Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[bilby]

You are wrong. In Islamic theology Yahweh is Allah. Moses (or Musa) is considered an Islamic prophet and was spreading the teachings of Islam. Muslims consider the Torah as being equal in sacredness to the Quran. And before you go and say that this sounds crazy and makes no sense because these are clearly different gods. Does it sound more crazy than the rest of it?

What am I wrong about? Your going off on some tangent I don't even know. Yes Islam considers Moses a messenger/ prophet of GOD. No, they do not consider the Torah to have th e same significance as the Qur'an. What difference does it make if they did though? And yes, they consider the God of Abraham to be their God and the only true GOD. Again what is your point?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Nobody said you were wrong. At least, not in that post - which was directed at someone else.

You are wrong about pretty much everything; but that post wasn't about you.

So you were wrong about that. As well.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are wrong. In Islamic theology Yahweh is Allah. Moses (or Musa) is considered an Islamic prophet and was spreading the teachings of Islam. Muslims consider the Torah as being equal in sacredness to the Quran. And before you go and say that this sounds crazy and makes no sense because these are clearly different gods. Does it sound more crazy than the rest of it?

What am I wrong about? Your going off on some tangent I don't even know. Yes Islam considers Moses a messenger/ prophet of GOD. No, they do not consider the Torah to have th e same significance as the Qur'an. What difference does it make if they did though? And yes, they consider the God of Abraham to be their God and the only true GOD. Again what is your point?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

It's equal in sacredness. Both are the word of God. But according to Islamic jurisprudence later suras trump earlier suraste. So the Quran holds more weight for mullahs.

That is my point

 

[popsthebuilder]

What am I wrong about? Your going off on some tangent I don't even know. Yes Islam considers Moses a messenger/ prophet of GOD. No, they do not consider the Torah to have th e same significance as the Qur'an. What difference does it make if they did though? And yes, they consider the God of Abraham to be their God and the only true GOD. Again what is your point?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

It's equal in sacredness. Both are the word of God. But according to Islamic jurisprudence later suras trump earlier suraste. So the Quran holds more weight for mullahs.

That is my point

Oh... I thought you had some other point initially.

So the op is pretty truthful. Both books are very similar in most ways. None of which are hate or fear or war mongering between men. Both are directed towards those who believe in GOD. Both are profitable for those who wish to follow the direction of GOD as it's creation, and profitable for all existence if actually attained to. Both can, and are easily misinterpreted and twisted for man's own selfish motives.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, how do you know if you're misinterpreting them or understanding them correctly? If you could add on how you feel your answer would be different than all those who disagree with you about the correct interpretaion, that would be great.

 

[DBT]

Moses did not worship Allah. His God was Yahweh, the god of the tribe of Israel.

You are wrong. In Islamic theology Yahweh is Allah. Moses (or Musa) is considered an Islamic prophet and was spreading the teachings of Islam. Muslims consider the Torah as being equal in sacredness to the Quran. And before you go and say that this sounds crazy and makes no sense because these are clearly different gods. Does it sound more crazy than the rest of it?

I know what Islam claims and I know what Judaism claims and I know what Christians claim in regard to ''The God'' they all believe exists, yet none of them agree on the essentials... it being the essentials -the claimed attributes and features, nature and character of god that defines each version - that distinguish each version and render them incompatible.

Which means that what I said was right

 

[popsthebuilder]

So, how do you know if you're misinterpreting them or understanding them correctly? If you could add on how you feel your answer would be different than all those who disagree with you about the correct interpretaion, that would be great.

That is a difficult question.
All I can say is that should compare their interpretation to what is known of the will of GOD. If we use honesty and selflessness in interpretation then discernment comes easy. If someone's interpretation promotes prejudice, greed, attachment, pride, hate, fear of man, ruthlessness, or pretty much any negative quality then it isn't aligned with the actual writings. Ones own direction and product of work is a testament to their right or wrong interpretation. Again, all can be tested against what is known within the selfless conscience.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You are wrong. In Islamic theology Yahweh is Allah. Moses (or Musa) is considered an Islamic prophet and was spreading the teachings of Islam. Muslims consider the Torah as being equal in sacredness to the Quran. And before you go and say that this sounds crazy and makes no sense because these are clearly different gods. Does it sound more crazy than the rest of it?

