Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That's true.
Many of the Writings of Baha'u'llah are very poetic.
Some people say that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are not as poetic as the Bible, but that is only a matter of personal opinion.
-
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!
The Old Testament - Sell It To Me!
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
Many of the Writings of Baha'u'llah are very poetic.
Some people say that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are not as poetic as the Bible, but that is only a matter of personal opinion.
There is nowhere to begin without the Jewish canon, but to begin with why label it 'Old'. Perhaps you labeled the Jewish scriptures as 'Old', so that you could suggest you have a newer better testament? That is how it seems, but that is not actually what the label is intended to be for. 'Old' is not intended to mean 'Antiquated', however this is what it connotes in modern language, and it is what many people including many preachers will be happy to assume. I think that calling it 'Old testament' is something like sawing of the branch one is sitting upon.
As an aside: Christianity is not meant to be promoted. That is counter productive. Promotion of it evidences a problem, since it should simply draw everyone to itself. It is presumed in the gospels that someday Christianity will do this effortlessly. There is a suitable figure of speech in the gospels that a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, but many people have lost touch and think that preaching means promoting Christianity through announcements, arguments and discussions. This is not the case, and that is not preaching. Promotion is not preaching. If the movement is to be successful it must return to basics, moving beyond these rookie mistakes.
You'd use the Tanach as a source, because it is grounded in philosophy and experience. Without it there is nothing to discuss. It is the connection between humanity and the experience of the Jews. I stop short of saying it is obfuscated. Its not obfuscated so much as not explained to outsiders (or it perhaps cannot be explained to outsiders). Whether it is literal or not it is a slowly developed body of wisdom that is passed from parent to child for many generations before being written down, being nearly lost. Before its writing (presumably by Ezra) it is taught by word of mouth, parent to child for generations. The parents of multiple generations pack into it a lot of wisdom and direction, and the way they teach it is very personal and philosophical. The parent-child relationship is the context for the tanach, and outside of that parental relationship the tanach begins to fall apart in its meaning and relevance.
You and I are outside of that parental situation. That is where the NT writings come in, which partly crack it open for outsiders. When Jesus opposes murder it is because that is an interpretation of the Tanach and its message. It is not like the NT completely connects us to the tanach though. There is a lot that is not explained and which Christians get geeky about sometimes. There is a lot of pleasure in puzzling it out. To ask why you'd use Tanach as a source is really like asking why there are Christians, because without the tanach there can be none. If you erased it from the world you'd erase Christianity, too.
Hence the label 'Old Testament' is ironic, since its still needed in modernity.
Think of reality as most real in the middle and less real as you go towards the outer layers. That is I think the way to interpret the Tanach and probably how it is intended. The centre of the tanach is the law, and everything else is less important: relatively less real. If you depart from this, then it makes little sense. When reading Genesis focus on laws, principles, morals and guidelines. If the law says not to murder, then you must not murder end of story even if Cain does. At least that is how parents likely teach it to their children. Obviously some outsiders such as ourselves have grabbed the translated stories and used them to promote violence, but this does not mean Christians can simply get rid of these precious stories. They are our connection to the philosophy of the Jews. Instead Christians must focus on principles of nonviolence and put the actions in these stories under judgment philosophically using the law. Analyze them using the law as if we are being taught by a parent. "Was it Ok for David to kill goliath? Why or why not?" "Was it really Ok for Sampson to kill the Philistines? Why or why not?" "Was it Ok for the LORD to drown the whole world?" In all three cases my answer is 'No'. Its not Ok to drown the world, not Ok to kill Goliath, not Ok to crush the Philistines. Law and morality are the actual context of these stories. This creates an ironic situation and should cause you to question the literal stories. What really happens with Noah? What is the 'Flood'?
Well, ah . . . no, but you have to take into consideration time and tribal culture of both the Tanaka and the NT. The Christians did justify and kill many non-believers including pogroms against the Jews over the millennia not much different than tribe against tribe in the Tanaka. Ancient tribal worldviews today still inspire brutal wars between Jews, Muslims and Christians. Also, violence against Jews Christians, Baha'is and Muslims in the World is widespread.
Today, I of course, would not try to explain the Tanaka, NT, nor the Quran as peace and love guidance for today's world.
SarahJackson
New Member
How can you sell someone the idea of paying money or taxes to people which represent God? Or how good it is to slaughter animals to sacrifice to Saturn? You can’t.
Who was so strongly disliked because he went against the teachings of the Old Testament? Jesus was and so the Old Testament told about our errors and mistakes the New Testament teaches truth and honesty and the way
Who was so strongly disliked because he went against the teachings of the Old Testament? Jesus was and so the Old Testament told about our errors and mistakes the New Testament teaches truth and honesty and the way
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Supposed by who?
The Bible is a library, one of the world’s great literary compendia. And besides, poets and artists are among the true visionaries of this world.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
By some people who believe that.
With all due respect, that is a matter of personal opinion and everyone does not share that opinion.
Maybe they are, but they are not Prophets or Messengers from God.
