[Religion of Intolerance] Muslim Mass Attacks, Mar 13

The Quran and Bible as scientific texts!?!?!? LOL!!!, at best it's a mix of mysticism, supernatural, and natural science from that period that is currently outdated.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible

 

I don't think either of those books was ever intended by their authors to be scientific texts. It's a huge mistakes for people to try and use them as scientific texts.

 

Very true , but sometimes when a story told , some like to verify its accuracy ..

Like I was surprised to see the story of Moses theologically examined for over 5 centuries between Bible v Torah v. Quran on single word of "Haman"

Or when sometimes an interesting case represented like this one, science and religion overlapped

[youtube]/1zs6z6E_Oik[/youtube]

 

This deserves a serious attempt at an answer, and I don't pretend to know The Gospels as well as I do Jewish texts. But "blessed are the poor in spirit" aside, there is plenty I am troubled by. The biggest of which is that even when Jesus talks about unarguably ethical positions, it's backed up by the unfortunate "Because I said so and also Hell" argument. It's weak even by the standards of contemporary Stoics philosophers in his own time.


I'm sourcing King James.

No one in life serves one master, or chooses between two. We have our families, our in-laws, our taxes, our local and national leaders, our jobs, our children, and so on, and to neglect one of this is by any standard, negligence.

This is a reasonable thing to believe and tell people only if you believe the world is about to end any minute. Otherwise, if you piss away your own future, and take no care of yourself and your life, you are again, guilty of serious neglect and a terrible parent.

Some might see this is a pretty metaphor for living simply, but it essentially says that merely to exist is enough. It isn't. We aren't fowls in the air, and we aren't lilies in the field, and seeking to emulate them won't bring food to the table, contribute to the well-being of your family and community, or educate and rear your kids.

And here he tells us not to worry about it. Seek the kingdom of God first, before you even worry about feeding yourself and everything is going to be fine. It's again, a nice sentiment, but one that a person need not take a trip to sub-Saharan Africa to find grievance with. I've seen plenty of faithful people die of exposure and starvation.

This is the biggie and restates the same sentiment: Don't worry about tomorrow, everything will take care of itself. Should I not save my money? Put equity into a home? Get an education or see that my children get an education? Help those in family or community in need?

In the context of understanding who the Essenses were and how they lived in that time, and what they believed, in particular their apocalyptic brand of Judaism and lack of faith in the future, none of this comes as a surprise.

It's a religious tradition much stricter than that of the prevailing temple Judaism of the day (namely the Pharisees, who are the antecedent to modern-day rabbinical Judaism). In the same speech Jesus makes a claim on divorce that is far stricter than what is permitted in Deuteronomy, and also says that he isn't speaking to refute the old law, but to fulfill it. From a Jewish point of view, this is heretical --particularly since the Messiach from Jewish tradition is supposed to be a war leader and literal king. Not that Jewish heresy is a valid argument, but it's sufficient to explain why he wasn't taken seriously by his own, and who came later that was.

A few generations after Jesus, Jews rallied around Simon bar Kokhba (a title given to him by the famous Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva, who was convinced he was the messiah) never made it past the title of Prince and the Romans made short work of it turning out not so well, but he still gets streets named after him in Israel and a holiday...for some reason.


Even when I think Jesus makes an ethical point that I can respect and agree with, it's hardly new or revolutionary even in the context of his own time and culture.

It's also not as universal or as intellectual as the Hellenic philosophy of the time, particularly the ethical philophy ofGaius Musonious Rufus who wrote about the importance of freedom of speech, the equality of the sexes, the importance of benevolence, about combating all selfishness, as marraige as a natural thing that is the foundation of family and state, and even dispensed practical advice in taking care of diet, health, clothing and furniture. And he did that all without supernatural authority or threats of hell.

Without divine authority to back you up, you'd have a hard time convincing me that his life was less worthy of emulation than Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed (or poor foolish Bar Kohba).

 

correct but if followers claim they are divine texts and we prove there are inaccuracies or errors then we can prove other things as well. simply put, if they were wrong about those thing maybe their wrong about everything else.

 

I respect your opinion, it is well thought out and you are very well versed. I am usually very critical of modern Christianity. However, I don't get out of the Sermon what you do...... not at all, and I am not one to "soften" scripture to fit modern sensibilities (it is obvious you are not either).

Regardless, it is just a difference of opinion.

 

I agree.


Thanks, Deji, for taking the time to let me know your thoughts on it. I really appreciate your thoughtful reply.

 

Well thought-out, and well presented, Deji.

I would only say that, as a matter of interpretation, there is little in what Jesus of Nazareth may or may not have "said" in the 1st and 2nd centuries C. E. that corroborates with modern sensibilities about many of those things you cite in the Sermon on the Mount.

