Discussion in 'The PatsFans.com Pub' started by ArchAngel007, Nov 13, 2015.
I missed this gem of a post. "Winner". Great insights.
Nothing can undo a crime... but criminals can be brought to justice. And it's not over. Actually, this particular house is very big, with a security system. We don't know if the robber is in or out. Or how many there are.
But don't look for them in the house, right? And even if your security system were somehow to catch them, don't subject them to the rule of law, right? Even with blood all over their hands? Just let them go... these are the rules under which you live? Or just the ones under which you want others to live?
Islam isn't a label. Islam is an action. The root of it means peace. But it is not the peace many think it is. It is to be at peace with the laws of the created universe and its creator.
Islam literally means to submit. But that's a shallow understanding. The submission and the peace is the same thing.
To submit to the laws of the created universe and its creator.
To be at peace with the laws of the created universe and its creator.
I.e. To submit or be at peace with the truth of the universe and its creator.
The Quran speaks of Tawheed, which is the oneness of the creator of the universe and His creation. The author is of absolute knowledge, i.e. Absolute meanings. The reader is of limited knowledge i.e. Limited meaning i.e. Perspective and context.
Hopes this helps.
You are correct- and obviously have thought a lot more than I do about this and it was wrong of me to make a blanket statement without thinking it through. While the main spiritual goal of Islam is one of nonviolence and peace, it was still not right of me to characterize it as a religion that actively teaches non-violence.
It was also wrong of me to oversimplify it, in your words, into a bumper sticker slogan.
Well I have to admit that this was the first time I had ever seen the term "Christian-centric" associated with the bible, and that made me think for a bit.
As I understand it, the Torah refers to the first five books written, and the Christian Old Testament includes 46 books. I also understand that Judaism does not recognize the New Testament, and I have no arguments with that.
But it does make me wonder about where you are coming from when you expressed the opinion that my perspective on the OT/NT was incorrect.
I am not really religious, but I have had enough of an impression to perceive that the OT is full of violence and vengeance, genocide and barbaric punishment (and a wrathful, ill-tempered Lord to boot), all of which are suddenly (and conspicuously) absent from the NT.
Looking at the bible from a literatural perspective, it's very interesting, the difference between OT and NT, and how one could almost consider the NT an evolutionary step above the OT.
For me catching the criminals does very little to compensate for the horrific acts- it's not going to help anyone heal. I don't mean to say let them go with a slap on the hand. They should of course, go to prison for life.
But the best way to deal with this tragedy is to focus a lot more effort on preventing something like this happening again, don't you think?
Obviously they got into the house and did some damage, so the security system isn't working. It's time to do something else, right?
But you dont want to do anything for the purpose of doing something, because sometimes, that something is worse than what you had before
That's why I was wondering if you were oversimplifying on the matter. It's tempting to do so, because there is a veritable ton of misinformation and silliness in this thread, from both sides. It's not the place to really dig deep.
And as for Islamic jurisprudence, it was a painful process to get through the study lol. As for Islam's end-state, it is ultimately one where there is peace and a focus on obedience to Allah, however, it is achieving that end-state and what is permitted and not permitted through the course of that pursuit that makes things...interesting.
I studied Torah with countermissionaries for a while (not for school, but because I actually considered going Orthodox and happened to roll with CM types), and the language used about the New Testament is sometimes pretty harsh.
Yep, the Torah refers to those five books; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers.
Now, here's where it gets interesting. The Tanakh, which is really a sort of acronym (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim = TNK = Tanakh), shares just about all books in common with the Christian Old Testament, but there are some subtle, but interesting differences. The Jewish configuration categorizes the books by those of Teaching, Prophets, and Writings, where the Christian configuration is less clear after the first five books. There is a charge by countermissionaries that Christians put Malachi at the end in order to point to the imminent arrival of the Messiah, conveniently following immediately after Malachi.
I just think damning people's souls to hell for simple non-belief is pretty harsh, but that's a Jewish perspective. The Christian perspective, and hence why I called your characterization "Christian-centric", is that well thank god (literall) he sent Jesus to save us from hell. Jews, who don't have a hell, are left scratching our heads like "well, if their god didn't create a hell in the first place, you wouldn't need Jesus. That New Testament really raises the stakes!"