I know what Islam claims and I know what Judaism claims and I know what Christians claim in regard to ''The God'' they all believe exists, yet none of them agree on the essentials... it being the essentials -the claimed attributes and features, nature and character of god that defines each version - that distinguish each version and render them incompatible.

Which means that what I said was right

The essentials? As in the nature and characteristics of GOD? Those happen to be nearly identical; merciful, just, compassionate, giving, long suffering, these things or characteristics are in all books along with more. They are not different in each book and your statement is strange to say the least. Could you clarify what characteristics are different?

Also, the direction of man by God's will is pretty much the same in all books as well. Merciful, giving without want or prejudice, charity for those in need, direction to those in need, lack of greed and vanity, and works that exemplify the Lord in solitude as not to draw attention to ones self but to draw others towards GOD.

Please do list the differences as I am quite curious to what you might put.

It's strange how people focus on the few dissimilar parts of scripture instead of focusing on hat is important; the direction of man by GOD.

Peace
Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's equal in sacredness. Both are the word of God. But according to Islamic jurisprudence later suras trump earlier suraste. So the Quran holds more weight for mullahs.

That is my point

Oh... I thought you had some other point initially.

So the op is pretty truthful. Both books are very similar in most ways. None of which are hate or fear or war mongering between men. Both are directed towards those who believe in GOD. Both are profitable for those who wish to follow the direction of GOD as it's creation, and profitable for all existence if actually attained to. Both can, and are easily misinterpreted and twisted for man's own selfish motives.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I recommend reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195182499

Most things in both the Quran and the Bible are phrased in specific ways to settle local political disputes. They're extremely specific. But the dispute doesn't make it into the holy text. That is why the holy texts are all over the place and are self-contradictory. Yes, they are, and if you haven't found any yet you've just been squinting hard while reading. Anyway, this makes it extremely important to read up on the context if you want to make sense of it. It's impossible to glean from the text itself. This is even more true for the Bible because it's books are products from disparate geographical areas with very different social and political concerns. So they're different.

Here's a fun little thought experiment you can do. Pick a couple of diverse opinions that go against each other and then try to use both the Quran and the Bible to find support for them. Due to the vagaries of the texts you can find support for pretty much anything. If anybody wants to make peace on Earth it's important to accept that no Muslims or Christians have misinterpreted their holy text. They're all correct in their own way. We need a little humility here. All of us.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So, how do you know if you're misinterpreting them or understanding them correctly? If you could add on how you feel your answer would be different than all those who disagree with you about the correct interpretaion, that would be great.

That is a difficult question.
All I can say is that should compare their interpretation to what is known of the will of ME. If we use ARROGANCE in interpretation then discernment comes easy. If someone's interpretation DISAGREES WITH ME then it isn't aligned with the actual writings. Ones own direction and product of work is a testament to their right or wrong interpretation. Again, all can be tested against what is known within ME.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Fixed it for you. I think you are absurdly full of yourself. Have you ever tried humility when you read the texts? Which is something the Bible actually teaches. I suggest you try it.

Here's some Bible verses if you don't believe me:

http://dailyverses.net/humility

And an example from the Quran:

http://www.islamfrominside.com/Pages/Tafsir/Tafsir(7-94 to 95).html

 

[popsthebuilder]

That is a difficult question.
All I can say is that should compare their interpretation to what is known of the will of ME. If we use ARROGANCE in interpretation then discernment comes easy. If someone's interpretation DISAGREES WITH ME then it isn't aligned with the actual writings. Ones own direction and product of work is a testament to their right or wrong interpretation. Again, all can be tested against what is known within ME.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Fixed it for you. I think you are absurdly full of yourself. Have you ever tried humility when you read the texts? Which is something the Bible actually teaches. I suggest you try it.

