Revising The Abrahamic Religions

[usfan]

..too much religious bigotry, for me..

..too hard to refute the non stop stream of false narratives and distortions..

No wonder there is so much anti-christian sentiment these days, with hate streams like this going on all the time..
/shakes head/
Bye.

 

[dybmh]

The snow flake generation has been lied too so manny times, by the Progressives, they have failed to develop a proper grounding in reality.

Wellwisher, I hope you know that I like you. I deeply respect your knowledge and insight. But... The generation you are speaking about is showing signs of "proper grounding in reality".

Divorce rates are lower among millennials. **They are taking a more practical approach.**

Less Divorce, my friend. That is a very good thing.

"Millennials Are Causing the U.S. Divorce Rate to Plummet
They’re waiting until all is secure before tying the knot."

hyperlink >>> - bloomberg.com - drop in divorce rate...

 

[Jos]

Even environmentalists blow things up. It's called eco-terrorism.

It makes no sense for environmentalists to do that since that only furthers environmental degradation and defeats the entire purpose of their cause.

 

[Firemorphic]

False. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the same.

Which is what makes them all the more interesting, more perspectives and different room for different ideas to build out of the same reality.

Islam is questionable to be called 'abrahamic', since it is merely an offshoot of the Judeo/Christian faith, with little to no ideological harmony.

You don't get to call the shots here, but nice try.

Muhammad was 600 years after Jesus, and thousands after Abraham.

Ok but if we where to apply that logic to the Bible, you'd have a very short Bible, ending at what? chapter 5 of Genesis?

Their ideology and core beliefs are radically different.

Yes, we have a greater emphasis on the concept of Unity than you do, it's a core principle of our faith.

Islam has nothing to do with Abraham, and is opposed to Jesus.

Same could be said for many forms of Christianity, however it would be foolish to hold that as an authoritative statement, Islam is pro-Jesus, not your deity though.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Given the strength of feeling that would emerge if we tried to ban the Abrahamic religions, I would propose setting up some form of global inter-faith assembly where the leaders of the three Abrahamic religions and their various schisms sit down and have to agree to remove everything in the texts which teaches any form of
1/ hatred
2/ social divisiveness
3/ violence to another person in any form and for whatever reason
4 feelings of religious/spiritual superiority and ownership of God
5/ Intolerance of any kind

I always thought the Bible should be revised to remove outdated info and knowledge that doesn't agree with current knowledge.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The problem is 'the Good News', whether Christianity, Islam, LDS, Bahai, Ahmadiyya or any other. Could they keep 'the Good News' to themselves? They cannot, because their religion/belief mandates that. Incorrigible.

 

[dybmh]

Hi Lionel, I have gotten caught up on both of your recent threads. Like most, if not all, of the people contributing to this thread, I'm sorry, I think what you are proposing is a bad idea.

You are asking essentially: "What's wrong with revising the text? If it contains these elements:" ( see below )

1/ hatred
2/ social divisiveness
3/ violence to another person in any form and for whatever reason
4 feelings of religious/spiritual superiority and ownership of God
5/ Intolerance of any kind

The first thing that I notice about this list is that #2, #4, and #5 would disqualify both of your recent threads. So, those 3 I think should be removed from the list. Honestly, I don't think this will cause a problem for you. #1 and #3 are the most important by far, aren't they? You are concerned about violence and hatred more than anything else?

The next thing I would like to point out is a practical problem with your idea. I'm sorry, I do not think it is possible to completely eradicate the verses you deem to be dangerous. As you know, many Orthodox Jewish people have the entire Chumash memorized. Also, Muslims have the Qu'ran memorized. I do not think there is any way to accomplish what you are proposing. The books would go underground, they would likely become even more popular, which leads me to the next point...

Backlash. I honestly think the attempt to force the Jewish, Christian, Catholic, and Muslim people to re-write their scripture would result in such a bitter backlash that the prohibition would be more violent than anything that is on the horizon. I'm sorry, I think implementing your idea would make matters worse.

Finally, I would to introduce the idea that the scripture itself is, IMHO, not causing violence among believers. The believer is responsible for their actions, it is not the fault of the book itself. Also, from my research, speaking specifically about Islam. Having Access to the Qur'an reduces the likelihood that prison inmates become violent. Also, there was a recent study in Germany that reading the Qur'an had no statistical correlation to extreme violence. Radicalization is a subject matter best understood through the lens of criminal justice. The people who recruit terrorists, they are criminals and they behave like criminals. I propose to you that the Qur'an itself is not the problem, and neither is the Old Testament.