There is definitely a lot of violence in the "OT", whatwith all the wars and crazy **** that happens. God does pretty much order the Jews to destroy Amalek for trying to **** with them when they were on their way to Canaan, so there's your genocide. Ironically, though, in the law itself, there are very few laws for which death is the punishment. Even then, we have to consider the Talmud, as it's very important to note that the Jews debated the laws in the Torah like we do the Constitution, after all, it is a national law as much as a religious law. So the prevailing opinion became that to impose a death penalty, the proof would have to be beyond refute and the crime extraordinarily heinous. Any court that sentenced more than one person to death in an 80 year period was considered a "bloody court".
In the law itself, the divine penalties for disobedience were applied on a national level; national calamities like plague, conquest, etc. Likewise the rewards were applied on a national level; bountiful crops, winning wars, etc.
Hell as an eternal punishment is a construct of the New Testament. To me, that god is far more vengeful than the Jewish god. The Jewish god might well provide for a death penalty in the law (for things like murder and rape, etc), but the Christian god is sending you to a pretty terrible existence for all eternity (for mere unbelief).
Also noteworthy is that the law in the Torah applies to Jews only. Gentiles don't even have to worry about it. The application of the Jewish national laws in the Torah across all mankind is another construct of the NT.
So, under the OT, as long as you didn't **** with the Jews, you were more or less good as a Gentile. In the NT, suddenly Gentiles are on the hook for the whole Jewish law under penalty of eternal damnation. That kinda blows, if you ask me. It's one reason I told the one Gentile I knew who wanted to convert to Judaism; "uh dude, you wanna be on the hook for 613 laws? **** that...roll on with the Gentile life. You got it good lol"
Lemme know your thoughts based on what I just said above.
Especially when it's blind retaliation (although the urge to do that is very understandable) , without understanding cause and effect.
Under Jewish law, isnt all non jews subject to the Covenant of Noah?
There is a section of the Bible where God tells the Israelites to kill all Canaanite men and take the women and children into slavery.
Terrorists only have to succeed once. Security forces must succeed every time.
Yep, ye olde Noahide Laws. I had meant to mention those. They are not really enumerated in any on place in the Torah, but in the Talmud and are these pretty much:
1. Don't deny god's existence.
2. Don't blaspheme god.
3. Don't murder.
4. Don't be sexually immoral (open to interpretations but pretty sure beastiality is out)
5. Don't steal.
6. Don't eat living animals.
7. Set up a court of law.
But whether these are a part of Jewish law or whether or not a Jewish court could even enforce these laws is a matter of debate still, and there's no evidence that Jews ever tried Gentiles on these laws. I think, for that reason, Jewish thought gravitated toward saying that Gentiles who "strove" to follow these laws would be rewarded in the afterlife. There is no afterlife punishment for disobedience.
I disagree that the concept of hell is a NT construction. The word "hell" doesn't even exist in the real bible, after all, how could it, since there is no word for "hell" in the Hebrew language? The Hebrew word Sheol clearly means "the grave" not "hell." You will see the word "hell" in corrupt translations such as the latter King James versions, perverted for the churches they serves.
The concept that one goes to hell for not believing in Jesus is every bit a device as Catholic guilt is- IMHO; both are scare tactics, and for the Catholic church, it was (and is) a way for them to stay opulent.
Do you mean you agree that hell is an NT construction? The rest of your post seems to support that point.
EDIT - Upon further reflection and reading again, are you saying that the concept of hell is not in the NT either?
The Jewish faith has Gehenna, which can be interpreted as hell
Gehenna is a valley in Israel known in Hebrew as Gehinnom, or the Valley of Hinnom. It's quite beautiful, I understand.
EDIT: It was also deemed a place where apostate Israelites and followers of Canaanite gods, sacrificed their children by fire, in biblical times. Can't imagine that's a good place, so you have a point there.
My condolences to the people who lost loved ones and to the people of France for this inhumane act!
Now, here are my concerns. One of the attackers had a syrian passport who was a refugee. The United States are taking in thousands without being able to vet them. We could be seeing similar attacks on our soil because of this.
Well let's clarify further- as far as the idea of "hell," I assume that we both think of that word as signifying a place where there is eternal torment and suffering after death. If so, while I think the NT does hint at a life of suffering without belief, I do not agree that it specifically means hell in the afterlife, never mind a life in hell for "rejecting Jesus Christ." That is most definitely a concept the bible doesn't espouse.
I'm under the impression that "hell" was a concept greatly popularized by the RC church. I could be wrong as I'm not really a student of religion in general.
With all due respect, these are the same people the refugees are running away from.
So you don't think that ISIS members couldn't blend in and get into countries as "refugees"?
I don't deny that is a big problem, but the way you phrase it- it just feels to me, pretty close to a xenophobic justification for denying asylum to those refugees.
Separate names with a comma.