Here's some Bible verses if you don't believe me:

http://dailyverses.net/humility

And an example from the Quran:

http://www.islamfrominside.com/Pages/Tafsir/Tafsir(7-94 to 95).html

What the...

I may sound big headed or arrogant to some...Again, it is the subject matter.

I strive to be humble in all I do at all times. You sure enjoy offending people don't you? Is it only those you deam to be theists?

I'm not gonna go into what I do or how I act in humility, because that would be vain, proud, arrogant, and the like.

Yes, all ancient scriptures I have read teach humility throughout.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Fixed it for you. I think you are absurdly full of yourself. Have you ever tried humility when you read the texts? Which is something the Bible actually teaches. I suggest you try it.

Here's some Bible verses if you don't believe me:

http://dailyverses.net/humility

And an example from the Quran:

http://www.islamfrominside.com/Pages/Tafsir/Tafsir(7-94 to 95).html

What the...

I may sound big headed or arrogant to some...Again, it is the subject matter.

I strive to be humble in all I do at all times. You sure enjoy offending people don't you? Is it only those you deam to be theists?

I'm not gonna go into what I do or how I act in humility, because that would be vain, proud, arrogant, and the like.

Yes, all ancient scriptures I have read teach humility throughout.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

In spite of having read the texts as well as academic works on them I don't make sweeping pronouncements on how they should be interpreted. My personal opinion is arrogant interpretations of the books is the problem. Not the books themselves. I think the books are full of wisdom and insight into the human condition. Depending on where you are in life you'll take different things from them.

If you think I'm being offensive when pointing out your arrogance I'm guessing it hit a bit close to home?

 

[popsthebuilder]

What the...

I may sound big headed or arrogant to some...Again, it is the subject matter.

I strive to be humble in all I do at all times. You sure enjoy offending people don't you? Is it only those you deam to be theists?

I'm not gonna go into what I do or how I act in humility, because that would be vain, proud, arrogant, and the like.

Yes, all ancient scriptures I have read teach humility throughout.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

In spite of having read the texts as well as academic works on them I don't make sweeping pronouncements on how they should be interpreted. My personal opinion is arrogant interpretations of the books is the problem. Not the books themselves. I think the books are full of wisdom and insight into the human condition. Depending on where you are in life you'll take different things from them.

If you think I'm being offensive when pointing out your arrogance I'm guessing it hit a bit close to home?

So do you think you are able to withdraw useful insights from the texts by being biased and having preconceptions about them, or with an opened mind and humility, and honesty?

No, you just have a knack for being abrasive I guess. Me too, I don't mean to be though, and try not to be.

I never meant that everyone else's interpretation was wrong.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, how do you know if you're misinterpreting them or understanding them correctly? If you could add on how you feel your answer would be different than all those who disagree with you about the correct interpretaion, that would be great.

That is a difficult question.
All I can say is that should compare their interpretation to what is known of the will of GOD. If we use honesty and selflessness in interpretation then discernment comes easy. If someone's interpretation promotes prejudice, greed, attachment, pride, hate, fear of man, ruthlessness, or pretty much any negative quality then it isn't aligned with the actual writings. Ones own direction and product of work is a testament to their right or wrong interpretation. Again, all can be tested against what is known within the selfless conscience.

Negative qualities that aren't aligned with the actual writings? Seriously?

We're talking about a guy who, according to those writings, slaughtered pretty much everybody on the planet by drowning them in a flood because they pissed him off. A guy who, according to those actual writings, sent one of his goons to murder thousands of innocent children because their parents' leader wouldn't agree to what the leader of a different tribe wanted.

Those seem like negative qualities to me. When someone reads about this GOD in religious texts and sees him doing things like that, why is his making the assumption that GOD would prefer him to kill off infidels who disagree with his interpretation of the Word of GOD be incorrect and he should instead go with your interpretation of the Word of GOD?

