Religious Prejudice

[ppp]

More bollocks. I said that the interpretations were different. Islam recognises Isa (Yeshua) as the Messiah.

You are engaged in equivocation regarding the usages of word 'messiah'.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why are you assuming that I don't have that knowledge?

You did not appear to recognize the fundamental differences between the religions from the perspective of the believers.

That's an oversimplification. Both Christianity and Islam endorsed the prophets of Judaism.

Judaism emphatically rejects the fulfillment of prophecies and claims of a messiah Son of God of Christianity, and the claims of Islam. Islam accepts the Torah, but not the factual claims Christians concerning the NT.have. There are more problems that others will bring up.

I resolve the difference is the scriptures and beliefs of the different religions in part reflect the fallible human beliefs and view of the 'Source' some call Gods. I do not put the burden of proof on any religion standing alone, In fact, I consider the singular view of ''Truth" irrational from the perspective of any one religion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How would someone objectively identify religious prejudice?

There are cases where Christians had vilified the Jews for killing Christ as an example.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are cases where Christians had vilified the Jews for killing Christ as an example.

Cases?!?! Far more than cases!

 

[Bthoth]

Who are these "persons" that you speak of?

Any life that can represent itself or claiming to represent others.


In the context that I used, "Persons claiming to be chosen above any others of mankind is a religious expression of prejudice.", it can be ascertained that they are bigots of the first order.

I have no need to provide examples.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK, so what are the essential differences between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

I would argue that they are the differences in the interpretation of the crucifixion. If there is an objective view of that then there is a reasonable basis for identifying prejudice.

I'd say that's an oversimplification.

While Islam and Judaism have a similar conception of God, Christianity is very different in that it believes God is a man.

Then there is the problem of the differences in scripture. Islam has the Quran, and believes the Bible has been corrupted. Jews accept neither the New Testament nor the Quran. Christians think the Quran either came from Muhammad's imagination, or through demonic inspiration.

But perhaps the biggest difference lies here: There are branches of Christianity and Judaism which have evolved to accommodate science and modern ethics that champion human rights, while Islam is still back in the middle ages.

 

[Ebionite]

Any life that can represent itself or claiming to represent others.

Created life has rights and obligations that persons do not have. This is meaningful in terms of religious prejudice when the context could include persons of states which exist in union with the church.

 

[Ebionite]

There are cases where Christians had vilified the Jews for killing Christ as an example.

While the idea that the Jews killed Christ is worth exploring, what I'm looking for is an objective way of testing that idea. One way could be to test it against the writings of the prophets who are recognised by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

 

[Ebionite]

You did not appear to recognize the fundamental differences between the religions from the perspective of the believers.

My approach here is to look the the issue from a neutral point of view. While the perspectives of belief are relevant in understanding the nature of prejudice, they are not sufficient for the attainment of that P.O.V.

Judaism emphatically rejects the fulfillment of prophecies and claims of a messiah Son of God of Christianity, and the claims of Islam. Islam accepts the Torah, but not the factual claims Christians concerning the NT.have. There are more problems that others will bring up.

What about Messianic Judaism?

I resolve the difference is the scriptures and beliefs of the different religions in part reflect the fallible human beliefs and view of the 'Source' some call Gods. I do not put the burden of proof on any religion standing alone, In fact, I consider the singular view of ''Truth" irrational from the perspective of any one religion.

To err is human. Religion is about belief, a singular approach to truth about the source would be more consistent with theology rather than religion.

 

[Ebionite]

Is that supposed to be some sort of refutation of, "It isn't. Both islam and Christianity appropriated and retconned the Hebrew prophets"?

Retconning is used in relation to fictional works, so it's not useful in terms of approaching the problem from a neutral point of view.

prophetic nature of Isaiah 54

Do you mean Isaiah 53?

 

[shunyadragon]

My approach here is to look the the issue from a neutral point of view. While the perspectives of belief are relevant in understanding the nature of prejudice, they are not sufficient for the attainment of that P.O.V.

Not relative to the actual real tribal differences that cause prejudice, violence, and worse.

What about Messianic Judaism?

Small recent tribal minority.

To err is human. Religion is about belief, a singular approach to truth about the source would be more consistent with theology rather than religion.

Not really an issue concerning this thread. Yes, a singular approach to truth may be the best, but you cannot expect fallible humans to accept anything beyond their own tribal religious beliefs as opposed to others.

Your view is too idealistic to be real to explain the tension, prejudice, and violence between religions and their divisions in the real world.

 

[Ebionite]

Not relative to the actual real tribal differences that cause prejudice, violence, and worse.