The root cause of extreme violence, Lionel, is not a what. It is a who. It is a how. Who is teaching and how are they recruiting. Yes, they employ verses from scripture. But your approach will not take these verses away. What is needed is to demilitarize the dangerous verses. That is done by supporting peaceful, moral, good people inside each of the Abrahamic religions. Your approach, in my opinion, does not support these good people. And I think that is why many people have pushed back against your idea.

That said, it is noble that you are trying to find creative solutions to the world's problems. I wish you all the best in your pursuits.

 

[Jim]

@Lionel Refson I’ve been thinking about what I might do if I agreed with your idea and I wanted to help it happen. I might try to imagine some ways that it could happen, then think of ways that I could help. For example, if the idea is for national governments to require religious leaders in their countries to do what you’re proposing, then I might try to find out what organizations are involved in international conferences about social issues, and try to convince them to propose that idea at those conferences. Also I might consider for each religious leader individually, who might have some kind of authority over them or influence on them, and contact all those people to try to convince them to induce those leaders to do what you’re proposing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I might try to imagine some ways that it could happen, then think of ways that I could help.

Mighty helpful. You think where Zarathrushta, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Bahaullah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad failed; you would be able to help. Go ahead, Jim. All the good luck to you.

 

[Jim]

@Lionel Refson ((This will partly be repeating what I said in some other posts, but with some differences. A different way of thinking about revising those religions, instead of creating a new book, is to change the ways that people think about the old ones. That has already happened with many thousands of people, possibly even millions, in all of the religions. People have been learning to think about those books in a different way, so that instead of seeing those books telling them to do all those things that are grieving you, they see those books telling them not to do those things.

One question might be how that way of thinking might become popular, and the old ways of thinking be discredited as widely and thoroughly as some other ways of thinking, like race prejudices for example. There are people in all the religions, including some of their leaders, who are working on that, so a place to start, if you want to help, might be to learn more about what those people are doing and how they think that other people can help.))

 

[Jim]

@Lionel Refson The resurgence of cruelty and violence in the name of religions might actually be dying convulsions of religious prejudices.

 

[Lionel Refson]

Did you not see where I said that the Council of Nicaea didn't decide anything concerning the Biblical canon? They didn't include or exclude any books. There is not one canon, decree or letter from Nicaea that does anything to include or exclude books from the Biblical canon. The Gnostic gospels aren't in the Bible because they weren't being used by Christians. They were being used by some sects of Gnosticism, which was a separate family of religions with separate religious hierarchies, some of whom revered the Logos or the Christ as an aeon.

You can get a class of 13-year-olds to agree with you about a lot of things. That's hardly a measure of how accurate your view of reality is. 13-year-olds don't know much and are very impressionable, so of course you can get them to agree with you.

Texts don't go around telling people what to think. People tell people what to think, and use or compose texts to support their ideas. You don't see every Muslim in the world going out and killing non-Muslims because they are taught by their imams how to read the Qur'an in a different way.

And again, this religious guilt is not an inherent part of any of the three Abrahamic religions. It is merely a nasty consequence of how certain individuals or sects within these religions teach their followers.

And? So what? Just because scriptures write about some people from thousands of years ago who carried out commands to do those things doesn't mean that people today are called to do the same things. Extreme singular events and extreme singular time periods happened. Many religions feature a place of torment for those who are wicked--Hinduism and Buddhism have many hells, and many places in Asia and Africa have folklore about the terrible things that happen to evil people when they die. Do you want to ban all of that, too? Or, rather than sweeping these things under the rug and coddling people whose feelings might be hurt, we can teach people how to deal with their feelings and grapple with serious issues of justice and violence.

the Gnostic gospels were left out, the balance was lost.
Actually 13 year olds have their own minds. They just are not to closed-minded at that age.
Texts do not tell people what to think unless the reader believes that the text comes from God anever mind the "and the Lord said" parts. You fail to understand how easy the weak mind can be indoctrinated and manipulated, which is why I am calling for revision, especially now..

