Holy book woes

[Tonstad39]

It is common pracice across many Abrahamic faiths (for the better in my opinion) to cherry pick selective verses or sections of the respective holy books (bible, qur'an, etc.) to profess as being the words of god as well as a set layout of beliefs, but I want to ask one thing: (mostly to hear the viewpoints) Does a holy book still hold up if beliefs come from nearly everywhere except some parts of the book?

 

[Desert Snake]

That is vague.

Also, christianity, doesn't profess any of the bible to be 'non-divine', except for the apocrypha. Some churches use the apocrypha.

There have been individuals who held opinions about various books; however, after the main canon was compiled, it is all considered 'divine'.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Yes too vague, give examples if you can.

 

[Tonstad39]

That is vague.

Also, christianity, doesn't profess any of the bible to be 'non-divine', except for the apocrypha. Some churches use the apocrypha.

There have been individuals who held opinions about various books; however, after the main canon was compiled, it is all considered 'divine'.

If it helped, I have edited it in hopes of getting at what I mean

 

[Tonstad39]

Yes too vague, give examples if you can.

Like Leviticus and deurotonomy as well as all those Qu'ran verses and Hadiths that justify the killing and torture of apostates and non-believers. Does a holy book still hold up when stuff like that gets odemoted in various religious circles due to them being backward in this age of human rights and freedoms?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does a holy book still hold up if beliefs come from nearly everywhere except some parts of the book?

What do you mean by "hold up?" So, for example, there are many religious Jews who fully acknowledge the human origins of the Tanakh.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Like Leviticus and deurotonomy as well as all those Qu'ran verses and Hadiths that justify the killing and torture of apostates and non-believers. Does a holy book still hold up when stuff like that gets odemoted in various religious circles due to them being backward in this age of human rights and freedoms?

Ok excellent, you've given some examples per your understanding.

A very brief understanding of the message of the Qur'an is as follows:
God is One, He created us to worship Him alone. As a God of Mercy and Compassion, He loves those who turn to Him, those who are patient, those who love their neighbour and those who are good to others.

He is at war with those who turn to idols, those who seek to cause mischief and those who attack the believers.

Now zone in on one of the examples you mentioned, bring the Hadith or Quranic quote and let's examine the context.

 

[Muslim-UK]

What do you mean by "hold up?" So, for example, there are many religious Jews who fully acknowledge the human origins of the Tanakh.

Shalom, the Jews appear to have a much more liberal attitude towards the origin of their texts than their Christian counterparts. This gives Jews much more flexibility.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Like Leviticus and deurotonomy as well as all those Qu'ran verses and Hadiths that justify the killing and torture of apostates and non-believers. Does a holy book still hold up when stuff like that gets odemoted in various religious circles due to them being backward in this age of human rights and freedoms?

Like Leviticus and deurotonomy as well as all those Qu'ran verses and Hadiths that justify the killing and torture of apostates and non-believers. Does a holy book still hold up when stuff like that gets odemoted in various religious circles due to them being backward in this age of human rights and freedoms?

The most predominant truth I can see from Leviticus and Deuteronomy is that God spoke directly to the person/s in that he made a covenant with them.
In the case of Abraham and Isaac, God had told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac but we see that he spoke directly to him and stopped any such sacrifice.
He then went on to make it clear that sacrificing humans was not acceptable to him. He also told the Israelites.. Thou shalt not kill.
We see God had a plan and the rules within those covenants were for those people.

When they took the land God gave Abraham which Moses lead them into. They killed the people in those lands because it was a very different world to todays world.
Where it was dangerous to be a foreigner in a foreign land or place. We see that this was because of Gods promise to Abraham and to ensure the line of the Messiah
was protected.
There is no justification for killing any person be it a non-believer or someone who leaves their faith.
A person may choose to live or die for their faith. But there is no right in being murdered for leaving it, neither is their righteousness or justification.
God has not told anyone to murder another for their disbelief.

Murder is Murder there is no justification for such acts in religions which come from a true God.

 

[Muslim-UK]

There is no justification for killing any person be it a non-believer or someone who leaves their faith.
A person may choose to live or die for their faith. But there is no right in being murdered for leaving it, neither is their righteousness or justification.
God has not told anyone to murder another for their disbelief.

Murder is Murder there is no justification for such acts in religions which come from a true God.

Correct Murder is forbidden. There is no compulsion in religion, and people are free to come and go as they please, though to do so is making a mockery of God.

Indeed, those who have believed then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, and then increased in disbelief - never will Allah forgive them, nor will He guide them to a way. Qur'an 4:137

And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." Qur'an 18:29

That's why one should study and be sure they are onto the truth before committing to any particular faith. If after doing that, you have doubts in the following days, weeks, months, ears etc, then fine go ahead and leave, keeping the matter between you, your family and God.

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. Qur'an 2:256

Under a Islamic State run with proper Shariah Law, (God's Law) people are free to leave their religion if they choose to do so.
In early Islam after the Prophet's death, there was a mass exodus of people who didn't really believe, and they sought to destroy Islam in its infancy. The decision was taken by the Caliph to fight these people and stem the exodus. Unique situation, unique time in History.

Elsewhere there were people who left freely, but then went over to the enemies of God and actively fought against the believers, either directly on the battlefield or indirectly by planting doubts in the minds of those weak in faith. Under Shariah Law this was classed as Treason, and such people could repent or refuse to do so and be killed.

