Islam

[The Agrarian]

@Danllan re the poem. (Messed up the quote function)

There's no disagreement there really. It's perfectly agreeable with even a mainstream interpretation of the Christian bible to say that jesus seemed to have a bit less patience with overtly religious people who's ways were empty of care for their fellow man. He told stories purposely to convey that meaning, and the various writers also conveyed that meaning repeatedly through their stories about jesus. It's also evident in the old testament.

 

[Danllan]

The more you post the more you show yourself up. You don’t want a discussion you want everyone to acquiesce to your point of view. Should anybody disagree with you your first response is to insult.

But you are disagreeing with me and telling lies, please adduce evidence to back your claims.

I'd love to discuss them, I have asked this three times and you run scared from offering evidence for them, because you can't... just the same attempt at evasion every time.

Liar...

 

[Danllan]

There's no disagreement there really. It's perfectly agreeable with even a mainstream interpretation of the Christian bible to say that jesus seemed to have a bit less patience with overtly religious people who's ways were empty of care for their fellow man. He told stories purposely to convey that meaning, and the various writers also conveyed that meaning repeatedly through their stories about jesus. It's also evident in the old testament.

I don't share your belief in the divinity of Jesus, and am not entirely convinced of his existence; but your scriptures certainly do say that and what you describe is the message conveyed.

Happy to be corrected, but I think there is good evidence that the Jews/ The Old Testament got their version from further East.

 

[Lowland1]

Liar? That’s you that is.

 

[The Agrarian]

I don't share your belief in the divinity of Jesus, and am not entirely convinced of his existence; but your scriptures certainly do say that and what you describe is the message conveyed.

Happy to be corrected, but I think there is good evidence that the Jews/ The Old Testament got their version from further East.

Divinity in Christianity is a fairly complicated idea though. It is leaned upon in different ways in the old and new testaments, and gets developed significantly in the centuries after as trinitarian theology appears. That language gets applied to more than just jesus.

There is certainly a weight of scholarly opinion that quite a lot of the old testament was at least revised if not written during or after the exile in Babylon. To say it originated in Persia is a very big stretch, but it would be fair to point out that because the most educated of the Jews (including the priests obviously) were handpicked and taken away to Babylon, then some local influence would have returned to Palestine with them. You may notice that the Jews didn't really have a theology of Hell, for example. They just had Sheol - the place of (all) the dead. There is a suggestion that a Babylonian version of hell might have seen some mild absorption, but it seems much more likely to be a later greco-roman influence.

I think it's impossible to overlook the character of Moses as not only the key figure in the old testament, but also as a standard bearer for social justice. He is portrayed as a compassionate human who sees and feels the plight of the suffering slave population, and takes direct and personally costly direct action in order to effect change on their behalf. Regardless of the historical accuracy of that, it seems likely that that story had deep roots in the Jewish people long before the exile.

 

[Danllan]

Divinity in Christianity is a fairly complicated idea though. It is leaned upon in different ways in the old and new testaments, and gets developed significantly in the centuries after as trinitarian theology appears. That language gets applied to more than just jesus.

There is certainly a weight of scholarly opinion that quite a lot of the old testament was at least revised if not written during or after the exile in Babylon. To say it originated in Persia is a very big stretch, but it would be fair to point out that because the most educated of the Jews (including the priests obviously) were handpicked and taken away to Babylon, then some local influence would have returned to Palestine with them. You may notice that the Jews didn't really have a theology of Hell, for example. They just had Sheol - the place of (all) the dead. There is a suggestion that a Babylonian version of hell might have seen some mild absorption, but it seems much more likely to be a later greco-roman influence.

I think it's impossible to overlook the character of Moses as not only the key figure in the old testament, but also as a standard bearer for social justice. He is portrayed as a compassionate human who sees and feels the plight of the suffering slave population, and takes direct and personally costly direct action in order to effect change on their behalf. Regardless of the historical accuracy of that, it seems likely that that story had deep roots in the Jewish people long before the exile.

Hmm... I strongly suspect that more than you reckon was brought back from the East, but of course I can't prove it. However, we know form the human experience that influence on an 'elite' has a vastly disproportionate trickle-down influence on the general population.

To my understanding the Classical underworld is less like the biblical one than the Babylonian version in most respects. But I can write only as having read the texts, not having made a deep or prolonged study of them or their surrounding history. Unsurprisingly, I am not and have no interest in being a theologian.

Had to read your bit about Moses again, I see him as a character, not an actual historical figure. No doubting that their can be 'race myths' that stem from way back. We can see them Aboriginal Australians, the Khoisan and elsewhere, so there is no reason why the Jews should be an exception.

