holy books though. The Koran says there’s no compulsion in religion ; the Bible says to love thy neighbour like thyself (well fuck *you *guys, I hate myself ! :)) and also not to cast the first stone.
In both cases, the position is reached via a lot of squinting juuust right at other passages that might support pre-existing biases.
Protestantism is actually the other way around, though - of course it evolved a lot over the years but originally it was a case of returning to the scripture (making people actually read the scripture, for starters - one of the major deviations from Catholicism was an emphasis on printing the Bible in translated forms that any yokel could read instead of liturgical Latin) instead of just listening to the deviations proposed by “corrupt” priests and trying to buy one’s way into heaven.
[QUOTE=UDS]
Why are you assuming that a “strict literalist” approach to religious texts has an authenticity that other approaches lack? Sure, strict literalists themselves obviously do believe this, but why would an external observer accept this? There’s nothing inherent in the concept or phenomenon of “religion” which places fundamentalist textual literalism at the centre. The observed reality of both Christianity and Islam is that most adherents are not simplistic textual literalists. Why should we take that to be inauthentic?
[/QUOTE]
The OP’s got a point however when it comes to “believers” going actively against proscriptions that are written black-and-white, no flowery bullshit, no parable. For example, the Bible features a number of proscriptions against “moneylending” (at interest, that is) and divorce. They’re not subject to interpretations : Gawd plainly says it’s no good. But you have Christian bankers and Christian third weddings regardless.
As for why a pick-and-choose, buffet approach to the Holy Writ would be inauthentic : doesn’t it follow from the idea that those are Og’s own words, laid down as a guidebook to salvation ? It’s not like Og’s going to look the other way or forget the entry conditions to his celestial pad, is it ?
The simple answer is that these people are not religious literalists. Most religious people are not.
Religions tend to have books, yes. But they also have history, centuries of interpretation, culture, individual religious leaders, etc. And when push comes to shove, the literalists tend to lose, because non-literalists have the flexibility to stay relevant. You can say “Yes, but the books are more important!”, but that doesn’t change the reality that for most people they are not. They are just a part of the puzzle.
I’m sure you’ve heard all of the justifications for modern beliefs not matching various holy books. Mostly, they hinge on the idea that times were different back then- everything was harsher and so religious commandments were harsher. Everyone was on war footing. Now things are more relaxed, and we are no longer under divine martial law.
The other is metaphorical. Kill the unbeliever can mean murder someone. Or it can mean to kill the unbeliever and unholy urges in yourself.
In the end, people mostly believe the religion they were raised in, and try not to worry too much about he disconnects between their personal beliefs and their holy books.
Think of it like the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But it was also clearly written with 18th Century America in mind, and there are places where it worries about stuff we don’t worry about much anymore, things that come up that it didn’t really plan for, and times in the past when they thought they were clearly being constitutional, but we now see as not being so.
So we rely on the text, but also the principles behind the text as well as the cumulative history of interpretation.
Very complicated question. ITR Champion gave you a great response, but if I may guide you on one part of your post, the part you referenced where Jesus said he has not come to abolish the Law and the prophets. (Usually refers to entire OT)
You can google this issue and find many “experts” giving you commentary which may or may not satisfy you. Here is one simple explanation that may suffice if you are interested…
Let me also add this, I for one do not believe Jesus’ intention was to throw everything away from the First Teatament (like some denominations believe) and start a new religion. Although he did establish a New Covent because the first covenant was broken by the Jewish people. (But the Old Covenant that began with Abraham has not disappeared regarding his promises to Israel.)
The ENTIRE Holy Bible is the word of God and meant for our instruction, reproof, correction, encouragement. You just can’t disregard context when interpreting or applying the words to now.
For example, if it says, these laws are made between me and the nation of Israel (Mosaic Law) don’t just assume it is meant for everyone today in China, America, Bolivia, etc.
Anyhow, like I said, not a simple question, which usually means, no simple answer.
I absolutely understand why people would not give a literalist view: it doesn’t hold up in modern society. However, my argument is this…the original text is that which is handed down by God or is a supreme revelation in Islam. It is the most important message that God/Muhammed has for the world. My problem arises from people who celebrate those figures and worship the ground they walk on, but then don’t hold everything they say as law. I have no problem with that, but then why claim the religion? When the large large majority of your people don’t follow what the prophet originally claimed word for word (as I assume the same text says they should), are 1 Billion people truly Islamic? It seems like most of those people really are just spiritual people who have some basic Islamic principles in their life. So when I say that Islam is a religion or violence and not peace, I mean that Islam in its most distilled, original form is a religion of violence and the large majority of people who follow Islam aren’t violent people, mostly because they don’t actually follow that pure, original form.
IMHO what we are seeing is what Joseph Campbell meant when he told us that “All Religions Are True But None Are Literal”
The point was that to be relevant to a changing society (and that was the case specially at the time the bible and others sacred texts were put down in writing and no longer an oral tradition) the holy texts are not to be read literally. It’s all story, myth, metaphor. Some choose to believe that a myth is a lie so they become atheists, others like many modern religious people are realizing that Campbell had a good point; if one just thinks that the ancient texts are supposed to be followed literally, that one will have a bad time. Not just the literalist, but society will.
Reinterpretation and abrogation is not only reasonable, but necessary for religion to remain relevant to a changing society.