The larger problems with these or any other religious texts, exists and persists because, as others have stated, there is a need and desire to fit ancient agrarian, tribal and largely closed worldviews into a more technologically advanced, more socially developed, and generally more knowledgeable population...or at least, a population with almost immediate access to information (which in and of itself is another problem entirely)...

In larger, more complex evolutions of social order, it is only human nature to ultimately seek out more simple answers to those questions that, on the surface to a layman, are daunting and even frightening, I'd imagine.

Humankind has largely remained as-is since it first appeared some 10,000 years ago, from mental and emotional standpoints. The sprawl of mankind's history on this planet has been, for the most part, what we see playing itself out as in small doses across our own country: the balance sought after between what is "mine" and what belongs to others...what I have and what others need...what I should gather and keep for myself against what I should "allow" or "permit" others to have...what threatens me as opposed to what defends me...

I remember reading not too long ago about a Chinese paleontologist who wanted to set the record straight about the origins of the Chinese people (the chronicling of Chinese civilization, by the way, dates back thousands of years...only ancient Egypt is a parallel, and a relatively poor one at that)...

...essentially as a way to "liberate", I believe were his words, Chinese people from feelings of Western superiority...and to preserve a nationalist idea of China that seemed to be waning with the influence of Western sensibilities...

...he had begun to study some fossils discovered in the high mountain regions with hope of dating them and proving that the people of China were indigenous to that part of the world...

...and he, of course discovered through his fossil examinations that early man migrated to that part of the world, as did many other groups, from the African continent...and the we were all one human family, and not so different and alone as we might tend to think.

I've heard it said that religion is man's way of determining an answer for a question he has not asked...because he either fears that answer or can find no use for it.

Certainly in adulthood, I have never taken the Bible literally, and despite my admiration for the story of Jesus of Nazareth (who, for the Jewish people of his time, was indeed something of a revolutionary voice...even accounting for the likely influence of Essene doctrine into his thinking)...

...I have long since come to understand that religion (any religion) is hardly a road map of any kind for where we need to go, as individuals or groups of people, as it is a marker for where we have come from...

 

Religious figures often speak in metaphorical manners (i.e. mustard seed, geese, fish for people, etc). What I get from this, is that Jesus was being critical of the kingdom of God (Israel). Who was the other master? In my opinion, he was referring to the Romans. He would later go on to state in a more facetious manner "give back to Caesar that which is Caesar's, but give back to God which is God's".

 

I think in that particular bit, it was about not seeking fortune at the expense of duty to God. My point is that it's not as much "you can't take it with you" as it is a much more maximalist "sell everything you own and follow me to Heaven" sort of thing.

Fortune cookies, horoscopes, L Ron Hubbard and most religious writings old and new tend to be purposely vague, but Jesus, outside of what are clearly parables, tended to be a refreshingly straight shooter, but it also makes him easier to critique, at least if we trust that what is said in Matthew and the other books of the gospel is an accurate rendering of his words.

 

That's why I felt the need to contrast it with Hellenic philosophy. The older I get and find myself revisiting it, the more impressed I am at how relevant it is to modern life.

Most religions are traditions we are all born into and few appreciate being critically examined. I don't think anything is above that kind of scrutiny and any adherent that is threatened by it should heed the advice of not taking out their own insecurity in their faith out on others engaging in honest inquiry.

Well, this is why the writers and thinkers of the era of Socrates, the Islamic Golden Age, the Renaissance and Enlightenment are so important to me...they all were in momentary moments of prosperity and had the liberty to sit and actually think and question civilization as they knew it, and none were satisfied with the status quo, even if at each stage, they had to rediscover to some extent what had been said and forgotten.

This reminds me of "Land of Israel" studies -- where archeology is unfortunately blurred with religion to promote political ideas. But despite the best efforts of the Israeli government, no archeological evidence has been uncovered to support that the Exodus happened (not that I'm saying it didn't). Dig a hole in Israel and you are far more likely to find something Greek, Roman, Egyptian or Nabataean. It makes major headlines in Israel when they find a coin with a King Solomon's name on it or an old Roman aqueduct. It would be a really, really big deal if anyone found credible archeological evidence of something from the earlier eras in the Old Testament. And trust me, I'd be the last person to be jaded if they did.

And for me, being ernest in reading and wanting to understand, I was always disappointed when I would ultimately hit the wall of "because God said so" or "because God was only kidding when he said to kill my son" or "because my mom was a virgin" or "because the archangel Gabriel told me so" as insufficient reason to believe what I was told, because those things were offered as proof.

I think the Bible is deservedly among the canon of civilization's greatest works, especially as I started learning Hebrew and realized how witty and complex the writing was (verse on an Elizabethan scale) that I think gets lost in translation, but as respected literature and an artifact of the ancient past. I think that's more than enough respect for what it is, and in my humble opinion,I think if you are expecting enlightenment from reading it, you'd be better off listening to Lightnin' Hopkins or Leonard Cohen.