 

[The Agrarian]

Fair points. Yes, I was happy to suggest that the most influential people i.e. the ones doing the teaching and the writing, were indeed for a period educated further east. It wasn't a huge amount of time all the same - I think something like fifty years - but nonetheless it was a period that had a huge impact upon the people and the shape of their thinking and texts. And no, I agree we can't really parse the details out. That's the life job of an academic.

Classical underworld - well greco-roman influence was an influence for a much longer period, and Hades gets a few mentions in the NT, being late and post second temple writings in a very Roman setting, using greek language. All the same, it's all quite varied, and there is no particular unified theology of hell in the New Testament. That comes some time after. What tends to happen today is that people take much later apocalyptic and eschatological theologies and read them back into the text of the NT.

I think in my Moses paragraph, I left plenty of room for manoeuvre/interpretation. Frankly, it's more interesting and relevant for me to think about why they told the moses story, and how it has threads that can be pulled on all the way through to the life of Jesus described in the canonical gospels. Jesus was in some respects the new Moses, and I think the writer of Matthew in particular goes out of his way to make that point with imagery.

 

[Lowland1]

Fair points. Yes, I was happy to suggest that the most influential people i.e. the ones doing the teaching and the writing, were indeed for a period educated further east. It wasn't a huge amount of time all the same - I think something like fifty years - but nonetheless it was a period that had a huge impact upon the people and the shape of their thinking and texts. And no, I agree we can't really parse the details out. That's the life job of an academic.

Classical underworld - well greco-roman influence was an influence for a much longer period, and Hades gets a few mentions in the NT, being late and post second temple writings in a very Roman setting, using greek language. All the same, it's all quite varied, and there is no particular unified theology of hell in the New Testament. That comes some time after. What tends to happen today is that people take much later apocalyptic and eschatological theologies and read them back into the text of the NT.

I think in my Moses paragraph, I left plenty of room for manoeuvre/interpretation. Frankly, it's more interesting and relevant for me to think about why they told the moses story, and how it has threads that can be pulled on all the way through to the life of Jesus described in the canonical gospels. Jesus is in some respects the new Moses, and I think the writer of Matthew in particular goes out of his way to make that point.

There’s a Netflix series on Moses we are watching at present. It’s very interesting obviously it’s not for everyone.

 

[ollie989898]

There’s a Netflix series on Moses we are watching at present. It’s very interesting obviously it’s not for everyone.

I really liked that film. A very very interesting take on some powerful religious themes.

 

[Danllan]

Fair points. Yes, I was happy to suggest that the most influential people i.e. the ones doing the teaching and the writing, were indeed for a period educated further east. It wasn't a huge amount of time all the same - I think something like fifty years - but nonetheless it was a period that had a huge impact upon the people and the shape of their thinking and texts. And no, I agree we can't really parse the details out. That's the life job of an academic.

Classical underworld - well greco-roman influence was an influence for a much longer period, and Hades gets a few mentions in the NT, being late and post second temple writings in a very Roman setting, using greek language. All the same, it's all quite varied, and there is no particular unified theology of hell in the New Testament. That comes some time after. What tends to happen today is that people take much later apocalyptic and eschatological theologies and read them back into the text of the NT.

I think in my Moses paragraph, I left plenty of room for manoeuvre/interpretation. Frankly, it's more interesting and relevant for me to think about why they told the moses story, and how it has threads that can be pulled on all the way through to the life of Jesus described in the canonical gospels. Jesus was in some respects the new Moses, and I think the writer of Matthew in particular goes out of his way to make that point with imagery.

Just look at how much fifty years with a new elite changed England after 1066, or 1688 for that matter...

I think the clearest evidence for the Jews taking an awful lot from Eastern sources, regarding Hell etc., is the nature if Satan - it so closely resembles the older versions from there that it can't be anything but an adoption. Must admit I find it very hard to work out why they would choose to adopt it - and I write that setting aside several thousand years of advancement and trying place myself in their positions.

I think, and I can write this entirely objectively because I have no preference for any religion, that if Jesus was the 'new' anything, he would fit more closely with being a new Buddha than any other earlier supposed prophet or 'avatar'.

Digressing from Islam for a bit, but I honestly can't think of a rational reason - meaning from their own perspective, not mine - as to why early 'Christians' didn't bin the Old Testament, they discussed it and a lot wanted to, but it didn't happen.

 

[The Agrarian]

Just look at how much fifty years with a new elite changed England after 1066, or 1688 for that matter...