The point is that without a neutral P.O.V. there's no effective way to describe how those differences cause prejudice.

Small recent tribal minority.

The opinion of the majority isn't necessarily correct. The point is that Judaism doesn't universally reject the idea of messiah living during the 1st century CE.

Not really an issue concerning this thread.

It's an issue because the application of reason through debate is a means of testing religious ideas.

you cannot expect fallible humans to accept anything beyond their own tribal religious beliefs as opposed to others.

I don't assume that anyone is a fallible human until they prove otherwise.

Your view is too idealistic to be real to explain the tension, prejudice, and violence between religions and their divisions in the real world.

How is idealism inconsistent with explanations of the real world?

 

[ppp]

Retconning is used in relation to fictional works, so it's not useful in terms of approaching the problem from a neutral point of view.

You don't have a neutral point of view. And call it historical revisionism if it will satisfy your pedantry[1]. The activity is the same.

Do you mean Isaiah 53?

Yes, quite. The suffering servant passage Thank you for the correction.

[1] No aspersions on pedantry.

 

[shunyadragon]

The point is that without a neutral P.O.V. there's no effective way to describe how those differences cause prejudice.


The opinion of the majority isn't necessarily correct.

True, but who is correct is not the issue here. There are so many different conflicting religious views it is more likely that they are all in some way wrong. Still not an issue here.

The issue is the differences that have caused prejudice, violence, and worse today and in history.

The point is that Judaism doesn't universally reject the idea of messiah living during the 1st century CE.

Still not an issue here. Not a valid point as to what causes the prejudice.

It's an issue because the application of reason through debate is a means of testing religious ideas.

In the diverse conflicting religions, each uses their own reason to test their own different beliefs and religious ideas. No change in hundreds and thousands of years. No change. by far most believers.

I don't assume that anyone is a fallible human until they prove otherwise.

Odd statement since the nature of being human is being fallible. What is the alternative?

How is idealism inconsistent with explanations of the real world?

The real world will never be idealistic. Humans will always be fallible human, and prejudice is deeply ingrained in the reality of conflicting differences between their traditional religions..

I believe in an optimistic view of the human future but not based on idealism. It is based on the future embracing a more universal perspective of the nature of human spirituality and its relationship to the physical reality as described by science. This unfortunately requires people to give up the ancient tribal religions of the past and view them more in terms of their spiritual heritage and the reality of a more universal existence. Prejudice would be greatly reduced in this more universal perspective, but humans will always be fallible humans.

I call my view Universalism (not UU)

 

[Ebionite]

You don't have a neutral point of view.

Why do you say that?

As for Christianity, while both Jews and Christians recognize the importance and prophetic nature of [Isaiah 53], they often interpret it differently based on their own theological frameworks. In Judaism, the focus is usually more on the collective future of the Jewish people, while in Christianity, the text is about the Church and the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. And Christianity shoved the Original Sin/Tainted Soul narrative in. That BS does not exist in Judaism.

In Isaiah the people of Israel (i.e. not only the Jews) are called the servant, not the righteous servant.

But thou, Israel, [art] my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.
Isaiah 41:8

He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11

The connection between the righteous servant of Isaiah 53 and the church comes from Paul from his doctrine of the body of Christ.

And Christianity shoved the Original Sin/Tainted Soul narrative in. That BS does not exist in Judaism.

Yes, that goes back to Paul's misrepresentation of David's sin.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Romans 3:4

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done [this] evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, [and] be clear when thou judgest.
Psalms 51:4

 

[ppp]

Why do you say that?

Your post come off as having an investment. But, honestly, I don't care about neutrality. There are numerous positions that I have held (unneutrally) and been persuaded to change my position via sweet reason. Or more accurately, by logic and evidence.

The connection between the righteous servant of Isaiah 53 and the church comes from Paul from his doctrine of the body of Christ.

Yes, that goes back to Paul's misrepresentation of David's sin.

You seem to be supporting my previous point on retconning/historical revisionism. But maybe you have something else in mind?

 

[Ebionite]

True, but who is correct is not the issue here.

Being correct matters because if an adverse view of those who promote a particular religious doctrine is formed based on the error of that doctrine then that adverse view isn't a form of religious prejudice.

The issue is the differences that have caused prejudice, violence, and worse today and in history.

How would you propose communicating those differences without the use of a neutral P.O.V. ?

Still not an issue here. Not a valid point as to what causes the prejudice.

My position is that the religious differences are best described from the context of how the crucifixion is interpreted by the various religions. If there is a meaningful description of the differences then a rationale for describing the cause of the prejudice can be developed.

