Sorry for beating an old horse to death, but I want to hear an expansion upon this discussion: <br> <br> Ok, I understand that words are subjective and can be viewed with whatever perception the beholder has.... <br> ...but, aren't there other religious texts by known leaders to counteract this? <br> Like for example, in Islam there is additional scripture known as the Hadith that reinforces the virtues that the Quran stresses. Its a compilation of what the companions of the Prophet observed of his behavior, and the lessons they learned by it. It also has sayings and quotes that they heard Him say. So, in essence, it solidifies the basic principles behind the text, making extreme deviation from the original meaning pretty hard. By the way, this text is what I would most closely relate the Bible too, because it is not actually "the Word of God", but rather a compilation of the messages that were conveyed to the followers (apostles, if you will). <br> Although, not completely, because The Bible is also "the Word of God", but not directly? (Although, that is just my opinion, feel free to correct me if I am wrong). <br> However, I guess I would more closely relate the Torah and the Quran, because of their "Direct Revelation from God" <br> But what do I know anyways? This is all based on perception..
Thanks for starting this, hamza. I have read though the Koran...though not in as much depth and with as much frequency as the Bible. So understand that from my posts on this. The Bible is different from the Koran in a few key ways. First, it's not one coherent book written in any one person's lifetime. In fact, it's sometimes radically incoherent. Some of it purports to be historically accurate...some of it is vague as to that...and some of it is clearly story. I think when Luke starts his Gospel and the Book of Acts saying, "I'm writing all this down to preserve it" the reader is to understand the author's purpose differently than the he would understand the purpose of the author of Job or even Genesis. Second, there are only bits and pieces of the Bible where it's said that God is speaking directly...and some points where He speaks indirectly through a prophet. I don't know if Isaiah is really saying, "God told me this...blah blah blah..." or if he's saying: "Look, this is what God thinks about this....because we know enough of the character of God to know these are the things He values." I'm not a literalist. I do not believe all the stories of the Old Testament in particular to be 100% true...because the authors don't seem to be that concerned with it. I think the authors of the New Testament are different in their approach...and most of the New Testament are letters that were circulated around the early church, anyway. Similar to the Hadith...I look to how the early church behaved...what they wrote, etc. There are lots of letters circulated among churches and Roman authorities regarding the early Christians and what they believed...and more importantly to me...how they acted on what they believed. Now that has not stopped people and the Church from perverting the Gospel to suggest it means something different....and many Christians today are fascinated to discover that the early church saw things differently than they've been taught. But that stuff is helpful to me the way the Hadith is helpful to you. Finally, I'll note this distinction...and as you say, this is my perception. As far as I can tell, Jesus Christ didn't give two craps for religion. So I'm not concerned with "proving up" God in that way or being married to some dogmatic structure. I'm trying to follow Jesus, not a religion. The religion that we call Christianity has been about a lot of strange things over the past 2,000 years or so....the word itself has so much baggage. And I find that often those things have absolutely zero to do with Jesus. I'm not interested in defending Christendom, because Jesus never seemed interested in defending anything like that...or even interested in defending Jews merely because they were Jews. What he kept insisting was that to know God was to turn yourself inside out in service to other people...even making yourself subject to other people out of love...because all of humanity is created in God's image, and His dream is to bring it all back together again. And as you do that, you find the desires of your heart change to be less about you and more about the things He cares about...I've seen that in myself, and it's my own best evidence for God. My view of "Christianity" is partnering with God to be a part of that...to help bring heaven to earth...and to extend the grace of God made known through Jesus. That's it. That makes you my brother no matter what you say of God...or Jesus...or anything else. Even what you say about the Rockets!
Someone once said it's not too hard to say that Jesus came from God, but it is a bigger concept to say God is like Jesus. I personally think Jesus Christ separates the Bible from other texts. I may be just repeating what MadMax posted, but the words of Jesus speak of living, it is a way of life. The message of Jesus is a love message; a love for the least of people, the last of people and the lost of people. A love that took Jesus to a very painful death, a sacrifice offering for the sins of the world. Jesus went around asking people to follow him, but he didn't ask anyone to follow him at his execution. He just asked His Father to forgive those who crucified him. How deep a love is that? Jesus died completely poor in worldly treasure, but rich in love for others. What is the real treasure of life? Isn't it love for others? Is there a greater love than forgiveness?
