• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does religious faith create values?

gsa

Well-Known Member
Reza Aslan, who is soon to host CNN's new show on religion, says no:

“No religion exists in a vacuum. On the contrary, every faith is rooted in the soil in which it is planted. It is a fallacy to believe that people of faith derive their values primarily from their Scriptures. The opposite is true. People of faith insert their values into their Scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives.

The abiding nature of scripture rests not so much in its truth claims as it does in its malleability, its ability to be molded and shaped into whatever form a worshiper requires. The same Bible that commands Jews to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) also exhorts them to “kill every man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,” who worship any other God (1 Sam. 15:3). The same Jesus Christ who told his disciples to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) also told them that he had “not come to bring peace but the sword” (Matthew 10:34), and that “he who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). The same Quran that warns believers “if you kill one person it is as though you have killed all of humanity” (5:32) also commands them to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5)..”



In critiquing Aslan, this is what Salon sometimes columnist Jeffrey Tayler has to say in rebuttal:

Now we have to stop and ponder what we are being sold here. Aslan is essentially taking a postmodernist, Derrida-esque scalpel to “scripture” and eviscerating it of objective content. This might pass muster in the college classroom these days, but what of all those ISIS warriors unschooled in French semiotic analysis who take their holy book’s admonition to do violence literally? As they rampage and behead their way through Syria and Iraq, ISIS fighters know they have the Koran on their side – a book they believe to be inerrant and immutable, the final Word of God, and not at all “malleable.” Their holy book backs up jihad, suicide attacks (“martyrdom”), beheadings, even taking captive women as sex slaves. This is not surprising; after all, the prophet Muhammad was a warrior who spread Islam by the sword in a dark, turbulent time in history. (Christianity’s propagation had, in contrast, much to do with the Roman emperor Constantine’s fourth-century conversion and subsequent decriminalization of the faith.)

Moreover, the razor-happy butchers of little girls’ clitorises and labia majora, the righteous wife-beaters, the stoners of adulterers, the shariah clerics denying women’s petitions for divorce from abusive husbands and awarding sons twice the inheritance allowed for daughters, all act with sanction from Islamic holy writ. It matters not a whit to the bloodied and battered victims of such savagery which lines from the Hadith or what verses from the Koran ordain the violence and injustice perpetrated against them, but one thing they do know: texts and belief in them have real-life consequences. And we should never forget that ISIS henchmen and executioners explicitly cite their faith in Islam as their motive. Tell that to Derrida – or Aslan.

Not just belief in the Koran leads to mayhem, though. Open the Book of Leviticus (in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament) and read the prescriptions of death (often by stoning or burning) as punishment for, among other things, cursing your parents, committing adultery, practicing bestiality (with mandatory slaughter of the unwitting animal as well), engaging in prostitution or sodomy, worshipping another god or taking God’s name in vain, and being the (female) victim of rape. The New Testament is somewhat less vicious, but even gentle Jesus, meek and mild, warned in Matthew (10:34): “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” and preached “unquenchable fire” and damnation for sinners.

Who has the more convincing argument?
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
I'm not going to lie, I didn't read the OP. But in my opinion to answer the thread title: Religious views can reinforce certain values, but not create nonexistent values.
 

Tiapan

Grumpy Old Man
Most values are inherent in obvious socially acceptable coohesive standards, faith is putting your head in the sand when things get confusing.
 

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
My impression is that Tayler didn't really rebut the claim that Aslan made, and in a way, I think they both have a point. I think what Reza said in the first paragraph is undoubtedly true, and his point about the malleability of hermaneutics is correct. I don't think it's easy to argue that he's wrong.

On the other hand, Tayler's point might be paraphrased as "So what? For all practical purposes there are elements of these texts that are easy to use to support fundamentalist violence, and there's every reason to believe those texts will continue to be used that way", which I think is also true.

An example that comes to mind that might prove them both is the history of Christian antisemitism, and the scriptural support that was traditionally given to it, and the fact that in the west almost no Christians read those texts in that way anymore, even though it was standard for literally hundreds of years. It demonstrates Aslan's point about hermaneutics, but demonstrates Tayler's in that it sadly took a holocaust for the change to occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gsa

DawudTalut

Peace be upon you.
Reza Aslan, who is soon to host CNN's new show on religion, says no:

“No religion exists in a vacuum. On the contrary, every faith is rooted in the soil in which it is planted. It is a fallacy to believe that people of faith derive their values primarily from their Scriptures. The opposite is true. People of faith insert their values into their Scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives.