 

[DBT]

I know what Islam claims and I know what Judaism claims and I know what Christians claim in regard to ''The God'' they all believe exists, yet none of them agree on the essentials... it being the essentials -the claimed attributes and features, nature and character of god that defines each version - that distinguish each version and render them incompatible.

Which means that what I said was right

The essentials? As in the nature and characteristics of GOD? Those happen to be nearly identical; merciful, just, compassionate, giving, long suffering, these things or characteristics are in all books along with more. They are not different in each book and your statement is strange to say the least. Could you clarify what characteristics are different?

I've been through this with you. Allah only shows mercy to the faithful:

“The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Bible] and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.” Quran 98:6

“He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost.” Quran 3:85

“This Book is not to be doubted…. As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.” Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10

Please don't play the ''context'' rationale again. It doesn't work. The sentiment shown toward unbelievers is clear and concise, with no mercy to be seen. Context changes nothing.

Also, the direction of man by God's will is pretty much the same in all books as well. Merciful, giving without want or prejudice, charity for those in need, direction to those in need, lack of greed and vanity, and works that exemplify the Lord in solitude as not to draw attention to ones self but to draw others towards GOD.

Please do list the differences as I am quite curious to what you might put.

It's strange how people focus on the few dissimilar parts of scripture instead of focusing on hat is important; the direction of man by GOD.

.

Doesn't work, as I've already explained.

Just a few critical distinctions between religions that make them incompatible: Christians believe that Jesus is an inseparable part of the Godhead, but Muslims relegate Jesus to the status of Prophet, which is not compatible with the God of Christianity. Judaism rejects Jesus as both the prophesied Messiah and a part of the God Head, which is not compatible with either Christianity or Islam's claim of Jesus the Prophet of God.

If God is Triune as Christians claim, then Islam believes in a different god, and so on. A series of incompatible claims and beliefs.

Either one claim is true and the rest false, or all of these are false claims (most likely), but logically, they can't all be true.


"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds other people in contempt. Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;
he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance. Believing himself to be the slave of God, he imitates his master, and of all tyrants, the worst is a slave in power."

--Robert Ingersoll

 

[DrZoidberg]

In spite of having read the texts as well as academic works on them I don't make sweeping pronouncements on how they should be interpreted. My personal opinion is arrogant interpretations of the books is the problem. Not the books themselves. I think the books are full of wisdom and insight into the human condition. Depending on where you are in life you'll take different things from them.

If you think I'm being offensive when pointing out your arrogance I'm guessing it hit a bit close to home?

So do you think you are able to withdraw useful insights from the texts by being biased and having preconceptions about them, or with an opened mind and humility, and honesty?

No, you just have a knack for being abrasive I guess. Me too, I don't mean to be though, and try not to be.

I never meant that everyone else's interpretation was wrong.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Sorry about that. Point taken. I could have worded that more respectfully.

I think you're projecting. I think you know that you came to these holy texts full of preconceptions and biases without an open mind. How about being honest about that? You've demonstrated a filtered reality. I think you've taken away from these texts what you came to find. The Bible is one thing. But trying to cobble together a super religion from disparate faiths is another. I suggest reading up on Theosophy. They try doing the same thing you've done. Criticism against them apply to your interpretations as well.

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

I am aware I have preconceptions and biases. As do everybody. I actively go out of my way to learn alternative points of view. That's why I started this journey in trying to learn about religions. Remember that I'm an atheist having grown up in an atheistic society. I have no friends who are religious. No religious family. I didn't have a tradition to draw from. So I didn't have any biases to guide me. My only bias was that I saw God as a symbolic or metaphoric entity. I saw God as more of a mental tool than anything concrete. But I had no preconceived notions on how these teachings should be interpreted. When none of the texts made much sense I turned to acedemia. I read academic works on the holy texts, and that really opened my eyes to them. There's probably been more high quality academic works on the Bible than any other subject ever. If your primary source is the original text you will have no clue what they are about. Our society is so far removed from the ancient Mediterranean world we have no way of relating. Might be a start?