Nitpick : Islamic dogma is that Muhammad didn’t say anything of his own - the Koran is, purportedly, verbatim godspeak (it’s even in the Koran, in the Al Ahqaf sura, verse 9) with no alterations or original material by DJ Mow(PBUH).
The hadiths are another matter obviously, but from what I understand they’re more for context/clarification… and according to some hadiths, Muhammad himself was somewhat opposed to the collection of hadiths in the first place. Because he was just a faillible guy who, though animated by the best intentions and the help of a one-way walkie-talkie from god, could fuck up once in a while. While they are a vanishing minority, to this day there are sects of *sola scriptura *Muslims for that very reason.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Reinterpretation and abrogation is not only reasonable, but necessary for religion to remain relevant to a changing society.
[/QUOTE]
But surely that is the crux of the matter, isn’t it ?
Regardless of which precise god or version of god we’re talking about, they’re always eternal and perfect. From which it follows that if they handed down a perfect guide to life, the Universe and everything at one point ; it must be valid for all points. Society might change, but god doesn’t - if he did, that would mean they either wasn’t perfect before or he’s not perfect now. Since it is dogma that god is perfect, it must perforce be dogma that they are unchanging as well.
Now, you might argue that while god is perfect and unchanging they know that man is, or was, a bunch of ignorant wankers ; and as such the message they handed down by way of Jesus, Muhammad et al. was tailored specifically for the understanding of that one specific set of wankers, enabling them to wrap their thick heads around the complex divine will and/or plan. But in that case, and if we assert that mankind or society has fundamentally evolved since the 7th century (which I’m not 100% we can, but my whole argument fails if I don’t so shaddap and take my axiom :)), where’s the new and updated message that says “it’s really OK to lend money after all and you can divorce your wife and now that you’ve cracked DNA we can have a serious talk about My divine process of evolution and how really fricking clever it is, you gotta admit ?”
For once, I agree with everything ITR champion said!
If someone does believe that their scripture is the literal Word of God, but doesn’t follow it, then yes, they are being hypocritical. And yes, there are definitely people who fit that description, mostly those who haven’t given their belief much rigorous thought.
There are also people who belong to denominations that claim that their scripture is the Word of God, but who don’t believe so themselves. That’s hypocritical in the same way that being a gay Republican is, I suppose: the people in charge (or at least the ones who were in charge when the official positions were decided) might think it’s a major issue, but if a particular member of the organization doesn’t think so and the PTB don’t think its worth kicking them out over, then what do you care?
But even those two groups together don’t make up the majority of Christians. The Catholic Church is very clear (and correct) that the writings in the Bible were canonized by the early Church because they exemplified and conformed to the teachings of the Church, not the other way around. The United Methodist Church (like most Protestant denominations) does hold that the Bible is a source of doctrine, but they place it alongside Tradition, Reason, and Experience in that regard, and their official doctrinal statement includes a lengthy section explaining that the Bible is a historical document, the understanding of which changes in light of new information about the world. I’m sure other denominations have similar positions.
And why shouldn’t they?
There is certainly nothing in the Bible that even suggests that the whole thing should be taken as a unified lump sum; it’s very clearly a collection of disparate writings from divers authors with multiple viewpoints. There are a couple of passages that amateur fundamentalists will try to twist to make them say that, but they don’t come close. The idea that it’s all inerrant or dictated by God has even less support from the text itself; that’s not what the Bible claims to be.
For most of history, Christians tended to assume that everything in the Bible was factually true, but it wasn’t considered to be an essential belief even by those who held it. Even today, the idea that you can’t be a Christian without believing that the Bible is the literal Word of God is an extreme position even among Biblical literalists.
The religious people don’t have a problem with it-- it’s what they believe after all. The religious leaders don’t have a problem with it, outside the occasional fundamentalist. If God exists, he doesn’t seem to be striking anyone down with lightening. And if God doesn’t exist, the religion doesn’t have to be up to his standard at all. Society seems to be chugging along…
You know and I know this is all stuff is made up, to suit human purposes.
Religions that can’t adapt aren’t going to suit human purposes for long, and will die on the vine, leaving the versions of religion that can adapt to thrive.
try and make this as clear as possible. Most of this comes in response to those who claim Christianity as a religion but then say that doesn’t include gay people, etc. and those within Islam who claim that the extremists aren’t the real Islam and that Islam is peaceful and loving.
There are several references where it has been said that the Bible is GOD BREATHED and thus should be followed. Here is one of them from the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3…
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
So, it is up to the individual to read the word and apply it carefully. I do not believe
you can just pull out a verse here or a verse there without understanding its context before applying it to everyday experience.
The Mosaic Law is a good example. Much of those 613 Mitzvahs cannot be applied today because the ceremonial law requires a Temple and Levite Priests and the Civil Laws require a Theocracy. The moral laws are basically of the heart, so they can be followed and practiced today.
In addition, the New Testament confirms much of the moral laws as provided in the First Teatament. So, there should not be much confusion today as to what pleases God and what is the will of God for His people to follow and obey.
The particular cases on the OP largely boil down to cherry-picking religious precepts to justify what you want to do anyway. It’s rather like “religious accommodations” to prison inmates who would not be in prison in the first place if they had actually followed the rules of their professed religion.
