RE: Religion of Religious Intolerance and Violence

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Religion of Religious Intolerance and Violence

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Religion of Religious Intolerance and Violence

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Religion of Religious Intolerance and Violence - 9/1/2006 4:29:02 AM

shallowdeep

Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006
From: California
Status: offline

I hesitate to dredge up a topic that, after causing some degree of acrimony, was happily passing into oblivion, but I would like to address some of Chaingang's questions, with the hope this can be done without furthering any rancor...

if I follow the thread correctly, this started with the assertion that all Mosaic faiths had a tendency to incite intolerance and violence and then got into some interesting "discussions" of the relation of Christianity to Mosaic Law. As the later may be the easier, and certainly the less emotionally charged, of the two I would like to start with it and hold off on the former.

My understanding, Chaingang, is that from your reading of scripture, you believe Christ taught that the Old Testament Mosaic laws apply to Christians and you have trouble seeing how Christians can be under some other law that makes them any better/different than OT Judaism, which you deem abhorrent. With such a reading any attempt to disavow Mosaic law seems like a repudiation of Scripture and, therefore, hypocrisy. Fair enough.

Now, I happen to be a Christian so I've already made a (by definition) irrational leap of faith and perhaps it comes as little surprise that pointing out such a logical fallacy should not perturb me. However, in most matters I tend toward the rational and I would be troubled by such a problem... if I believed it existed. My reading of scripture is at odds with yours and, as you challenged for an acceptable alternative reading, I'll try to provide mine.

For the sake of argument, take the leap of faith that God exists (or use the ontological "proof" or something... =) ) and follow that with the usual Christian assumptions as given.

Okay, I think we agree that with the assumption of God come some fundament immutable laws of morality. You see Christ as extending the set laws of God, made manifest by Moses. I see Christ as making clear the spirit of the Mosaic laws. That is the Mosaic laws were not God's commandments per se, but rather the best way to codify the true "natural" laws at the time they were made. Nice... but how 'bout some red letters to back that up? (All subsequent quotes NIV)

See Mark 10:2-9 regarding divorce. Jesus, "It was because your hearts were that Moses wrote you this law... what God has joined let man not separate."

Or Mark 7:14-15 regarding unclean things in Mosaic law. Jesus again, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him..."

Hardly sounds like these laws are the true natural laws of God... more like a way for the people to people to approach the underlying spirit of the law through easily comprehensible letters. Christ in fact rails against the importance placed on the Mosaic law's letter. And in Matthew 7:12 he says, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (also see Matt 22:37-39, Mark 12:29-31) Which pretty much (excuse me) "sums up": the Law can be observed by merely following the Golden Rule and loving God.

Note that Jesus also frequently "violated" the law, as when harvesting wheat on the Sabbath (Matthew 12). In the Judeo-Christain view, God is incapable of sin and breaking a law is sinful... so perhaps the Mosaic laws aren't sacrosanct?

So, what about Jesus' statement, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17)? Do I just disregard this? Not at all. The Mosaic Law and the Prophets weren't wrong or invalid, but they weren't fully serving their purpose of revealing their true spirit either, hence the need for "fulfillment" and the reason why Jesus does not end with "...but to uphold the laws as they are." In light of his "violations" of the standing laws during his Ministry, he certainly wasn't fulfilling the letter of the law, so this is the logical interpretation of "fulfill" I see. I'll grant that semantics can get tricky in translation, but this seems pretty evident. If you really want, I might be able to look into the original Hebrew.

In John 14:15 you quote "If you love me, you will obey what I command." You assume Jesus refers to the Mosaic Law... but does he? You ask, "What other commandments would a practicing Jew be talking about here? " A good question, but I thought we'd agreed to allow Christ's divinity? So the proper question here is "What other commands would God be talking about here?" And, looking back a few verses in John we find context that might provide the answer, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples..." (John 13:34-35) Ah, if only all professed Christians could always live up to that... but I digress.