These holy texts have two major themes IMHO:

1. Good advice for life we can still apply. Stuff like it's better to forgive than to hold a grudge. Make time every day for some introspection. Always stay humble. Advice on how to deal with emotional pain. And tips for how to work on these things. These can be found in all religions because they are universal problems all humans struggle with. All in all great stuff and we'd do humanity a great disservice if these are ignored.

2. Guidelines for how to maintain social cohesion. These are all complete bollocks. They apply to agrarian societies were all social change was probably bad. None of that apply today. No, parents don't always deserve respect and should be obeyed. Respect is earned. Maybe a good rule of thumb if you were stuck on the same plot of land for every generation to come. Usury is of course bad in a society where paying interest on loans will eventually lead to all land and power being concentrated on a single land-owner. Today it makes no sense. All the verses and suras about sweeping rape under the rug "for the good of society". Total bollocks today. Maybe made sense when each of these instances risked ripping a community apart. But not today when resettling is no big deal. The ban on homosexuality might make sense when you're dependent on your sons having babies in order to keep land in the family. Total bollocks today.

To sum up: Some good. Some bad.

There's no rose tinted spectacles in the world can filter out all the vile shit upheld as moral in the pursuit of social cohesion. As long as you maintain that the Bible (and Quran and Bhagavad Gita) are all good people are going to keep on calling you on your shit.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That is a difficult question.
All I can say is that should compare their interpretation to what is known of the will of GOD. If we use honesty and selflessness in interpretation then discernment comes easy. If someone's interpretation promotes prejudice, greed, attachment, pride, hate, fear of man, ruthlessness, or pretty much any negative quality then it isn't aligned with the actual writings. Ones own direction and product of work is a testament to their right or wrong interpretation. Again, all can be tested against what is known within the selfless conscience.

Negative qualities that aren't aligned with the actual writings? Seriously?

We're talking about a guy who, according to those writings, slaughtered pretty much everybody on the planet by drowning them in a flood because they pissed him off. A guy who, according to those actual writings, sent one of his goons to murder thousands of innocent children because their parents' leader wouldn't agree to what the leader of a different tribe wanted.

Those seem like negative qualities to me. When someone reads about this GOD in religious texts and sees him doing things like that, why is his making the assumption that GOD would prefer him to kill off infidels who disagree with his interpretation of the Word of GOD be incorrect and he should instead go with your interpretation of the Word of GOD?

You're talking about the it and stretching that. Both Islam and the teachings of Christ acknowledge that those teachings were not right. One should go off of the general message and direction of the writings, not the perceptions of GOD causing death through natural disaster. Killing infidels is looked down on as none are righteous and God is merciful and just. Mercy is key, not killing people.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The essentials? As in the nature and characteristics of GOD? Those happen to be nearly identical; merciful, just, compassionate, giving, long suffering, these things or characteristics are in all books along with more. They are not different in each book and your statement is strange to say the least. Could you clarify what characteristics are different?

I've been through this with you. Allah only shows mercy to the faithful:

“The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Bible] and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.” Quran 98:6

“He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost.” Quran 3:85

“This Book is not to be doubted…. As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.” Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10

Please don't play the ''context'' rationale again. It doesn't work. The sentiment shown toward unbelievers is clear and concise, with no mercy to be seen. Context changes nothing.

Also, the direction of man by God's will is pretty much the same in all books as well. Merciful, giving without want or prejudice, charity for those in need, direction to those in need, lack of greed and vanity, and works that exemplify the Lord in solitude as not to draw attention to ones self but to draw others towards GOD.

Please do list the differences as I am quite curious to what you might put.

It's strange how people focus on the few dissimilar parts of scripture instead of focusing on hat is important; the direction of man by GOD.

.

Doesn't work, as I've already explained.

