A different approach to revising Judaism, Christianity and Islam

[Jim]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. I just want to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say whatever they think about it.

I’ve thought of a different approach to Lionel’s idea of revising Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and I’d like to see what objections anyone might have, from any point of view. Some ways of using the scriptures of those religions to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior have already been so widely and thoroughly discredited that they are rarely used now to excuse and camouflage cruelty and violence on a large scale. One example is slavery, discrimination, cruelty and violence based on race categories. My idea for revising those religions is simply for that process to continue, for more and more ways that scriptures have been used to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior to be discredited as widely and thoroughly as the ways that they were used with race categories. I see some possible ways for anyone who wants to, to help that happen, which I’m practicing and promoting. Can anyone think of any objections that anyone might have to that?

 

[leov]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. I just want to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say whatever they think about it.

I’ve thought of a different approach to Lionel’s idea of revising Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and I’d like to see what objections anyone might have, from any point of view. Some ways of using the scriptures of those religions to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior have already been so widely and thoroughly discredited that they are rarely used now to excuse and camouflage cruelty and violence on a large scale. One example is slavery, discrimination, cruelty and violence based on race categories. My idea for revising those religions is simply for that process to continue, for more and more ways that scriptures have been used to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior to be discredited as widely and thoroughly as the ways that they were used with race categories. I see some possible ways for anyone who wants to, to help that happen, which I’m practicing and promoting. Can anyone think of any objections that anyone might have to that?

History tells story of bloodshed attempting such revisions

 

[Darkforbid]

Well let's star with 'One example is slavery' the estimated number of people living in slavery today is 40-45 million and

403,000 estimated number of people living in modern slavery in the United States today

So what good does *****ing about historic slavery like its a thing of the past do?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

@Jim - So this is a more "organic" process I take it, rather than actually taking the scripture and editing or revising it, you're just advocating that people more and more spread the idea that certain portions of the scripture are, sort of, not applicable in modern times? I think this is a good process to support, for sure, and that it is ongoing and will certainly continue.

And there certainly are examples of other parts that still need a bit of push to get them more into the mode you're talking about. Like the discriminatory bits about women and their "role" as pertains to men specifically. There is far too much scripture that misogynists can point to that completely supports their misogyny.

In the end, I am all for revisions. The text is simply too old to be 100% pertinent in modern times. And progress toward relegating those most out-of-date concepts to the dust-bin is a little too slow for a lot of people's liking.

 

[osgart]

I read it all as mythology from ancient peasants. I do not think you are supposed to love everything you read of it. A lot of it is downright awful. Just as it should be.

If you desire to write your own Scriptures, then you should probably not mingle with the old ones. Reason being is that people should be allowed to be as gullible as they are without censoring, or editing outdated books.

These books are artifacts of history, they are important that way.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you desire to write your own Scriptures, then you should probably not mingle with the old ones. Reason being is that people should be allowed to be as gullible as they are without censoring, or editing outdated books.

Mingle with the old ones or not, you end up with one more when the world already has enough of them.

 

[RabbiO]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. I just want to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say whatever they think about it.

I’ve thought of a different approach to Lionel’s idea of revising Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and I’d like to see what objections anyone might have, from any point of view......

I have no idea how extensive your knowledge of Islam and Christianity is - in the myriad of ways those traditions are lived and practiced. I leave it to the adherents of those faith communities to voice their opinions.

I note that you left out Baha'i out of the list of religions in need of revision. I know that Mr. Refson did not include it, but I find it interesting that you did not feel the need to add it to the list.

Putting aside the fact that your post is so general in nature that it is almost meaningless, my more immediate concern is that I have seen nothing to date in your posts to indicate that you have any real knowledge or understanding of Judaism, in any of the ways it is lived and practiced. It seems to me that before you, or anyone else, stands up on a soapbox to criticize, or praise, something - be it a religion, a political system, a philosophy, or even the best way to paper train a puppy - you, or anyone else, needs to have a knowledge base sufficient to render an opinion.