Even environmentalists blow things up. It's called eco-terrorism. Antifa goes around smashing windows, burning cars, punching people in the face and beating people with iron rods because people disagree with them. According to court testimonies, Oberlin College cut off their partnership with Gibson's Bakery partially because college administrators were worried that students would take Gibson's cookies and biscuits, throw them on the ground and stomp on them in the cafeterias like a bunch of nursery school children throwing a temper tantrum. People will always find things to be unhinged and violent about, whether it's religion, political ideology, ethnicity or social outrage.

This is a religious forum. I am talking about religious violence and prejudice. Eco issues are for an eco forum.

..too much religious bigotry, for me..

..too hard to refute the non stop stream of false narratives and distortions..

No wonder there is so much anti-christian sentiment these days, with hate streams like this going on all the time..
/shakes head/
Bye.

I would have thought, given what you have just written that you would be in your element!

@Lionel Refson I’ve been thinking about what I might do if I agreed with your idea and I wanted to help it happen. I might try to imagine some ways that it could happen, then think of ways that I could help. For example, if the idea is for national governments to require religious leaders in their countries to do what you’re proposing, then I might try to find out what organizations are involved in international conferences about social issues, and try to convince them to propose that idea at those conferences. Also I might consider for each religious leader individually, who might have some kind of authority over them or influence on them, and contact all those people to try to convince them to induce those leaders to do what you’re proposing.

What FB has just done with Nick Clegg is interesting An independent court to help Fb 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 religious leaders , Abrahamic of course, 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 is punished forthwith. 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. it would be a start

@Lionel Refson The resurgence of cruelty and violence in the name of religions might actually be dying convulsions of religious prejudices.

Possible, so let's help it along and remember the dying animal is the most dangerous foe

 

[Lionel Refson]

@Lionel Refson ((This will partly be repeating what I said in some other posts, but with some differences. A different way of thinking about revising those religions, instead of creating a new book, is to change the ways that people think about the old ones. That has already happened with many thousands of people, possibly even millions, in all of the religions. People have been learning to think about those books in a different way, so that instead of seeing those books telling them to do all those things that are grieving you, they see those books telling them not to do those things.

One question might be how that way of thinking might become popular, and the old ways of thinking be discredited as widely and thoroughly as some other ways of thinking, like race prejudices for example. There are people in all the religions, including some of their leaders, who are working on that, so a place to start, if you want to help, might be to learn more about what those people are doing and how they think that other people can help.))

There are several ways to discredit the old thinking. A new faith like bahai.....but that further divides and rains persecution down on the new religion's believers. Cosy inter-faith chat which the moderates like but so what. The moderates are not really the issue.

My approach in my book is to blow the nasty bits apart and as an insider, I have an inkling of what I am talking about. having been indoctrinated for years

 

[Lionel Refson]

Hi Lionel, I have gotten caught up on both of your recent threads. Like most, if not all, of the people contributing to this thread, I'm sorry, I think what you are proposing is a bad idea.

You are asking essentially: "What's wrong with revising the text? If it contains these elements:" ( see below )



The first thing that I notice about this list is that #2, #4, and #5 would disqualify both of your recent threads. So, those 3 I think should be removed from the list. Honestly, I don't think this will cause a problem for you. #1 and #3 are the most important by far, aren't they? You are concerned about violence and hatred more than anything else?

The next thing I would like to point out is a practical problem with your idea. I'm sorry, I do not think it is possible to completely eradicate the verses you deem to be dangerous. As you know, many Orthodox Jewish people have the entire Chumash memorized. Also, Muslims have the Qu'ran memorized. I do not think there is any way to accomplish what you are proposing. The books would go underground, they would likely become even more popular, which leads me to the next point...

Backlash. I honestly think the attempt to force the Jewish, Christian, Catholic, and Muslim people to re-write their scripture would result in such a bitter backlash that the prohibition would be more violent than anything that is on the horizon. I'm sorry, I think implementing your idea would make matters worse.

Finally, I would to introduce the idea that the scripture itself is, IMHO, not causing violence among believers. The believer is responsible for their actions, it is not the fault of the book itself. Also, from my research, speaking specifically about Islam. Having Access to the Qur'an reduces the likelihood that prison inmates become violent. Also, there was a recent study in Germany that reading the Qur'an had no statistical correlation to extreme violence. Radicalization is a subject matter best understood through the lens of criminal justice. The people who recruit terrorists, they are criminals and they behave like criminals. I propose to you that the Qur'an itself is not the problem, and neither is the Old Testament.