Just a few critical distinctions between religions that make them incompatible: Christians believe that Jesus is an inseparable part of the Godhead, but Muslims relegate Jesus to the status of Prophet, which is not compatible with the God of Christianity. Judaism rejects Jesus as both the prophesied Messiah and a part of the God Head, which is not compatible with either Christianity or Islam's claim of Jesus the Prophet of God.

If God is Triune as Christians claim, then Islam believes in a different god, and so on. A series of incompatible claims and beliefs.

Either one claim is true and the rest false, or all of these are false claims (most likely), but logically, they can't all be true.


"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds other people in contempt. Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;
he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance. Believing himself to be the slave of God, he imitates his master, and of all tyrants, the worst is a slave in power."

--Robert Ingersoll

Sure, their are differences and some who may never abide by the will of GOD due to greed, pride, or fear, but too, there are many within the religions you mentioned that are openminded, not scared,and understand that the will of GOD as written of in scripture is not for us to be divided by fear and hate, but by faith and works.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So do you think you are able to withdraw useful insights from the texts by being biased and having preconceptions about them, or with an opened mind and humility, and honesty?

No, you just have a knack for being abrasive I guess. Me too, I don't mean to be though, and try not to be.

I never meant that everyone else's interpretation was wrong.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Sorry about that. Point taken. I could have worded that more respectfully.

I think you're projecting. I think you know that you came to these holy texts full of preconceptions and biases without an open mind. How about being honest about that? You've demonstrated a filtered reality. I think you've taken away from these texts what you came to find. The Bible is one thing. But trying to cobble together a super religion from disparate faiths is another. I suggest reading up on Theosophy. They try doing the same thing you've done. Criticism against them apply to your interpretations as well.

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

I am aware I have preconceptions and biases. As do everybody. I actively go out of my way to learn alternative points of view. That's why I started this journey in trying to learn about religions. Remember that I'm an atheist having grown up in an atheistic society. I have no friends who are religious. No religious family. I didn't have a tradition to draw from. So I didn't have any biases to guide me. My only bias was that I saw God as a symbolic or metaphoric entity. I saw God as more of a mental tool than anything concrete. But I had no preconceived notions on how these teachings should be interpreted. When none of the texts made much sense I turned to acedemia. I read academic works on the holy texts, and that really opened my eyes to them. There's probably been more high quality academic works on the Bible than any other subject ever. If your primary source is the original text you will have no clue what they are about. Our society is so far removed from the ancient Mediterranean world we have no way of relating. Might be a start?

These holy texts have two major themes IMHO:

1. Good advice for life we can still apply. Stuff like it's better to forgive than to hold a grudge. Make time every day for some introspection. Always stay humble. Advice on how to deal with emotional pain. And tips for how to work on these things. These can be found in all religions because they are universal problems all humans struggle with. All in all great stuff and we'd do humanity a great disservice if these are ignored.

2. Guidelines for how to maintain social cohesion. These are all complete bollocks. They apply to agrarian societies were all social change was probably bad. None of that apply today. No, parents don't always deserve respect and should be obeyed. Respect is earned. Maybe a good rule of thumb if you were stuck on the same plot of land for every generation to come. Usury is of course bad in a society where paying interest on loans will eventually lead to all land and power being concentrated on a single land-owner. Today it makes no sense. All the verses and suras about sweeping rape under the rug "for the good of society". Total bollocks today. Maybe made sense when each of these instances risked ripping a community apart. But not today when resettling is no big deal. The ban on homosexuality might make sense when you're dependent on your sons having babies in order to keep land in the family. Total bollocks today.

To sum up: Some good. Some bad.

There's no rose tinted spectacles in the world can filter out all the vile shit upheld as moral in the pursuit of social cohesion. As long as you maintain that the Bible (and Quran and Bhagavad Gita) are all good people are going to keep on calling you on your shit.

Has little to do with politics. Rape is punishable by death.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sorry about that. Point taken. I could have worded that more respectfully.