I am unconvinced - although willing to be shown that I am incorrect - that you have that kind of knowledge.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

There are certain aspects of these faiths that are so crystallized and ingrained there is room for new progressive thought, with that being said I believe the fundamental issues that all three faiths share as propagated by their text as well their members is isolationism, and entitlement. Entitlement is not always a bad thing because some things are just the way they are such as human beings have a right to life, equitable justice, and happiness because we in the progressive society have conditioned the very spirit of our laws behind such notions.

Although truth is truth, the problem is how all three messages are conveyed to the world is a much different thing. Because all three profess a certain absolute truth, the conservative elements propagated by this truth creates this atmosphere of isolationism through the entitlement as a proxy. What this means is its almost like me having season tickets to the Lakers with all you can eat and drink and you sit in the box office. The catch is you must believe that the Lakers is the best organization and you must love the Lakers. The problem with this is that these contingencies through elitism and isolationism affects "free choice" because the the desire to be entertained watching a game which you don't have to pay, is based upon the contingency prescribed by me the giver.

Although you may have the option to decline, you miss out on the exclusive, rendering you outside the fold which is how I feel about certain aspects of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

 

[Darkforbid]

I read it all as mythology from ancient peasants. I do not think you are supposed to love everything you read of it. A lot of it is downright awful. Just as it should be.

If you desire to write your own Scriptures, then you should probably not mingle with the old ones. Reason being is that people should be allowed to be as gullible as they are without censoring, or editing outdated books.

These books are artifacts of history, they are important that way.

I read it all as mythology from ancient peasants.

Good I'm so glad you read it with an open mind

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Putting aside the fact that your post is so general in nature that it is almost meaningless, my more immediate concern is that I have seen nothing to date in your posts to indicate that you have any real knowledge or understanding of Judaism, in any of the ways it is lived and practiced.

From what I gather I think he was more so emphasizing the general understanding of said religions through the practices of its members as he states in the following:

Some ways of using the scriptures of those religions to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior have already been so widely and thoroughly discredited that they are rarely used now to excuse and camouflage cruelty and violence on a large scale.

I think it's a healthy concern and appropriate segue to critique all three Abrahamic faiths. A perfect example of such critique is the Israeli proposition (a proposed by Netanyahu) that Israel is a "light unto the nations" yet, the state of affairs is different. With Arabs and Africans experiencing documented discrimination within Israel, one can criticize how with such a people (and by people I'm singling out a section among them) who are motivated by their law given to them by the lawgiver Moses, can horrible practices occur and how some use their doctrine to justify their behavior. The same critique is said about Muslims and Christians which we come to the concept of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I may be wrong but I believe the OP is trying to say that a revision of practice may be in order to align the true thought behind religious/spiritual practices.

 

[Jim]

I note that you left out Baha'i out of the list of religions in need of revision. I know that Mr. Refson did not include it, but I find it interesting that you did not feel the need to add it to the list.

I liked your post very much. Thank you for speaking up. To explain that I want to clarify why I started this thread. I’ve had trouble believing that Lionel is serious about what he’s saying, but I’ve tried to treat it seriously anyway, as someone actually trying to help solve a problem. I’ve been trying to look at the problem, and his solution, from his point of view. He says “Abrahamic religions,” but from his posts it looks to me like he’s only thinking of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, That’s why I only listed those. I have my own ideas of what needs to change in religions, and those apply to the Baha’i Faith as much as to any other, but this thread is not about that. It’s about the problem as Lionel sees it, and a different way of accomplishing his purpose, wIthout some of the disadvantages of the solution he’s proposing.

One disadvantage of his solution that I see, that he might be able to see, is how unlikely it is that it would ever be implemented, considering that it’s being rejected here by people on all sides. I thought of a different way of accomplishing his purpose, that might be less repulsive to some people, so I started this thread to see how people would react to it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am unconvinced - although willing to be shown that I am incorrect - that you have that kind of knowledge.

He has some knowledge, although I would not brand him a scholar. But then, he is a Bahai. That is why he left out that name. He thinks that his sweet Bahai talk will fool others, and some are really fooled.

The catch is you must believe that the Lakers is the best organization and you must love the Lakers.

There are not just three but many more, even if you forget Zoroastrianism. LDS, JWs, Rastafarians, Bahais, Ahmadiyyas, etc., though they may not be in the first league.