The root cause of extreme violence, Lionel, is not a what. It is a who. It is a how. Who is teaching and how are they recruiting. Yes, they employ verses from scripture. But your approach will not take these verses away. What is needed is to demilitarize the dangerous verses. That is done by supporting peaceful, moral, good people inside each of the Abrahamic religions. Your approach, in my opinion, does not support these good people. And I think that is why many people have pushed back against your idea.

That said, it is noble that you are trying to find creative solutions to the world's problems. I wish you all the best in your pursuits.

Of course it is the who that is important, but you cannot vet the who and the who can change their minds at any time. Teachers and preachers can become radicalized at any time and spread that radicalization quickly, especially in response to what they view as blasphemy, measured by various texts in the Koran etc . Change the texts, alter or amend them and you take away the seed of certainty that God is calling the shots ...The books have been revised many times, so why not now given the events of the past 20 years..........BUT............
.
Just repeating an idea i had earlier What FB has just done with Nick Clegg is interesting An independent court to help Fb 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 religious leaders , Abrahamic of course, 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 is punished forthwith. 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. it would be a start

 

[Lionel Refson]

On a point about eco-terrorism. When they start blowing themselves up en masse and killing many others, men, women and children I might start to get worried. lets hope recent religious suicide bombers and gunmen, don't start setting an example.

 

[Lionel Refson]

Here is where i have arrived, sorry to repeat it over and over but it could be missed
Just repeating an idea i had earlier What FB has just done with Nick Clegg is interesting An independent court to help Fb 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 religious leaders , Abrahamic of course, 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 is punished forthwith. 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. it would be a start.The various explanations should be included in the religious texts

 

[Augustus]

Secondly I do not care if no one agrees with me. I bet I could get a classroom of 13 year olds to agree with me, without having to influence them. The point is within the texts are hateful and violence-encouraging messages which should be removed so that minds, weaker than yours, people with no purpose, the young, the innocent etc are not brainwashed into violence and hatred

JM Keynes, who came to view faith in human rationality as a naive fantasy, provided the most concise rebuttal of those clinging to the idea that reason can save us from ourselves:

“Bertie [Bertrand Russell] held two ludicrously incompatible beliefs: on the one hand he believed that all the problems of the world stemmed from conducting human affairs in a most irrational way; on the other hand that the solution was simple, since all we had to do was to behave rationally.”

If we aren't rational in the first place (as science conclusively demonstrates), why should we expect long term solutions to be effective when they rely on humans to behave in a rational manner?

 

[Jos]

JM Keynes, who came to view faith in human rationality as a naive fantasy, provided the most concise rebuttal of those clinging to the idea that reason can save us from ourselves:

“Bertie [Bertrand Russell] held two ludicrously incompatible beliefs: on the one hand he believed that all the problems of the world stemmed from conducting human affairs in a most irrational way; on the other hand that the solution was simple, since all we had to do was to behave rationally.”

If we aren't rational in the first place (as science conclusively demonstrates), why should we expect long term solutions to be effective when they rely on humans to behave in a rational manner?

So you don't believe humans are or can be rational? And if rationality can't save us, what can?

 

[Lionel Refson]

So you don't believe humans are or can be rational? And if rationality can't save us, what can?

we have both rational and emotional brains so we can never be 100% rational. Now can we go back to my big idea please..(emotional plea)
perhaps we could set up a trial-run type of court on these forums?

 

[Augustus]

So you don't believe humans are or can be rational?

Humans can be intermittently rational at best. Our cognition didn't evolve to be primarily concerned with detached objectivity and the pursuit of reason any more than chimps did.

Humans collectively over long periods of time are certainly not rational, history tells us that 1 million times over.

And if rationality can't save us, what can?

Nothing.

The optimistic, teleological view of history prominent in the West where there is light at the end of the tunnel is mostly a product of Christian eschatology. Worldly salvation through knowledge and reason is also basically secular Gnosticism

Th ancients generally had a tragic view, and saw history as cyclical with people doomed to repeat the same mistakes due to weakness and hubris. I completely agree with them.