In the diverse conflicting religions, each uses their own reason to test their own different beliefs and religious ideas. No change in hundreds and thousands of years. No change. by far most believers.

It was change in belief that caused the conflict in the first place. Reason alone wasn't responsible for that conflict, prejudice had a role to play as well.

Odd statement since the nature of being human is being fallible. What is the alternative?

From the context of Cicero's Rome the alternative would be repudiation of citizenship. For Christianity and Judaism it would be repentance. For Islam, submission to Allah.

The real world will never be idealistic. Humans will always be fallible human, and prejudice is deeply ingrained in the reality of conflicting differences between their traditional religions..

That sounds to me like an appeal to tradition. Universalism contrasts with the set-apart nature of the people of the way.

 

[Ebionite]

Your post come off as having an investment. But, honestly, I don't care about neutrality. There are numerous positions that I have held (unneutrally) and been persuaded to change my position via sweet reason. Or more accurately, by logic and evidence.

Would that investment be a form of religious prejudice? That's what the neutral P.O.V. relates to. The ability to change your mind when new data turns up is a trait of rationality.

You seem to be supporting my previous point on retconning/historical revisionism. But maybe you have something else in mind?

Paul's doctrine does support your point.

My statement that "Both Christianity and Islam endorsed the prophets of Judaism", for Christianity, is about the many cases where text from the writings of the prophets of Judaism was used, rightly or wrongly, so support new doctrine. My point is that the prophets were regarded as authoritative, which implies some commonality between the Abrahamic religions despite their obvious differences.

 

[shunyadragon]

Being correct matters because if an adverse view of those who promote a particular religious doctrine is formed based on the error of that doctrine then that adverse view isn't a form of religious prejudice.

Belief in being correct about the extreme differences between religions and their divisions is impossible to resolve and a resolution is an idealistic assumption that does not work in the real world. The diverse conflicting subjective beliefs have no basis in common correctness when the belief in correctness is grounded in their foundation belief in opposition to alternatives for being correct one over the other.

You have not established what "being correct: would be given the subjective nature of religious belief has no standard of "being correct" would be.

How would you propose communicating those differences without the use of a neutral P.O.V. ?

I gave my proposal of the belief in Universalism, which is a neutral view, but it is optimistic that it would happen in the near future.

My position is that the religious differences are best described from the context of how the crucifixion is interpreted by the various religions. If there is a meaningful description of the differences then a rationale for describing the cause of the prejudice can be developed.

Your view is unreasonably idealistic considering the reality of the diverse conflicting beliefs that cause prejudice and is unlikely to change in the near future. IF as bolded, is far too idealistic based on the fact that at present the different conflicting religious views show no willingness to change, because their beliefs are grounded in scripture they consider sacred and not changeable.

It was change in belief that caused the conflict in the first place. Reason alone wasn't responsible for that conflict, prejudice had a role to play as well.

Belief not objective reasoning is the cause of prejudice and conflict. Any reasoning is self-fulfilling and circular in the diverse and conflicting beliefs is to justify their beliefs based on conflicting scripture.

From the context of Cicero's Rome the alternative would be repudiation of citizenship. For Christianity and Judaism it would be repentance. For Islam, submission to Allah.

Not really relevant here.

That sounds to me like an appeal to tradition. Universalism contrasts with the set-apart nature of the people of the way.

What are the people of the way

No, Universalism is NOT an appeal to tradition. In fact, the appeal to tradition is part of the foundation of the diverse conflicting beliefs rooted in their conflicting scripture that people will not change.

In fact, it is likely that you would not be willing to change your beliefs which conflict with those who believe differently.

 

[shunyadragon]

Would that investment be a form of religious prejudice? That's what the neutral P.O.V. relates to. The ability to change your mind when new data turns up is a trait of rationality.

This works in science, but not the diverse conflicting basis for religious beliefs including yours.

Paul's doctrine does support your point.

My statement that "Both Christianity and Islam endorsed the prophets of Judaism",

Fundamentally not true, because Judaism emphatically rejects the interpretation of the prophets in the OT. Christianity emphatically rejects the Islamic interpretation of the prophets of the NT.

The extreme differences absolutely do not amount to an endorsement.

for Christianity, is about the many cases where text from the writings of the prophets of Judaism was used, rightly or wrongly, so support new doctrine. My point is that the prophets were regarded as authoritative, which implies some commonality between the Abrahamic religions despite their obvious differences.

Unfortunately, this is completely false and idealistic the differences as to what is authoritative in interpretation is radically different in the different religions and their variations.