A different approach to revising Judaism, Christianity and Islam

[Jim]

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

I’ll tell you some things that I’ve been trying to learn to do.
- Catch myself whenever I’m stigmatizing some group or category of people, and stop doing that, no matter what excuses my mind comes up with for doing it. Some people that I’ve stigmatized recently have been people who believe in growth economics.
- Help diversify people’s images of groups and categories of people that they’re stigmatizing.
- Be a friend to some people that I see being stigmatized by group and category labels applied to them.
- In my interactions with people individually, ignore all the ideological and identity labels that they wear or that other people apply to them.
- Denounce all excuses and camouflage, on all sides, for uncaring attitudes and behavior towards groups and categories of people, including groups and categories defined by what people believe or don’t believe. That includes using religious scriptures, and anything that people call “science,” “criticism,” or “freedom of speech,” as excuses and camouflage for uncaring attitudes and behavior towards some groups or categories of people.
- Free myself from all beliefs.
- Be a better friend to more people.
- Tell stories that might inspire people to do what I’m hoping for them to do.
- Help with the growth and spread of healthier, happier and more loving communities.

 

[Lionel Refson]

I’ll tell you some things that I’ve been trying to learn to do.
- Catch myself whenever I’m stigmatizing some group or category of people, and stop doing that, no matter what excuses my mind comes up with for doing it. Some people that I’ve stigmatized recently have been people who believe in growth economics.
- Help diversify people’s images of groups and categories of people that they’re stigmatizing.
- Be a friend to some people that I see being stigmatized by group and category labels applied to them.
- In my interactions with people individually, ignore all the ideological and identity labels that they wear or that other people apply to them.
- Denounce all excuses and camouflage, on all sides, for uncaring attitudes and behavior towards groups and categories of people, including groups and categories defined by what people believe or don’t believe. That includes using religious scriptures, and anything that people call “science,” “criticism,” or “freedom of speech,” as excuses and camouflage for uncaring attitudes and behavior towards some groups or categories of people.
- Free myself from all beliefs.
- Be a better friend to more people.
- Tell stories that might inspire people to do what I’m hoping for them to do.
- Help with the growth and spread of healthier, happier and more loving communities.

........and expecting no reward nor thanks is the key!

 

[Jim]

@Aupmanyav Please see this post..

 

[David T]

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?

The text absolutely is not a map read as a map Solve that. Good luck.

 

[sealchan]

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?

I've certainly thought about this topic.

There are several approaches that could be taken to revising sacred literature...

Remove, alter or replace stories that teach immoral practices or laws

Create new stories and add them to the canon

Recognize or adopt new works as "friends of the canon"

For me I think that too much time has passed for us to revise the Bible...it should be preserved as is as a sacred artifact of time.

I think the best approach would be to adopt modern and historical works relevant to the faith and then let time and popularity tell which works are worthy of special attention as "canon".

A serious effort on the part of a church would yield, I think, a new effort on the part of authors and other artists to create works intended for inclusion in the canon. Then we would be back on a situation in which the Bible and other sacred works of the past undoubtedly had their start in, a creative community of artists producing works which were incorporated into spiritual studies.

 

[Jim]

I've certainly thought about this topic.

There are several approaches that could be taken to revising sacred literature...

Remove, alter or replace stories that teach immoral practices or laws

Create new stories and add them to the canon

Recognize or adopt new works as "friends of the canon"

For me I think that too much time has passed for us to revise the Bible...it should be preserved as is as a sacred artifact of time.

I think the best approach would be to adopt modern and historical works relevant to the faith and then let time and popularity tell which works are worthy of special attention as "canon".

A serious effort on the part of a church would yield, I think, a new effort on the part of authors and other artists to create works intended for inclusion in the canon. Then we would be back on a situation in which the Bible and other sacred works of the past undoubtedly had their start in, a creative community of artists producing works which were incorporated into spiritual studies.

Super winner. Actually I see that happening already, without any official designation of new writings as canon. I think that many, possibly most followers of religions get their ideas about their religion more from popular authors than from scriptures. Browse through a Christian bookstore some time. There are many authors who take the best knowledge and wisdom for living from all sources, and sprinkle it with Bible verses, in books read by multitudes of Christians. None of that has been designated as canon, but the effect is the same, so actually what Lionel is proposing is already happening, and has been happening for as long as there have been Christian bookstores. All we need to do is encourage and facilitate more of that.