I think you're projecting. I think you know that you came to these holy texts full of preconceptions and biases without an open mind. How about being honest about that? You've demonstrated a filtered reality. I think you've taken away from these texts what you came to find. The Bible is one thing. But trying to cobble together a super religion from disparate faiths is another. I suggest reading up on Theosophy. They try doing the same thing you've done. Criticism against them apply to your interpretations as well.

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

I am aware I have preconceptions and biases. As do everybody. I actively go out of my way to learn alternative points of view. That's why I started this journey in trying to learn about religions. Remember that I'm an atheist having grown up in an atheistic society. I have no friends who are religious. No religious family. I didn't have a tradition to draw from. So I didn't have any biases to guide me. My only bias was that I saw God as a symbolic or metaphoric entity. I saw God as more of a mental tool than anything concrete. But I had no preconceived notions on how these teachings should be interpreted. When none of the texts made much sense I turned to acedemia. I read academic works on the holy texts, and that really opened my eyes to them. There's probably been more high quality academic works on the Bible than any other subject ever. If your primary source is the original text you will have no clue what they are about. Our society is so far removed from the ancient Mediterranean world we have no way of relating. Might be a start?

These holy texts have two major themes IMHO:

1. Good advice for life we can still apply. Stuff like it's better to forgive than to hold a grudge. Make time every day for some introspection. Always stay humble. Advice on how to deal with emotional pain. And tips for how to work on these things. These can be found in all religions because they are universal problems all humans struggle with. All in all great stuff and we'd do humanity a great disservice if these are ignored.

2. Guidelines for how to maintain social cohesion. These are all complete bollocks. They apply to agrarian societies were all social change was probably bad. None of that apply today. No, parents don't always deserve respect and should be obeyed. Respect is earned. Maybe a good rule of thumb if you were stuck on the same plot of land for every generation to come. Usury is of course bad in a society where paying interest on loans will eventually lead to all land and power being concentrated on a single land-owner. Today it makes no sense. All the verses and suras about sweeping rape under the rug "for the good of society". Total bollocks today. Maybe made sense when each of these instances risked ripping a community apart. But not today when resettling is no big deal. The ban on homosexuality might make sense when you're dependent on your sons having babies in order to keep land in the family. Total bollocks today.

To sum up: Some good. Some bad.

There's no rose tinted spectacles in the world can filter out all the vile shit upheld as moral in the pursuit of social cohesion. As long as you maintain that the Bible (and Quran and Bhagavad Gita) are all good people are going to keep on calling you on your shit.

Has little to do with politics. Rape is punishable by death.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I don't understand what you mean? What has little to do with politics?

As for your rape comment. In the Bible the rapist needs to pay the father 30 pieces of silver and marry the girl. Ie the victim of rape is the father who's honour has been violated. Not the woman being raped. In Islam both the rapist and victim need to ask for forgiveness. If they do they're let off. It's only if they refuse being really sorry they should be put to death. The Sharia actually goes right against the Quran on this. The interesting part is that both the victim and perpetrator are equally guilty of sinning. I can find you the suras and Bible passages if you don't believe me?

Both the Bible and Quran are very specific. There's not much room for interpretation.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Has little to do with politics. Rape is punishable by death.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I don't understand what you mean? What has little to do with politics?

As for your rape comment. In the Bible the rapist needs to pay the father 30 pieces of silver and marry the girl. Ie the victim of rape is the father who's honour has been violated. Not the woman being raped. In Islam both the rapist and victim need to ask for forgiveness. If they do they're let off. It's only if they refuse being really sorry they should be put to death. The Sharia actually goes right against the Quran on this. The interesting part is that both the victim and perpetrator are equally guilty of sinning. I can find you the suras and Bible passages if you don't believe me?

Both the Bible and Quran are very specific. There's not much room for interpretation.

Bs; if a man rapes a woman intended to marry another man then the punishment was death. If the woman wasn't spoken for then the man was to marry her. Women weren't liable for themselves, that is why restitution had to be paid to the Father of the girl.

As far as politics they are corrupt and seek power and wealth; no place for the holy.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.