I think the clearest evidence for the Jews taking an awful lot from Eastern sources, regarding Hell etc., is the nature if Satan - it so closely resembles the older versions from there that it can't be anything but an adoption. Must admit I find it very hard to work out why they would choose to adopt it - and I write that setting aside several thousand years of advancement and trying place myself in their positions.

I think, and I can write this entirely objectively because I have no preference for any religion, that if Jesus was the 'new' anything, he would fit more closely with being a new Buddha than any other earlier supposed prophet or 'avatar'.

Digressing from Islam for a bit, but I honestly can't think of a rational reason - meaning from their own perspective, not mine - as to why early 'Christians' didn't bin the Old Testament, they discussed it and a lot wanted to, but it didn't happen.

I think Satan is very much a composite character built up over time in the Hebrew/Christian tradition. I don't doubt input from mesopotamia/persia. I think it's also worth considering that the Canaanite base from which Judaism sprang was firmly polytheistic. Yahweh began as a sub-god. Genesis describes a divine council. There are some other quite fascinating divine creatures mentioned in the Torah, like the Nephilim. What use was it to the Jews? Quite useful for story telling I'd say, in a world where literary personification of traits and forces was part of the wallpaper. No need to be literal about characters in parables, and I think the Jews understood that perfectly well. It's much more a feature of the cramped post-enlightenment scientific mind to struggle with that idea.

I don't see many ways in which the Jesus described in the NT tries to be 'new', so much as to be a sign, a conduit, a guide to ways that were always true, and still are of course. Through him and Paul, the NT strips back things like the layers of The Law, the control of religion over people's access to spiritual experiences within and without, inequitable power structures and so on.

Which brings me to your last paragraph. The purpose of keeping the old testament was so important, not just because there are so many quotes from the OT (and other non-canonical books) contained within the NT, that it really requires knowledge of the OT in order to fill out the picture of where Jesus came from. It wouldn't have been to promote redundant parts of the old tradition, but rather just to acknowledge that there was a deep and complicated past that provided context through which beliefs and experiences had collectively evolved, and still evolve. Both testaments are within themselves at times diverse and conflicting, and the editors and community leaders over the many centuries were thankfully clever enough to resist the temptation to harmonise and homogenise them, but rather to leave them reasonably intact as questions to kick around and debate and thrash out in each new generation for themselves. Post enlightenment western minds are too often not good at coping with that, but the Jews for example absolutely revel in that sort of discourse. Protestants I find can often be unnerved by complexity and uncertainty, and prefer trying to nail everything down very tightly - and that is the road to death for a tradition.

 

[The Agrarian]

Which brings us to Islam. It may be the case that the Islamic text expressly prohibits revision and interpretation. I think that is however and bit of a distraction from the fact that intelligent and suitably educated people will revise and reinterpret text in light of their own life experience anyway, regardless of cultural limitations imposed upon them. No doubt that those limitations can be and are very stifling in whatever religion or tradition they occur. But people will be people, and when forced interpretations don't add up, or go against the grain, they at some point tend to break out of it, either visibly or in the privacy of the soul.

One distinction perhaps between Islam and Christianity is the emphasis on 'The Word.' In Islam, the text is somewhat idolised. In Christianity The Word is God, the divine nature of which is seen to be 'in all things and through all things', and 'we are inseparable from that' (whether it is an of which or of whom is a centuries old discussion which gets ever more interesting as physics creeps forward). The text is text, 'useful for instruction and correcting and training etc', but the text must not be idolised. That's why Christians don't go nuts when someone burns a bible.

Violence and threat of violence is certainly an added problem though.

 

[soapsud]

I think Satan is very much a composite character built up over time in the Hebrew/Christian tradition. I don't doubt input from mesopotamia/persia. I think it's also worth considering that the Canaanite base from which Judaism sprang was firmly polytheistic. Yahweh began as a sub-god. Genesis describes a divine council. There are some other quite fascinating divine creatures mentioned in the Torah, like the Nephilim. What use was it to the Jews? Quite useful for story telling I'd say, in a world where literary personification of traits and forces was part of the wallpaper. No need to be literal about characters in parables, and I think the Jews understood that perfectly well. It's much more a feature of the cramped post-enlightenment scientific mind to struggle with that idea.

I don't see many ways in which the Jesus described in the NT tries to be 'new', so much as to be a sign, a conduit, a guide to ways that were always true, and still are of course. Through him and Paul, the NT strips back things like the layers of The Law, the control of religion over people's access to spiritual experiences within and without, inequitable power structures and so on.