The abiding nature of scripture rests not so much in its truth claims as it does in its malleability, its ability to be molded and shaped into whatever form a worshiper requires. The same Bible that commands Jews to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) also exhorts them to “kill every man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,” who worship any other God (1 Sam. 15:3). The same Jesus Christ who told his disciples to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) also told them that he had “not come to bring peace but the sword” (Matthew 10:34), and that “he who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). The same Quran that warns believers “if you kill one person it is as though you have killed all of humanity” (5:32) also commands them to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5)..”



In critiquing Aslan, this is what Salon sometimes columnist Jeffrey Tayler has to say in rebuttal:

Now we have to stop and ponder what we are being sold here. Aslan is essentially taking a postmodernist, Derrida-esque scalpel to “scripture” and eviscerating it of objective content. This might pass muster in the college classroom these days, but what of all those ISIS warriors unschooled in French semiotic analysis who take their holy book’s admonition to do violence literally? As they rampage and behead their way through Syria and Iraq, ISIS fighters know they have the Koran on their side – a book they believe to be inerrant and immutable, the final Word of God, and not at all “malleable.” Their holy book backs up jihad, suicide attacks (“martyrdom”), beheadings, even taking captive women as sex slaves. This is not surprising; after all, the prophet Muhammad was a warrior who spread Islam by the sword in a dark, turbulent time in history. (Christianity’s propagation had, in contrast, much to do with the Roman emperor Constantine’s fourth-century conversion and subsequent decriminalization of the faith.)

Moreover, the razor-happy butchers of little girls’ clitorises and labia majora, the righteous wife-beaters, the stoners of adulterers, the shariah clerics denying women’s petitions for divorce from abusive husbands and awarding sons twice the inheritance allowed for daughters, all act with sanction from Islamic holy writ. It matters not a whit to the bloodied and battered victims of such savagery which lines from the Hadith or what verses from the Koran ordain the violence and injustice perpetrated against them, but one thing they do know: texts and belief in them have real-life consequences. And we should never forget that ISIS henchmen and executioners explicitly cite their faith in Islam as their motive. Tell that to Derrida – or Aslan.

Not just belief in the Koran leads to mayhem, though. Open the Book of Leviticus (in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament) and read the prescriptions of death (often by stoning or burning) as punishment for, among other things, cursing your parents, committing adultery, practicing bestiality (with mandatory slaughter of the unwitting animal as well), engaging in prostitution or sodomy, worshipping another god or taking God’s name in vain, and being the (female) victim of rape. The New Testament is somewhat less vicious, but even gentle Jesus, meek and mild, warned in Matthew (10:34): “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” and preached “unquenchable fire” and damnation for sinners.

Who has the more convincing argument?

Peace be on world.

All what the two sayers have said above (as mentioned by gsaseeker) is crafted but subtle attack on the religion itself and nothing more.

Reza Aslan
“..... It is a fallacy to believe that people of faith derive their values primarily from their Scriptures. The opposite is true. People of faith insert their values into their Scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives."

He is making the classical mistake which usually people do i.e.
1- Not understanding verses' proper sense.
2- Not distinguishing a religion-in-original-form from its much-latter-corrupted form. Prophets come to teach righteousness and mercy, but after long times, they are thought as killers. They come for reform and establishment of rights, much latter they are thought as corrupt usurpers . As time passes, followers go away from real teaching teaching and their clergies add and subtract things and incoming generations take all without researching what was real teaching. Check the current role of modern day clergies in all major religions of today and check who is getting how much assistance from which and which politician from back doors and consequences. They are doing things which are not sanctioned in their scriptures.


Quoted with Ignorance
".... The same Bible that commands Jews to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) also exhorts them to “kill every man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,” who worship any other God (1 Sam. 15:3)....."

Broader Teaching
[Leviticus 19] 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

17'You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. 18'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD
.

Reason and Specific in scope -- not to Everyone.
[1 Samuel 15: 2,3,4,]
2"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" 1 Samuel 15



Quoted with Ignorance
"The same Jesus Christ who told his disciples to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) also told them that he had “not come to bring peace but the sword” (Matthew 10:34), and that “he who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36).

Right Sense is when reformer come believers' love for rerformer become more than family which do not believe.

[Mathew 10]
34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; ; 36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.