 

[Jim]

But then, he is a Bahai. That is why he left out that name.

False. That was not my reason at all.

He thinks that his sweet Bahai talk will fool others ...

False.

 

[Jim]

@Aupmanyav If you want to try to convince people that I’m lying about my thoughts, feelings, motives and intentions, help yourself. Knock yourself out. That won’t stop me from liking you, but I might call attention to it sometimes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What a love-hate relationship do we have!

 

[Jim]

What a love-hate relationship do we have!

See this post.

 

[Jim]

... my more immediate concern is that I have seen nothing to date in your posts to indicate that you have any real knowledge or understanding of Judaism, in any of the ways it is lived and practiced. It seems to me that before you, or anyone else, stands up on a soapbox to criticize, or praise, something - be it a religion, a political system, a philosophy, or even the best way to paper train a puppy - you, or anyone else, needs to have a knowledge base sufficient to render an opinion.

I am unconvinced - although willing to be shown that I am incorrect - that you have that kind of knowledge.

I wouldn’t say that I have any knowledge of Judaism at all, unless some part of what I’ve learned from the part of the Christian Bible that’s called “Old Testament” would qualify as knowing something about Judaism.

What did I say, or what implications did you see in what I said, that require some knowledge of Judaism, specifically? The only possible implication that I see for Judaism is that its scriptures are sometimes used to excuse and camouflage harmful behavior. Are you disagreeing with that?

 

[Jim]

So what good does *****ing about historic slavery like its a thing of the past do?

I didn’t say anything about slavery being a thing of the past.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To go along with others, a person has to keep his own belief in the background and not flash it (or make endless quotes from his/her scriptures) as some of the Abrahamics do. Every religion has its own scriptures. That is false arrogance. It is circular reasoning. One cannot prove even an iota of what is written in the scriptures. Though Jim, thankfully you do not do that. You are more subtle.

 

[Lionel Refson]

I liked your post very much. Thank you for speaking up. To explain that I want to clarify why I started this thread. I’ve had trouble believing that Lionel is serious about what he’s saying, but I’ve tried to treat it seriously anyway, as someone actually trying to help solve a problem. I’ve been trying to look at the problem, and his solution, from his point of view. He says “Abrahamic religions,” but from his posts it looks to me like he’s only thinking of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, That’s why I only listed those. I have my own ideas of what needs to change in religions, and those apply to the Baha’i Faith as much as to any other, but this thread is not about that. It’s about the problem as Lionel sees it, and a different way of accomplishing his purpose, wIthout some of the disadvantages of the solution he’s proposing.

One disadvantage of his solution that I see, that he might be able to see, is how unlikely it is that it would ever be implemented, considering that it’s being rejected here by people on all sides. I thought of a different way of accomplishing his purpose, that might be less repulsive to some people, so I started this thread to see how people would react to it.

I presume you mean this thread International Court of Moderate Abrahamic Religious Leaders. of course I am serious! My thread on banning abrahamic religions was not serious

Three points One is that no one faith can take the lead in any reform which means that something else must take a lead for reform to happen.

Secondly if religions do not vet themselves soon I imagine that Governments might step in a la Muslims Recoil at a French Proposal to Change the Quran
Islam might be the first target but there will be an insistence on other religions as well I imagine, in the end at least . This may well work in Europe and citizens living in Europe might well accept this for societal cohesion if for no other reason.

Thirdly why not include in every religious book, for the divisive verses at least , the relevant verses of the other abrahamic faiths plus a commentary ie a move to a unification of the religious books.

Give an example of something that currently exists that you feel needs changing and how you feel it can be changed? as i am unsure exactly what your approach actually entails. However anything that brings the Abrahamic faiths together moves in the right direction imho

But and its a big BUT This cannot be just about removing or changing all those verses that condone violence and create guilt and fear . This also has to be about the three religions admitting that can be a path to God ie without the violence and hatred but also that many more paths exist including having no religion at all ie the direct path.
I suppose I am saying .....keep all the good bits, and move en masse via my court idea to cut out all the "God ownership" and "violent and hatred-breeding" and "guilt/fear creation" parts etc etc That is some revision!