First of all, let me assure you I was not trying to offend - my statement above was "matter of fact" because that's exactly how I view it. That being said - yes, we can find numerous texts that would appear to be "counteractive" to selective interpretations. But I think that's an illogical argument against the subjectivity of supposedly unaltered original religous texts. Sure, we could all find what we think is the most legitimate interpretation of passage X, but unless everyone agrees on that interpretation, nothing has changed at all. Of course, in reality, there is very little agreement about interpretations, making such a statement ultimately ludicrous. If such is the case, can you explain the great distribution of interpretations? I would posit that such distribution is the inevitable result of a human construct. Without arguing about the "sacredness" of a particular text (a different topic), it is unavoidable that factions will develop as people fight for power, prestige, and control. Again, I'm not trying to make a claim about the validity to which all religions want to aspire to - I'm claiming that even if such validity was achievable, interpretations and struggle make any such validity moot. If we could prove that the Quran was really the word of god, does anyone here think all christians would convert the next day? Of course not. Interesting. I think I may have to thumb through the Hadith. Thanks. Wholly dependent upon which sect of christians you talk to. And faith. Making arguments somewhat...ineffective.
Beautiful words such as this have me continuing to question my pseudo-agnostic and sometimes atheist mindset. Thanks again Max.
<br> Haha, don't worry, I was far from offended, I just wanted you to expand upon your statements. <br> See, my thing is, I whole heartedly agree with your thoughts about interpretations and all the such. I believe that the original text could still be considered "unaltered, and flawless", but our perspective/interpretations corrupt it. I think that any religious text is applicable to everyone, and can hold a lot of benefits, but the establishment of a "central" Church or Mosque, and a certified leader ruins it (Once again, a whole different discussion in itself). I think you could keep any text completely pristine, but only if one person, or faction for that matter is not allowed to dominate religious affairs. Think about it, if the Pope (sorry, another head leader was not coming to mind at the moment...) views a certain part of the bible to represent such and such, the general public sentiment becomes the same. That's how texts change, right?? The Quran, or Bible, or even Torah for that matter could be completely perfect, and the same as when they first were written, but if the groups in power deem certain scripts to be something they are not, and you have a misrepresentation of text, the book becomes flawed. That's where I thought the Hadith played a part in keeping the interpretations relatively (of course, they can never be completely like those of the original Writer's) on topic. But of course, for those conditions to be met, the Book has to be completely preserved. <br> See, and that's just the thing, if the Quran is the word of God, why would anyone convert? From what I have gathered through my studies of Islam (once again, I speak for no one but myself, and this is solely my opinion), Christians and Jews who abide by their religious laws are just fine the way they are. It is believed that The Bible, and The Torah, along with The Quran, and The Psalms, are Books that hold The Word of God. So, why would followers of "The Word of God" be expected to convert? I don't think that is the case. To back up this argument, Why does the Quran allow marriages to anyone who follows any of the 4 Books of God, if they are a true believer? Why would God allow anyone to marry a "non-believer". See, that's the difference I find between many Christian views, and Islamic ones (if viewed subjectively). A "true" Muslim believes that Jews, and Christians are true followers of God, whereas, I don't think (could be wrong) that Christians believe Muslims to be believers. But, I think that is a direct result of the Quran being "revealed" at a later date than the Bible, Psalms, and Torah. The Quran acknowledges Jesus and Moses to be prophets, and Christians and Jews to be "earlier" people of God. Of course, when the other Books were revealed, Muslims did not even Exist, so how could they be recognized... However, if looked at, the Bible "might, depending on interpretations" hold some foretelling of Mohammed (P.B.U.H)... We have: <br> Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 18: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." <br> So, a Prophet from among their brethren.... General Muslim belief is that Abraham father two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Both were righteous, and had a great lineage. Isaac's bloodline eventually produced Jesus, and therefore Christians. While his brother Ishmael's, produced Mohammed (P.B.U.H) and therefore, Muslims. As far as God's words being spoken through his mouth, that's what Muslims believe the Quran to be, because he recited, and preached it. <br> http://www.alislam.org/library/links/Biblical_prophecy.html <br> ^Anyone interested, check that link for some food for though (Once again, I am not advocating any of this to be true, or fact, just a topic for discussion). <br> Perhaps, could it be that all 3 major religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) were meant to be pieces of a larger picture? And, perhaps, through time that picture became distorted through interpretations, different perspectives, and discrepancies (man made) to the texts? <br> It is my opinion, that all 3 are firm believers in God, and the people of God, if they follow their Scripture. How is it a single persons fault, if through time anything has become distorted, due to any, and whatever reasons? If a person in modern time is abiding in a pious manner, wouldn't God, a "Perfect Being" respect, and realize that they have no control over something like that? <br> Anyways, I don't even think I responded to anything But hopefully, that can spark some further discussion <br> What I really want to talk about is the similarities between the religions, and what could possibly be the grand picture (If those are even relative possibilities) <br> P.S. Madmax, that was a terrific post
<br> hahaha do tell... <br> Perhaps someone could offer some insight if it was known what you were refrencing
But, how can they all be people of the same God, if they don't believe in the same God? Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate. Christians believe that Jesus is God. Jews and Muslims don't believe that, so they don't believe in the same God as Christians.
