A different approach to revising Judaism, Christianity and Islam

[Lionel Refson]

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.

I strongly disagree with
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

This must come from the religions. The religions are the ones that can brainwash, make their flock feel guilty or afraid or hellbound whatever. The religious books are the ones the future generations are going to pick up and read from. A radical can sneer at these books as revisionist rubbish, but with his own holy book, now revised to include liberal takes on the extreme verses, from all other religions, under the watchful eye of a liberal court, he can protest but will just be seen for what he is a radical first!

 

[Jim]

I strongly disagree with

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

This must come from the religions.

I’m talking about books written by Christians for Christians, books written by Muslims for Muslims and books written by Jews for Jews. I’m describing what is actually happening. For example, books written by Christians for Christians taking some of the best ideas for living, from all sources, and sprinkling them with Bible verses. I think that those books are read and taken to heart by Christians, more than the Bible itself, and possibly more than the views of anyone who would be members your religious court. What I’m proposing is to facilitate and encourage more of that, people writing and reading those books. Are you objecting to that?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

How people interpret their scripture and how they follow their religion is their business and not yours. You do not get to dictate what the adherents are to believe period. You take care of your own religion and respect the differences. Why can't some of you get this through your heads? You have no business telling Muslims, Christians and Jews what they should do. It's insulting and it is hostile.

 

[Deeje]

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.

Do you honestly think that this is realistic, given that freedom of religion is something precious to those who take their faith seriously.

Misinterpretation of scripture as a means to control the masses is certainly nothing new, but in the last 100 years or so, and most visibly in the last 25 years, we have seen a decided shift in way people practice their religion.
Many in so called "Christian" nations, e.g. who once lived by the moral principles stated in the Bible, (at least in public) have already watered down its moral principles, justifying many of the things that the Bible condemns. So in that sense, some of what you are suggesting has already taken place, but it's not across the board. There are still those who strictly adhere to the Biblical standards. The problem arises when those who hold the stricter view, try to impose those laws on others who don't want the restrictions.

Islam has also been in the news in this time period and we hear about it, sadly because of extremism. There will always be extremists unfortunately....but when it results in mass murder, you know something is horribly wrong. Emotions have been manipulated to a ridiculous degree.

From the Biblical perspective, the only people we are under obligation to police is ourselves. All will answer to God individually, so warning people about watering down God's standards is one thing, but forcing others to comply with their interpretation of scripture is quite another. Jesus never forced people to obey God....he simply warned them about what would eventually happen if they didn't. He allowed his message to move hearts....or not.

What you are suggesting is good in principle I guess, but it also means an erosion of another freedom. Democracy is under threat every time someone's freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of choice is taken away, bit by bit. It's called gradualism and a gradual erosion of anything can eventually create a "Grand Canyon".

I guess it's a case of...."be careful what you wish for".....

 

[Jim]

How people interpret their scripture and how they follow their religion is their business and not yours. You do not get to dictate what the adherents are to believe period. You take care of your own religion and respect the differences. Why can't some of you get this through your heads? You have no business telling Muslims, Christians and Jews what they should do. It's insulting and it is hostile.

It seems insulting and hostile to me to post a comment like that in a thread without carefully reading and pondering the OP, or asking any questions.

What I proposed in the OP was was to find ways to help accelerate the process that is already happening, of discrediting the use of scriptures to excuse and camouflage harmful behavior. Are you objecting to that proposal?

Also, your post looks to me like dictating to other people what they should do. What are your rules for deciding when it is right and when it is wrong, to tell other people what they should do?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

It seems insulting and hostile to me to post a comment like that in a thread without carefully reading and pondering the OP, or asking any questions.

What I proposed in the OP was was to find ways to help accelerate the process that is already happening, of discrediting the use of scriptures to excuse and camouflage harmful behavior. Are you objecting to that?

And who the hell do you think you are that you can propose anything to Muslim, Christians and Jews about how they believe, you are an outsider. You don't get to tell Jews or anything how or what they should believe period. How would you like me to go to your house and tell you how to run it?

 

[Jim]

And who the hell do you think you are that you can propose anything to Muslim, Christians and Jews about how they believe, you are an outsider. You don't get to tell Jews or anything how or what they should believe period. How would you like me to go to your house and tell you how to run it?

You’re telling me what I should do. What are your rules for deciding when it’s right and when it’s wrong, to tell people what they should do?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You’re telling me what I should do. What are your rules for deciding when it’s right and when it’s wrong, to tell people what they should do?

Yeah, i am telling you to mind your own business

 

[Jim]

And who the hell do you think you are that you can propose anything to Muslim, Christians and Jews about how they believe, you are an outsider. You don't get to tell Jews or anything how or what they should believe period. How would you like me to go to your house and tell you how to run it?

Have you decided not to answer my question, asking if you’re disagreeing with my proposal? Are you disagreeing with the idea of denouncing the use of scriptures to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Have you decided not to answer my question, asking if you’re disagreeing with my proposal? Are you disagreeing with the idea of denouncing the use of scriptures to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior?

So when were you elected Pope, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and Hgh Iman? You don't get to tell us what we can do with our religious beliefs period. I know you guys think you are the Religion to End All Religion and that somehow your fantasy is going to bring about World Peace and therefore we all should listen to you guys. But guess what? Your conceit and presumptiveness towards other religions breeds nothing but resentment. You don't get to tell us what to do period.

 

[Jim]

Yeah, i am telling you to mind your own business

Have you decided not to answer my question? What are your rules for deciding when it is right, and when it is wrong, to tell people what to do?