"The same Quran that warns believers “if you kill one person it is as though you have killed all of humanity” (5:32) also commands them to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5)..


Right sense of chapter 9
One should wonder How can a religion (Islam) ask to kill all idolaters, while it ask believers to take message to everyone. The chapter 9's subject was a challenge to rebels who were trying to annihilate Muslims. Please read the initial verses and notes;
image391.gif


image392.gif

image392.gif


image393.gif


More @ The Holy Quran
wwwDOTalislamDOTorg/quran/tafseer/?page=378&region=EN&CR=E1,E2

Thus nowhere a Licence to Kill all idolaters is given (as portrayed in original passage).

One is humbly sure that objections mentioned in next passage are same hollow as these were.

According to an Ahmadiyya Muslim, who defend truth present in all revealed religions, Mr. Reza should do better than that for an international news channel.!
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Does religious faith create values?
Reza Aslan, who is soon to host CNN's new show on religion, says no:

“No religion exists in a vacuum. On the contrary, every faith is rooted in the soil in which it is planted. It is a fallacy to believe that people of faith derive their values primarily from their Scriptures. The opposite is true. People of faith insert their values into their Scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives.

Neither Asian nor Taylor have it right. imo.
Their first mistake is in their joint use of the word 'values'.

'Values' doesn't mean being a nice wholesome citizen .
Values is a word which means 'What a person values'.
And so, The Ancient Order of the followers of Drog (whoever), who believe that chopping up babies for a better harvest........... have got values, but they just differ a tad from yours or mine! :D

If writers like Asian or Taylor cannot get this kind of simplicity right in the first place, then the rest just comes unstuck.
If the discussion had been about a comparison in levels of hypocrisy amongst religious and secular folks, then that would really have been an electrically charged debate! :D
 

DawudTalut

Peace be upon you.
.......... ISIS fighters know they have the Koran on their side – a book they believe to be inerrant and immutable, the final Word of God, and not at all “malleable.” Their holy book backs up jihad, suicide attacks (“martyrdom”), beheadings, even taking captive women as sex slaves. .................


ISIS people do know that true Islam is not on their side,
A Westerner author imbedded himself with ISIS and asked them where is Islam in you:

"....He said he reminded the fighters that most chapters of the Koran began with the words "Allah... most merciful".

"I asked: Where is the mercy? I never got the real answer."
Source: BBC News - Rare Islamic State visit reveals 'brutal and strong' force



Holy Quran does not backup these so-called Jihadis and suicide-killers:

"....not only Islam but also no true religion, whatever its name, can sanction violence and bloodshed of innocent men, women and children in the name of God."

AHMADIYYA-MUSLIM RESOURCES


 
Last edited:

Marisa

Well-Known Member
Reza Aslan, who is soon to host CNN's new show on religion, says no:

“No religion exists in a vacuum. On the contrary, every faith is rooted in the soil in which it is planted. It is a fallacy to believe that people of faith derive their values primarily from their Scriptures. The opposite is true. People of faith insert their values into their Scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives.

The abiding nature of scripture rests not so much in its truth claims as it does in its malleability, its ability to be molded and shaped into whatever form a worshiper requires. The same Bible that commands Jews to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) also exhorts them to “kill every man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,” who worship any other God (1 Sam. 15:3). The same Jesus Christ who told his disciples to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) also told them that he had “not come to bring peace but the sword” (Matthew 10:34), and that “he who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). The same Quran that warns believers “if you kill one person it is as though you have killed all of humanity” (5:32) also commands them to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5)..”



In critiquing Aslan, this is what Salon sometimes columnist Jeffrey Tayler has to say in rebuttal:

Now we have to stop and ponder what we are being sold here. Aslan is essentially taking a postmodernist, Derrida-esque scalpel to “scripture” and eviscerating it of objective content. This might pass muster in the college classroom these days, but what of all those ISIS warriors unschooled in French semiotic analysis who take their holy book’s admonition to do violence literally? As they rampage and behead their way through Syria and Iraq, ISIS fighters know they have the Koran on their side – a book they believe to be inerrant and immutable, the final Word of God, and not at all “malleable.” Their holy book backs up jihad, suicide attacks (“martyrdom”), beheadings, even taking captive women as sex slaves. This is not surprising; after all, the prophet Muhammad was a warrior who spread Islam by the sword in a dark, turbulent time in history. (Christianity’s propagation had, in contrast, much to do with the Roman emperor Constantine’s fourth-century conversion and subsequent decriminalization of the faith.)