Which brings me to your last paragraph. The purpose of keeping the old testament was so important, not just because there are so many quotes from the OT (and other non-canonical books) contained within the NT, that it really requires knowledge of the OT in order to fill out the picture of where Jesus came from. It wouldn't have been to promote redundant parts of the old tradition, but rather just to acknowledge that there was a deep and complicated past that provided context through which beliefs and experiences had collectively evolved, and still evolve. Both testaments are within themselves at times diverse and conflicting, and the editors and community leaders over the many centuries were thankfully clever enough to resist the temptation to harmonise and homogenise them, but rather to leave them reasonably intact as questions to kick around and debate and thrash out in each new generation for themselves. Post enlightenment western minds are too often not good at coping with that, but the Jews for example absolutely revel in that sort of discourse. Protestants I find can often be unnerved by complexity and uncertainty, and prefer trying to nail everything down very tightly - and that is the road to death for a tradition.

Interesting. TFF needs a break from the brexit whining. Something scholarly and theological is much more distracting.

So you trace a lineage from the rationalists (equality, liberty and fratenity of the bloody French Revolution) to scientific reductionism?

My understanding of french rationalism is it is at base categorical. (Yes, other rationalisms exist) The Scots had their empiricism which we Brits much prefer - based on fact, what is done, (as opposed to pragmatism which is what works, no matter how ugly or crude). Those revolutionary frenchies ranked and codified everything by group and type. In other words - everything has its place which is where it belongs. Islam has this notion too - as I recall from devotees who once tried to revert a few of us back in the 80s. Apparently Descartes nicked the idea of doubt from Islam too.

Anyway, one french categorist decided to typify idiocy. I forget who did it but there is a chart which grades the more stupid amongst us as varying from imbecile, cretin, dunce, etc. This is all pre-IQ. It's laughable really. Like trying to quantify whether a smidge is more a less than a tad!

In modern talk we use US language now like ADHD with dispraxia and dislexia. Ah, the old words were so much more direct!

 

[soapsud]

Which brings us to Islam. It may be the case that the Islamic text expressly prohibits revision and interpretation. I think that is however and bit of a distraction from the fact that intelligent and suitably educated people will revise and reinterpret text in light of their own life experience anyway, regardless of cultural limitations imposed upon them. No doubt that those limitations can be and are very stifling in whatever religion or tradition they occur. But people will be people, and when forced interpretations don't add up, or go against the grain, they at some point tend to break out of it, either visibly or in the privacy of the soul.

One distinction perhaps between Islam and Christianity is the emphasis on 'The Word.' In Islam, the text is somewhat idolised. In Christianity The Word is God, the divine nature of which is seen to be 'in all things and through all things', and 'we are inseparable from that' (whether it is an of which or of whom is a centuries old discussion which gets ever more interesting as physics creeps forward). The text is text, 'useful for instruction and correcting and training etc', but the text must not be idolised. That's why Christians don't go nuts when someone burns a bible.

Violence and threat of violence is certainly an added problem though.

The Koran refers to the torah devotees as the people of the book. That's because we in the West privelege the text as you call it. Islam puts much credence in those who memorise the koran. i.e. they internalise the sacred and have no need for a book. They are then the carriers of the word of their prophet. So what you've written may well be true about the living word of the christian god but I'm not sure a muslim scholar would agree,

 

[The Agrarian]

Carriers of the word of their prophet? That may be the case. Christianity is at core a way of being and a way of life, though to varying degrees and understandings from one tradition to another. Most people tend not to be terribly good at it, not because it's complicated, but because it's quite hard (peace, joy, love, hope, justice, humility, self-giving, self-denying, forgiving, patience, suffering etc). The texts are useful in bringing people back to these things as often as is necessary, but a life of practice engrains these ways. Barbara Brown Taylor is worth looking up for this. Lots of good books.

 

[Danllan]

Empiricism is the most sensible of the ideas mentioned - one can't place much trust in the French 'philosophical' schools, they copied so much from Oriental works while claiming it was homemade. Even more so following Bonaparte's appalling 'progress' around Egypt and the Levant.

Still waiting for any rational argument supporting the supernatural claims or religion as being factual... why on Earth religionists - who claim to feel love for all - can't settle for just a common humanism remains a mystery... except it isn't - their books hold the 'truths'.

 

[JP1]

You are clever enough, to believe Liz Truss is clever.
I rest my case…

 

[ollie989898]

Is that Church roof thatched?!

 

[caveman]

Is that Church roof thatched?!

Looks well trussed

 

[JP1]

Is that Church roof thatched?!

Yes. I would say a good number are in East Anglia