So, Christians (in the true sense of followers of Christ) are removed from the burden of observing the rigid formalities of law. Huzzah! But the replacement commands, love God and love your neighbor, are actually much more stringent. Suddenly, it's no longer good enough to to not commit immoral sexual acts rather just thinking about them damns you (sh@t! - I'm screwed!). This was the spirit of the Mosaic law in the first place. This is where grace enters the equation. See the account of the rich young man asking Christ what he could do to be saved. (Matthew 19:16-26) Despite having observed all the laws, the man falls short of salvation. "When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is IMPOSSIBLE, but with God all things are possible." (emphasis mine) So, in Christ's own words, everyone is saved by grace. For this in action, see Luke 23:39-43, where Christ admits a fellow "cruxifixee" and admitted criminal to heaven, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Now, this man hadn't exactly been following the Mosaic laws, and certainly not the laws of Christ, but received salvation. Even allowing for the unpleasantly extended duration of death by crucifixion, he wasn't exactly in a position to atone for his Mosaic law violations. (I think it's safe to assume he didn't manage a burnt offering at the temple.) So, we see that not only is grace required, but it is also sufficient for salvation.

Hopefully this satisfies you that a rational person can accept a post-Christ split with rigid Mosaic law as being scriptural and directly attributed to Jesus. However, while I tried to stay within the bounds of the "red letters" I, like others, must admit to being a bit perplexed by this seeming arbitrary distinction. The gospels are first person accounts of events written somewhat after the fact and, leaving aside the matter divine inspiration, if you were trying to get the facts straight about someone's life would you turn to a few first-person accounts written years after the fact, or to those (written about the same time) that explained things (perhaps more coherently) in a manner with which nearly everyone concerned with said person's life and memory could agree was accurate? I think both would be valid tools...

Alright, thanks for sticking with me. You're free to head back to a more rational reality now. =)

Hopefully the issue of law and grace has been cleared up some, but I'm not sure that fully addresses your initial concern, which was more about the apparent mutability of this God. In the OT he's down with pillage and "genocide," but given a few hundred years he mellows out and thinks universal love is great. Seems a bit... odd. You may not find my answer satisfactory. God we allow as good, just, and loving... also, by self admission, jealous and intolerant of evil. If you allow such an entity, you allow punishments... including the ravages of war. I don't believe the New Testament changed that. What it did change was the relationship of man to God and the extension of that special relationship to all people, not just the descendants of Abraham. If there is a supreme being with supreme natural laws then our notions of morals aren't worth very much and we can accept that or not, but it won't change matters. That said, if loving your neighbor is the "good" of human interaction then I don't really want to be on the other side.

And this leads back to where this all started, which is do religions (perhaps especially ones with Judeo-Christian foundations) lead to increased intolerance, violence, and hatred? And perhaps beyond that, are they a good or bad thing? My own, doubtless irrational, answer would have to factor in eternity and the benefits of salvation. From a purely humanistic point, it would be a harder call and worthy of an entirely separate thread.

I would like like to thank you for challenging me to gain a better understanding of my faith. One can never cease seeking a better understanding. Hopefully, it wasn't without some benefit to you as well.

In Christ's love and peace,

- shallowdeep

Man: God, how long is 1000 years to you?
God: A mere second.
Man: Hmm. How much is a million dollars to you, then?
God: A mere penny.
Man: God, can I have a penny?
God: Sure, just a second.

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 101

RE: Religion of Religious Intolerance and Violence - 9/1/2006 5:03:04 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

there is a big difference between individual peoples definition of religion and what religious organisations say it is. Until individuals take responsibility for their organisations then they are open to accusations of hypocrisy. It is simply not good enough for someone who identifies as Catholic, say, to assert that God is Love and then go burn down an abortion clinic....and then to tell everyone that Islam is barbarous.

(in reply to shallowdeep)

Profile

Post #: 102

RE: Religion of Religious Intolerance and Violence - 9/1/2006 7:45:56 AM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

Shallowdeep:

Let's say the question of law vs grace is vexed. There is still plenty of obvious internal contradiction even if I accept that there are multiple ordinary interpretations of some of the items I quoted. Go back to this post:

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=558073

...and you shall see it's not so easy to dispute the ordinary meaning of what Jesus supposedly said.