Moreover, the razor-happy butchers of little girls’ clitorises and labia majora, the righteous wife-beaters, the stoners of adulterers, the shariah clerics denying women’s petitions for divorce from abusive husbands and awarding sons twice the inheritance allowed for daughters, all act with sanction from Islamic holy writ. It matters not a whit to the bloodied and battered victims of such savagery which lines from the Hadith or what verses from the Koran ordain the violence and injustice perpetrated against them, but one thing they do know: texts and belief in them have real-life consequences. And we should never forget that ISIS henchmen and executioners explicitly cite their faith in Islam as their motive. Tell that to Derrida – or Aslan.

Not just belief in the Koran leads to mayhem, though. Open the Book of Leviticus (in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament) and read the prescriptions of death (often by stoning or burning) as punishment for, among other things, cursing your parents, committing adultery, practicing bestiality (with mandatory slaughter of the unwitting animal as well), engaging in prostitution or sodomy, worshipping another god or taking God’s name in vain, and being the (female) victim of rape. The New Testament is somewhat less vicious, but even gentle Jesus, meek and mild, warned in Matthew (10:34): “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” and preached “unquenchable fire” and damnation for sinners.

Who has the more convincing argument?
Did the author look for similar passages in the bible? I think Aslan's comments effectively explain that we tend to interpret as "immalleable" those parts of the holy book that validate our feelings. I.E.: there are as many exhortations to peace as to violence.
 

Erock13

Member
It's an interesting debate, to be sure. Which is leading which? Is the book leading the people, or are the people leading the book? I think I lean more to Azlan's take. Tayler has a point in that groups like IS can have black-and-white support for the things they do, but in the context of Azlan's position, are they not crafting their own interpretation just as much as the peaceful Muslim? By focusing on the violence and political law and less on the feel-good verses, does that not itself prove that the text is still malleable? I'm not sure, but it seems more likely to me.

The problem is, of course, that with books like the Qu'ran and the Bible, etc., is that they are so big and written/translated/interpreted by so many different people that you can find justification for almost any action you want to take. The biggest problem comes when any one side, peaceful or not, takes these books so seriously.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
The Ancient Order of the followers of Drog (whoever), who believe that chopping up babies for a better harvest........... have got values, but they just differ a tad from yours or mine! :D

They used to do that in Norfolk till they introduced a bye-law against it. :p
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
Neither Asian nor Taylor have it right. imo.
Their first mistake is in their joint use of the word 'values'.

'Values' doesn't mean being a nice wholesome citizen .
Values is a word which means 'What a person values'.
And so, The Ancient Order of the followers of Drog (whoever), who believe that chopping up babies for a better harvest........... have got values, but they just differ a tad from yours or mine! :D

If writers like Asian or Taylor cannot get this kind of simplicity right in the first place, then the rest just comes unstuck.
If the discussion had been about a comparison in levels of hypocrisy amongst religious and secular folks, then that would really have been an electrically charged debate! :D

I think that they get this part right actually. The issue isn't whether the values of the believers are good values or bad values, but the source of those values. Aslan claims that the values are read into scripture, and Tayler says that the scriptures generate values.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I think that they get this part right actually. The issue isn't whether the values of the believers are good values or bad values, but the source of those values. Aslan claims that the values are read into scripture, and Tayler says that the scriptures generate values.
Hi..... :)
Values...... read into scripture or generated from scripture. Right? Interesting, but......
But........... that is not the thread title's question, which is it?
Does religious faith create values?
Values created from Faith. ........... It's the Faith that matters here, surely?

But let's go with your scripture point.
Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Exodus all produced laws.
Not values, but Laws, for the tribe's survival, growth and betterment.
If the people kept..... all of them, including Laws such as 'no shellfish consumption' then the tribe had a better chance of survival.
Many of these Laws have been beneficial up until now, and our Legislation copies many of them.
And so, a citizen, upholding the Laws, could recognise these either as 'VALUABLE' to her society, or a SUBJUGATION. We've got members who rant on about Police States, for instance, claiming that they're revolting (he he :p)
So........... could atheism, rather than Faith, lead to anarchy? That's would be interesting, to select out known anarchists on this web site and see if they are atheists. That's just a thought.

Could Atheism cause the destruction of a community? I think we've got a thread there. ;)
 
Top