 

[Lionel Refson]

Super winner. Actually I see that happening already, without any official designation of new writings as canon. I think that many, possibly most followers of religions get their ideas about their religion more from popular authors than from scriptures. Browse through a Christian bookstore some time. There are many authors who take the best knowledge and wisdom for living from all sources, and sprinkle it with Bible verses, in books read by multitudes of Christians. None of that has been designated as canon, but the effect is the same, so actually what Lionel is proposing is already happening, and has been happening for as long as there have been Christian bookstores. All we need to do is encourage and facilitate more of that.

Great for Christianity,...what about the other two?
What I proposed is not happening! It takes three to tango and the verses that cause divisiveness remain.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

OK......... Fair enough. So... may I exercise that freedom to express what I think? I hope so....

I’ve thought of a different approach to Lionel’s idea of revising Judaism, Christianity and Islam,

I didn't read Lionel's idea, but I know what I would say if I was a Jew, Muslim or Christian and somebody told me how they were going to revise my religion. !!

................. 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.

So you want to see more criticism of those religions, on a wider scale, involving more and new objections? Yes?
And the more discredit there is, so the more folks will leave those religions..... for what?.... to go where?

I see some possible ways for anyone who wants to, to help that happen, which I’m practicing and promoting.

Well I never did! A Bahai wants to see new discredits in Judaism, Islam and Christianity, can think of new ways to practice and promote that, and ..... the very nature of Bahai is to do all that it can to win as many converts as it can to ..... Bahai?
Yes?

Can anyone think of any objections that anyone might have to that?

Me? Objections? Well.... let me see.......

 

[Lionel Refson]

OK......... Fair enough. So... may I exercise that freedom to express what I think? I hope so....


I didn't read Lionel's idea, but I know what I would say if I was a Jew, Muslim or Christian and somebody told me how they were going to revise my religion. !!


So you want to see more criticism of those religions, on a wider scale, involving more and new objections? Yes?
And the more discredit there is, so the more folks will leave those religions..... for what?.... to go where
View attachment 30379

Point missed!

 

[Jim]

Great for Christianity,...what about the other two?

 

[oldbadger]

Old people don't like anything new nor change. Don't rise to it Jim (op)

Says the member who wants to deconstruct Abrahamic religions.

I never read your ideas, but your title gives some kind of a clue.

 

[Jim]

@Lionel Refson

 

[oldbadger]

History tells story of bloodshed attempting such revisions

It does.

Whilst I cannot see that revision or progression within any religion is bad, butwh en folks from other religions suggest that they want to promote and practice discredit in those religions in order to manipulate changes then this looks like a very impertinent attitude.

But since they do, that does at least give me the opportunity to copy them, and point out that the OP's religion, Bahai, could do with some deep and close scrutiny and revision of it's history, it's claims, it's politics and the outline of its Bahai World Order, which could be one deep deep nightmare if it ever got started.

 

[Jim]

Bahai, could do with some deep and close scrutiny and revision of it's history, it's claims, it's politics and the outline of its Bahai World Order, which could be one deep deep nightmare if it ever got started.

As I said in another post, everything I said about denouncing the use of scriptures to excuse and camouflage harmful behavior applies to Bahá’í scriptures as much as to any others. Also, the idea of facilitating and encouraging books that take the best knowledge and wisdom from all sources, and sprinkle them with scripture verses.

 

[Deeje]

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?

Am I reading this right? You all want to make changes to 'water down' the teachings of these Abrahamic faiths so as the make people more accepting of them? You feel they need "revising"?

Can you be more specific about what you think are those things that "excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior" are? Because I think you will find that its the interpretation that is amiss rather than the Biblical requirements themselves.

I think people just need to practice the principles behind the tenets of their faith for the simple reason that Jesus emphasized the spirit of the law as much as he did the law itself.

I don't see Jesus as being responsible for any bad or harmful attitudes in his teachings since love was at the base of all of them.
And since he spoke for his Father, I see everything he taught as being straight from God. If something needs revising, I believe it is our attitudes concerning the things that God advocates that don't sit well with a lot of people in today's world. His moral laws for example.