And again, I would claim that you are allowing a particular Pauline viewpoint to color your interpretation of what is being expressed. One person in this thread (was it Level?) called Paul a genius. Paul was neither a genius nor particularly interesting as I shall explain in a separate thread - this one is growing a little long in the tooth already and the main thrust of the thread lost in a dispute over law vs grace.

BTW, I think I have already allowed that Jesus altered and added onto Mosaic Law - I acknowledge that he had a slightly different agenda than say Moses. What I would like to highlight to you is that Jesus in no case says that the prophets are "wrong" and that he repudiates their work, but rather that he is building on their traditions and laws to attain greater perfection of the law. In fact, based on things Jesus supposedly says where he doesn't himself alter or add onto Mosaic Law I think the assumption must be that the Mosaic Law is still "standing law" and in full force and effect. In sum, Jesus does not reject the Old Testament completely out of hand as his followers would seem to do; instead, Jesus repeatedly claims the Mosaic Law and the work of the Prophets as his specific justification and authority.

FWIW, you can see difference in each gospel author's text - offhand I would describe Mark as quite fiery and heavy on judgment whereas John is clearly more poetic and even flowery. So yes, I see those differences too. From a more scholarly perspective what you have is related by also original works of fictive creation - I don't personally believe in a divine Jesus figure or that anyone is actually quoting him. Of course, such a view is immaterial to a believer.

The Old Testament has many hateful things in it. I see a tendency among Christians to distance themselves from it - described at least once in this thread as the Bible being torn in half and the Old Testament being thrown away. But not so fast! I think I have shown that Christianity is pointedly linked to the Old Testament and no amount of hand-wringing and worrying over the interpretation of every word can fix that.

And yes, my initial claim was that all the Abrahamic or Mosaic faiths are complicit in encouraging xenophobia and hatred of one another - specifically. It would seem that general tendency is to claim that one's faith is the "one true way" and that all others are therefore not only wrong but worthy of destruction for believing in foolishness. That's at least a fair description of the culture of the three main branches of the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Most of the followers of those faiths have been at each other's throats for far too long - and given modern weapons and techniques of warfare I find it worrying that those faiths have so much political pull considering their mutual hatred and tendency toward violence. Rather than being peaceful neighbors with slightly differing views, they all claim the exclusive right to worship in a particular manner and with specific claims to the city of Jerusalem.

And if you will pardon my saying so, the only ones that seem slightly confused in relation to their claims to Jerusalem are the Christians who do not see themselves as Jews even though the one they claim as their deity was a practicing Jew and taught at temple. What it takes to deny simple little things like that takes a believer's slight of hand such that I cannot follow it. Was Jesus wrong to be a Jew and teach at temple? Did he change his mind about it? Didn't he call the temple his father's house and throw the money changers out? Why do we have Christian churches instead of just Jewish temples?

My point is that these are not coherent views that can be maintained all at once. Something is amiss in Christian thought. You cannot easily deny that the origins of your faith lay in the Old Testament. Indeed, your deity claims the authority of the Mosaic Law and the Prophets repeatedly.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 103

RE: Religion of Religious Intolerance and Violence - 9/1/2006 4:28:17 PM

raiken

Posts: 868
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

quote:

Judaism, Christianity and Islam - cannot seemingly get along with one another. Frankly, what the fuck gives with that?

Many seem to have difficulty following the tenents of their faith and can't treat others with respect or tolerance. It's a diversity problem. I think it stems from the belief that their way is the only way. It always bothers me when someone says something like "he's good, he's a Christian." As if someone who has another belief or none at all can't be good. I've never understood that. I have discovered that I am not a person who can follow any organized religion easily.

Been there done that t'aint easy, lots of pain, lots of deceptions, lots of confusion, lots of betrayal, as in a Judas Kiss. Add participation in org. rel. to the nomenclature for emotional maso...

(in reply to KatyLied)

Profile

Post #: 104