Another question: Where do you see me telling anyone what to believe or what to do? I posted an idea of what people can do if they want to, to help stop people from using scriptures to excuse and camouflage harmful behavior. Is that what you call “telling people what to do”?

If you think it’s always wrong to tell people what to do, then why are you doing it? If you don’t think it’s always wrong, then what are your rules for deciding when it’s right and when it’s wrong?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Have you decided not to answer my question? What are your rules for deciding when it is right, and when it is wrong, to tell people what to do?

Another question: Where do you see me telling anyone what to believe or what to do? I posted an idea of what people can do if they want to, to help stop people from using scriptures to excuse and camouflage harmful behavior. Is that what you call “telling people what to do”?

If you think it’s always wrong to tell people what to do, then why are you doing it? If you don’t think it’s always wrong, then what are your rules for deciding when it’s right and when it’s wrong?

I already answered. Do you belong to our faiths? No. Then you don't get to propose jack to us. At all. In fact, we will hate you if you dare.

 

[Jim]

So when were you elected Pope, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and Hgh Iman? You don't get to tell us what we can do with our religious beliefs period. I know you guys think you are the Religion to End All Religion and that somehow your fantasy is going to bring about World Peace and therefore we all should listen to you guys. But guess what? Your conceit and presumptiveness towards other religions breeds nothing but resentment. You don't get to tell us what to do period.

“You guys.” I see. I’ll stop responding to your posts now, unless and until I see you talking to me, personally.

 

[sealchan]

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.

I see that effort taking place well outside the Christian bookstore. My own inspiration has been to assemble my own "canon" which is really two different collections. One collection is centered on the world's greatest epic literature whether spiritual or fictional or even non-fictional. The idea there is to engage our sense of mystery and imagination through story. I have included not only written works but video works as well. Biographies of scientists are included. Certainly Carl Sagan's Cosmos series is one.

The other collection, which has received less attention from me recently, is to expand the Bible and tell the continuing story of God. This would involve works from believers strung together by their place in history and their ability to reveal something more of the nature of God. Biological descent would give way to experiential connection like a master to a disciple or even a significant shared connection.

I've toyed with finding the latter in terms of different religions with pseudo-historical groundings. The Mahabharata is an obvious other example. By combining real history with sacred literature and epic fiction one could stitch together multiple expanded bibles into a planetary shared universe.

In this I am clearly inspired by modern literature and motion picture universes such as Tolkien's Middle Earth (and the Dungeons and Dragons fantasy genre in literature and games it inspired), Star Wars, Star Trek and, of course, the recent comic book efforts.

All of these epics, old or new, have at least one thing in common: deep, rich story. As human beings we seem to need story to take us out of the limited reality we find ourselves in and put us, temporarily, in another reality which helps us see and accept our own as something more than we usually perceive. Epics, spiritual or otherwise, are like seeing ones life as a Grand Canyon or a Mt Everest.

 

[atanu]

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 think ego assumes too much responsibility, that it can reform the world, reform the religions etc.

I think it is sufficient if we succeed to reform self.

 

[Lionel Refson]

I think ego assumes too much responsibility, that it can reform the world, reform the religions etc.

I think it is sufficient if we succeed to reform self.

But there are those that use outdated and harmful verses to reform themselves

 

[The Reverend Bob]

But there are those that use outdated and harmful verses to reform themselves

And how is that your business that you presume you can tell them what to do?

 

[usfan]

My objections:

1. Revising history to mold public opinion, aka, propaganda, is a crooked path to Enlightenment. It's been tried before, and the results are never positive.
2. 'Religion is the reason for all evil in the universe!', is a crock. Humans have evil tendencies, and no followers of ideology have a monopoly.
3. Religious scriptures, for the most part, extoll the virtues of moral, spiritual living. A few promote aggression, but that's a human thing that artificial mandates from mandating ideologues cannot repair.
4. Mandating conformity of belief is a step backwards, in human Enlightenment. Freedom of conscience, open expression of ideas, and freedom of expression and belief promote unity and tolerance better than mandated homogeneity of belief.

 

[Lionel Refson]

And how is that your business that you presume you can tell them what to do?

and how is it your business that you presume to tell me I cannot. I am a member of society. I am an ex-member of the Jewish faith still carrying the physical and mental scars....who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do
If a verse exists that even one young impressionable mind can be radicalized with then that verse should be subject to scrutiny by my idea of an international court of moderate abrahamic religious leaders International Court of Moderate Abrahamic Religious Leaders

Verse such as these in the Koran should be the first to be scrutinized.....

Quran (9:29): "Fight against Christians and Jews until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

Quran (5:51): "Don't take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them."

Quran (2:65-66): "Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers."

Quran (5:51): "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Quran (9:30): "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Now of course, there are verses in Judasim and Christianity that cause as much societal divisiveness , but those verses, have a different flavour. If they cause guilt and fear, perhaps psychosis or mental illness or even alienate other members of society, they should be looked at

But then that whole thing of reform would upset you, because you are a dull-witted anachronistic, insecure (no-one is going to tell me what to think babyish crap) rude pedant, who is only ever going to start crying for reform is one of your loved ones gets blown up

I live in Europe, we have experienced the most brutal senseless slayings both from secular and religious motives. The Government can take care of the secular motives, and the liberal religious leaders im the court I propose can take care of the religious issues.before the Governments take over that as well Muslims Recoil at a French Proposal to Change the Quran

 

[The Reverend Bob]

and how is it your business that you presume to tell me I cannot.

You don't run the show.