 

Well if they were never trying to be science texts, then they can't really be wrong about science. It can be shown that the science in the religious non-science text isn't correct, but it doesn't prove anything else.

If someone is trying to (mis)use the text as a science text it can prove that they are misusing it.

 

if the words are inspired by god how can they be wrong about anything? vague sure, but completely wrong?

 

We get it, Trump will be the best president in the U.S.A history.

 

...you may already know that the New Testament is a Hellenized document, for all practical purposes.

The apostle Paul (who is regarded as both literal and complementary author of the New Testament) was a Hellenized Jew, by his own admission...versed in reading and writing both Greek and Aramaic...there is substantial debate as to the "authenticity" among actual scholars of the "Christianity" that has evolved into what we recognize now, and what it might have been or been intended to be, precisely because Paul's view of Jesus of Nazareth's message and mission was so different from the Jewish followers of Jesus at the time...essentially a Greco-Roman reinterpretation of an Aramaic belief...the schism is downplayed enough among Christians to suggest that it was simply doctrinal, but it's more than likely that was not the case, and Paul's "Christianity" won the debate in the larger world it was presented in...every one of the New Testament documents writes from a Hellenized/Greco-Roman tenor...including the Gospels themselves...so the instinct to recognize some of the similarities by you is particularly astute.

Very much so. 'S why I love my mother so much. You couldn't find a more devoted Christian than her. But she always encouraged me to ask questions and seek out answers. She would say that "faith" rewards the seeker and not the conqueror. A person who has all the answers (or in this case, all the answers s/he needs) is a person who hasn't asked enough questions.

...Old saying among some older archaeologists is that the deeper they dig, the blacker the world gets...kinda-sorta racist (whatever that means nowadays)...but the point is that history is history, and no matter what lengths people go through to try to re-write it or dismiss it, it's there. It's also why anybody (maybe even especially Christians) should distance themselves from any of this "creationism" nonsense that's going around. And for the record, many archeologists believe that there might have been a "kingdom of Israel" as mentioned in the Old Testament...but it was hardly of the size or import that it is mentioned...Kings David and Solomon may have been the equivalent of tribal chieftans, whose "kingdoms" may have only been as wide or as large (ironically enough) as the Gaza strip or Lebanon is today...

Biggest problem with "God" is his mercurial temperament...he's vindictive, churlish, capricious and cruel in the Old Testament...and compassionate and thoughtful and patient in the New Testament. He's the God that tells Joshua to go conquer the land of Caanan because he promised it to them ages before and kill anybody who doesn't like it...and then tells everybody that his kingdom is not of this world and not to seek out earthly restitution for a temporary mortal plight.

I get it. Doesn't sound at all like a "Supreme Being" who loves us or who has always loved us...if he can do no better than behave exactly the way men behave when they don't get their way or when they're greedy and mean-spirited, only to later take a altogether different approach...kind of the way people tend to evolve as they live their lives...sounds an awful lot like people reviewing events and situations and discovering things about themselves and the world they live in...people working out answers to difficult questions, and sometimes coming up with good answers and sometimes not-so-good answers...and things only tend to "evolve" from trial-and-error...by holding onto what works and discarding what doesn't...or ascribing higher meaning to baser instincts in order to justify the paradox they create by attempting to have them co-exist.

Most significant lines in that Sermon on the Mount Jesus gave were: "...You have heard it said....But I say unto you..."...out with the old and in with the new, in essence. A wise or smart man doesn't ever offer proof of anything to anyone...he simply offers them the opportunity to observe things from a different perspective, and determine his own choice. It's always amazing how little the truth needs to be defended, and how much work it takes to bandy about a lie.

...and as my all-time favorite MC, Chuck D of Public Enemy, would say...
"Sho Nuff".

 

It doesn't matter who inspired them, man wrote them. Man's knowledge at that time was even more limited than man's knowledge now. The context of those times is different than the context now.

But it would only be wrong if it attempted to answer science questions. That was never the intent of the religious texts you mentioned.

It's a minor thing really. If I'm telling a story to illustrate some point and the story takes place in 1947, but I said that a character in the story traveled to the state of Alaska, that part of my story is definitely wrong. But unless the point of my story is about Alaskan statehood it doesn't really invalidate everything else about my story.

 

Bart Ehrman vs. James White vs. Michael Brown vs. Yusuf Ismael debates

over the Internet is sort of entertaining/interesting

( atheist ,Christian,Jewish ,muslim all PH.D. Scholars )

 

If we are going to talk about religion, shouldn't Scientology be represented?

Or maybe the Greek Gods, or Roman ones, Summarian? Babylonian? Perhaps we should bring in the Gnostic sects?

At some point humans will decide that all the current religions are mythos too.

DD

 

Go ahead and grant us your wisdom on the Religions you mention. No one is stopping you.