Today Treason is still punishable by death even in some non Muslim Countries. America will kill its own citizens under Political Treason grounds without a trial or even arrest. Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia

 

[Muffled]

It is common pracice across many Abrahamic faiths (for the better in my opinion) to cherry pick selective verses or sections of the respective holy books (bible, qur'an, etc.) to profess as being the words of god as well as a set layout of beliefs, but I want to ask one thing: (mostly to hear the viewpoints) Does a holy book still hold up if beliefs come from nearly everywhere except some parts of the book?

I believe the books are fine but the cherry picking is often proved wrong by the context and other passages related to the subject. However selective verses are not always wrong; sometimes they do fit in with context and other passages.

 

[Valjean]

The most predominant truth I can see from Leviticus and Deuteronomy is that God spoke directly to the person/s in that he made a covenant with them.
In the case of Abraham and Isaac, God had told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac but we see that he spoke directly to him and stopped any such sacrifice.

#We don't see that. It's just a 4,000 year old story.

When they took the land God gave Abraham which Moses lead them into. They killed the people in those lands because it was a very different world to todays world.

So morality is malleable; situational? I thought Christians believed in a morality writ in stone.

Where it was dangerous to be a foreigner in a foreign land or place. We see that this was because of Gods promise to Abraham and to ensure the line of the Messiah was protected.

OK, I think I understand. What's moral is what's convenient; what benefits you or yours.
So genocide is OK. It would have been OK simply to liquidate the entire population of Native Americans in fulfillment of our manifest destiny and exceptionalism. Deuteronomy 20 makes this clear:
"16However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17Completely destroy them"

Murder is Murder there is no justification for such acts in religions which come from a true God.

So a rebellious son or promiscuous woman should not be stoned to death?

 

[Muslim-UK]

#We don't see that. It's just a 4,000 year old story.
So morality is malleable; situational? I thought Christians believed in a morality writ in stone.
OK, I think I understand. What's moral is what's convenient; what benefits you or yours.
So genocide is OK. It would have been OK simply to liquidate the entire population of Native Americans in fulfillment of our manifest destiny and exceptionalism. Deuteronomy 20 makes this clear:
"16However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17Completely destroy them"
So a rebellious son or promiscuous woman should not be stoned to death?

Using the OT one is able to refute the Christians on just about any issue, which is why the awaited response will be something along the lines of ... "But but we live under the New Covenant now."

 

[Muffled]

Like Leviticus and deurotonomy as well as all those Qu'ran verses and Hadiths that justify the killing and torture of apostates and non-believers. Does a holy book still hold up when stuff like that gets odemoted in various religious circles due to them being backward in this age of human rights and freedoms?

I believe Hadiths are not the word of God.

I believe there are fundamental differences. God works with the Christian Church in a much different way than He worked with the Jews. That is why it is important to have the Holy Spirit to discern what was just for Jews and what is still important in this day and age.

 

[Valjean]

Using the OT one is able to refute the Christians on just about any issue, which is why the awaited response will be something along the lines of ... "But but we live under the New Covenant now."

I agree, but I'm puzzled: Why don't Christians just delete the OT from their Bibles, then? Why do many of them insist that every word, from Genesis to Revelation, is absolutely true?

 

[Fool]

It is common pracice across many Abrahamic faiths (for the better in my opinion) to cherry pick selective verses or sections of the respective holy books (bible, qur'an, etc.) to profess as being the words of god as well as a set layout of beliefs, but I want to ask one thing: (mostly to hear the viewpoints) Does a holy book still hold up if beliefs come from nearly everywhere except some parts of the book?

i want to address the statement "cherry pick". no one generally eats a whole meal in one bite. they eat it bite by bite and in the same way they walk a path; step by step.

ideas can be conveyed in a myriad number of ways, not only in one language but in languages and symbolism, written, oral, or artistically. literalism is the basis of fundamentalism.

 

[Muslim-UK]

I agree, but I'm puzzled: Why don't Christians just delete the OT from their Bibles, then? Why do many of them insist that every word, from Genesis to Revelation, is absolutely true?

They need the OT for background information and so they can twist the Hebrew text to justify worship of Jesus pbuh. They use the OT and proclaim there are over 300 Prophecies attributed to the coming of Jesus pbuh and his life. One example is, a Young woman who gave birth, becomes a virgin who will give birth in the future.

 

[Tonstad39]

Ok excellent, you've given some examples per your understanding.

A very brief understanding of the message of the Qur'an is as follows:
God is One, He created us to worship Him alone. As a God of Mercy and Compassion, He loves those who turn to Him, those who are patient, those who love their neighbour and those who are good to others.

He is at war with those who turn to idols, those who seek to cause mischief and those who attack the believers.

Now zone in on one of the examples you mentioned, bring the Hadith or Quranic quote and let's examine the context.

hadith book 52 verse 53, Al-Anfal 8:12

 

[Muffled]

Using the OT one is able to refute the Christians on just about any issue, which is why the awaited response will be something along the lines of ... "But but we live under the New Covenant now."

I believe I very much doubt that is the case unless one wishes to say that the old covenant supersedes the new covenant.

I believe that is true. When the new supersedes the old then the refutation using the old is completely irrelevant.

 

[Tonstad39]

I believe Hadiths are not the word of God.

I believe there are fundamental differences. God works with the Christian Church in a much different way than He worked with the Jews. That is why it is important to have the Holy Spirit to discern what was just for Jews and what is still important in this day and age.

Sorry for the bad grammar, was including Islam because a Muslim happened to be posting while I was typing.