Should God change to accommodate us or should we adjust to accommodate the standards of a God whom the Bible says, "does not change"? For Abrahamics, isn't it supposed to be the same God?

The whole idea of adjusting religion to suit man is just a symptom of the times. Do we want God to give us permission to break his laws?

 

[Jim]

@Lionel Refson What I was proposing in the OP was to encourage denouncing the use of scriptures to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior. I haven’t seen anyone objecting to that proposal. Have you?

 

[Jim]

Am I reading this right? You all want to make changes to 'water down' the teachings of these Abrahamic faiths ...

Not me. Lionel was proposing for religious leaders to write new books for people to use instead of their scriptures, and I was suggesting a different way to stop the scriptures from being used to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior.

... so as the make people more accepting of them?

I don’t think that was Lionel’s purpose. I thought his purpose was to stop the scriptures from being used to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior.

You feel they need "revising"?

The ways that people use scriptures? Yes. Don’t you?

Can you be more specific about what you think are those things that "excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior" are? Because I think you will find that its the interpretation that is amiss rather than the Biblical requirements themselves.

I agree.

I think people just need to practice the principles behind the tenets of their faith for the simple reason that Jesus emphasized the spirit of the law as much as he did the law itself.

I agree.

I don't see Jesus as being responsible for any bad or harmful attitudes in his teachings since love was at the base of all of them.

I agree.

And since he spoke for his Father, I see everything he taught as being straight from God.

The way that I use the word “God,” that’s true by definition.

If something needs revising, I believe it is our attitudes concerning the things that God advocates that don't sit well with a lot of people in today's world. His moral laws for example.

I agree.

 

[Lionel Refson]

I don’t think that was Lionel’s purpose. I thought his purpose was to stop the scriptures from being used to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior.

That is correct

Not me. Lionel was proposing for religious leaders to write new books for people to use instead of their scriptures, and I was suggesting a different way to stop the scriptures from being used to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior.

That is not correct. The contents of my thread was
What Facebook has just done with Nick Clegg is interesting.,an independent court to help Facebook and other social media platforms make decisions as to which content should be included/excluded. The courts rulings are binding...
Perhaps there should be an International court of moderate abrahamic religious leaders , and representative of all factions, whose job it is to interpret all those verses that encourage violence, hatred, divisiveness etc. and either change them, remove them or probably the best option, rule, in a binding way on the best way that they should be re-interpreted . The rulings would be binding on all Rabbis, Priests, Vicars, Imams and so on ...........and if the rules are broken that teacher/preacher should be held accounatble.
Even if the verses cannot be re-interpreted then there should be added a modern day explanation why the verse is not appropriate in today's society.

if you are wondering why I suggest moderate leaders that is because they will set the standard for this revision of the texts

I urge you, before you reply to also take a look at https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/cmsfiles/Killing-in-the-Name-of-God.pdf.... I played no part in that article but religious violence is on the increase, especially in Europe and requires treatment.
What are your views on this proposal?
Three points to make. 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.


What you believe is different to the content of the books. Can we move away from the babyish attitude of "NO-one can tell me what to believe etc That is not what this is about It is more about the thousands of murders, ruined lives through guilt an fear that some verses and dogma cause !!

 

[Deeje]

Not me. Lionel was proposing for religious leaders to write new books for people to use instead of their scriptures, and I was suggesting a different way to stop the scriptures from being used to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior.

I don’t think that was Lionel’s purpose. I thought his purpose was to stop the scriptures from being used to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior.

The ways that people use scriptures? Yes. Don’t you?

I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

The way that I use the word “God,” that’s true by definition.

I agree.

Thanks for clarifying that

 

[Jim]

In the thread “Society Should Ban The Abrahamic Religions..But How?,” @Lionel Refson said “Ok so how about forcing the three religions to come up with a new religious book that everyone could use, with all the hatred and violence and indeed any type of prescribed harm being removed.” I scorned that idea at first, but now I see that there actually are new books being written that might serve the same purpose even better. Those are books written by weaving verses from the scriptures of one religion or another into some of the best knowledge and wisdom for living, from all sources. I know that many Christians, possibly most, get their ideas about how to practice their religion more from those books than from reading the Bible, and after a little searching on the Internet I feel safe in saying that the same is true in other religions.