The Satanic Verses that you are talking about, according to what most people have written were spoken by Muhammed (P.B.U.H.), but according to most Islamic views, they were the words of Satan, and by that fact, retracted from the Quaran. The basic gist of the verse is as follows: Muhammad says that the three Goddesses that the Meccans worshiped were real, which also took away from Islams monotheistic nature, however, they were later retracted, and Muhammad revealed another passage in which the Goddesses were belittled. I, however, don't know much about them, but for more information, read Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses". The crazy thing about that book is, people in Iran to this day still want Rushdie killed for writing the book.
I think there is some overlap...I think there are truths about God that are grasped by all three. If a Muslim tells me that God cares about the poor, that echoes what I understand to be true...it doesn't make it less true because the guy who said it reads the Koran and prays in a mosque as opposed to reading the Bible and praying with a church. I believe Jesus to be the embodiment of Truth, however. And I think it's less than respectful to tell a Muslim, Jew or any one else that "we all believe in the same thing"...because it indicates I'm not really listening to him when he tells me what he believes. In the end, I believe God is likely more merciful than we can possibly fathom.
The book is a very fictional novel, not a historical treatise. It is probably not particularly useful in getting a clear understanding of the different historical and ideological viewpoints.
yes sir, which is exactly why i cant understand why there should such a ridiculous uproar over this book.
I don't think you can really present that as an idea. It seems as if every time the word 'prophet' is used in the Bible, Muslims try to relate it to Muhammad. The 'brethren' Moses probably meant were the other 11 Jewish tribes. The prophet mentioned is most likely Jesus because if you look at the rest of the Deuteronomy 18 it mentions the Levites, one of the 12 tribes.
<br> Quite frankly, does it even matter? Think about it, all monotheists believe God to be the most supreme being. Then, why so would God (whoever God may be) take preference to one righteous person, or group as opposed to another? Why would God, pick between humans (believed to be his people) based on small differences and semantics of text? Think about the ideology that goes along with this. Christians believe that Jesus dies for all man's sins, and you must submit yourself before him. Why would Jesus (when he is willing to die for all mankind's sins) say that only Christians can go to heaven? It just doesn't equate. Think about it...Does a father take preference to one child over the others, no matter how they act? God is (supposed to be) the most merciful, caring being. Why would he allow someone who has lived their life in a completely humble, pious way go to hell? And, at that, just because the Book of God, that was revealed to his people was misinterpreted, or "outdated "even.. <br> So, in general, what I mean to say is; that through my interpretations of "Religious Material", my opinion is: <br> -That all people (according to monotheistic belief) are of the same God. -That God is one supreme Entity -That God does not change, it is our interpretations, and beliefs about God that change -Religious Books, and text are looked at subjectively. They hold evident truths for everyone, but are interpreted differently from person to person. -Different interpretations are not detrimental, as long as they are of righteous values, and relatively follow the "right" path -The Books should be used primarily as a guidance to everyday life, to follow the "Word of God", (in an ideological sense) to uphold spiritual cleanliness. -If God is the same as described in the four Holy Books, any person of faith (as long as you believe in the "concept" of God) who is pious could be allowed into Heaven (granted that they are monotheistic). <br> That is of course, if you even believe in God <br> But yeah, do realize that I do not mean to offend anyone. Also, these views are not reflective of anyone, and I only speak on behalf of myself.
How do Muslims know that Satan was speaking during the versus and not during the rest of the Q'ran? DD
<br> How does anyone know anything? <br> Its just a blanket of beliefs.. <br> If the good message gets across, what else matters?