The authors of the Bible claim to be speaking for God through a Prophet.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
I get that it is a reflection of the times perhaps, although as you say, wars and violence go hand in hand with the human species. What I don't get is the violence supposedly propagated / condoned by the Abrahamic god as being an acceptable narrative within Christianity. Is it not worthy of criticism or condemnation? (I also get that this kind of thing can be found in other religions).
Last edited:
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Also with all due respect, aren’t these simply your own personal opinions?
Whatever else it may be, the Bible is self evidently a diverse collection containing books of myth, metaphor, law, history, poetry, prophecy, spiritual and religious guidance, epistles, and narrative dramas.
I respectfully defy the right of any group, religious or secular, to tell the rest of us how to read and how to listen, to the Word (Logos) as it has been expressed by it’s many authors (though sincere guidance by knowledgeable scholars is always welcome).
Last edited:
There is the saying:
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For whatever a man may sow, that he also will reap.
Gal. 6:7
If people get what they give, is there any good reason to complain?
I think it is unfortunate, if people are unrighteous and evil. But, I have no problem, if God will not allow evil people live forever. Do you think God should allow evil to continue forever?
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Are cows and sheep evil?
exchemist
Veteran Member
Indeed, no Christian "chucks out" the OT.
Christ and St. Paul were Jews, so of course they reference the OT. The Christian belief, of course, is that the prophecies of the Messiah in the OT are fulfilled by the coming of Jesus. The OT is integral to Christianity.
However, it is also evident that the OT is mixed up with the national myth - and indeed history - of the Jewish people, so it contains a lot besides the messages that Christianity extracts from it.
I think it primarily depends on how one's message contextualizes scripture and interprets or explains the events, whether they match secular historical scholarship or not, that are described therein. The views and actions of most Christians in the world don't reflect any major differences from those of other people beyond the differences engendered by fundamental influences on beliefs and actions such as culture (which is also intertwined with religion and various interpretations thereof), socioeconomic conditions, politics, etc. It seems to me that an average Christian in, say, France or the UK is more likely to have more values in common with an average atheist from the same country than they are to have values in common with an average Christian in, say, Uganda, Egypt, or Russia. Clearly, other variables influence such differences much more than the exact text of scripture does.
So, how would one promote Christianity to a given audience while citing the Old Testament? That almost entirely depends on the target audience, the scriptural interpretation to which one subscribes, and the culture, socioeconomic conditions, and political landscape surrounding the target audience.
exchemist
Veteran Member
At a guess because of your seeming preoccupation with the violence to be found in the OT, rather than any of the religious messages it contains that have been explained to you. Fixing on the violence in it is an old trope from those hostile to religion, so I can certainly understand someone thinking wearily "Here we go again".
As has already been explained, the OT is old, very old, much of it handed down orally long before it was first written down, from people who lived over 3000 years ago. It contain elements of storytelling, as well as plenty of national myth and history. There is certainly quite a bit about the "smiting" of various rival tribes etc, supposedly with the help of the Jewish God, allegedly fighting for them. But then, in Western Europe we only have to go back 400 years to find attitudes just as bloodthirsty.
I have the suspicion that, underlying your enquiry, there may be an implicit assumption, drawn perhaps from c.19th biblical literalist, extreme Protestantism. The Old Testament is not a "manual" for Christianity, in which everything in it has to be taken as literally true. Most Christians (and, I feel sure, most Jews, though I don't know much about that) do not read it in that light.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
It is not a preoccupation, I'm barely interested in the Bible generally. I started this thread because of something another member posted that piqued my interest. The OP is indeed explicit in referencing violence, rather than religious messages, that's essentially what the topic of the thread is. I'm not hostile to religion per se, I hope that is a statement of the obvious - I describe myself as a Buddhist and am also interested in Hinduism and Paganism amongst others. Please take my OP at face value therefore.
Indeed, but we have violence today of course as it is seemingly part of our nature. Equally 3000 years ago people could have lived peaceably. Antiquity does not have to equate to violence clearly.
This is exactly the intended purpose of the thread. Is it taken literally and if so why? Is it taken non-literally and if so why? What are we to make of a god that seems to have such propensities?
Who is Tanaka?
Augustus
…
Ecclesiastes is by far the best book of the Bible.
Certainly worth a read if you have not yet done so.
Sorry for the typo. it was late. Tanakh
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
That sounds like a lot of ignoring! What if an interested party asks "What about the OT?...."
Yes, wars and violence are a part of the nature of human nature, but it has been an acceptable narrative within Christianity in history. As far as what is condoned or encouraged by God. you need to be willing to belief that the Tanakh and the New Testament are literal history, and reflect the nature of God as a hands on anthropomorphic God as described by both Jews and Christians. The Book of Revelation is apocalyptic vision of a war of good against evil that can be easily interpreted as the Christian war against what Christianity would call evil. Some of the statements in the NT are used to justify violence and pogroms against Jews.
It is possible to find the spiritual teaching in all ancient religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, using more objective discernment, but as a whole the ancient Abrahamic religion scriptures are tribal minefields of potential violence and wars against other tribes. For example: Buddhism does not have tribal references to wars and violence against others, and has a more enlightened history with less wars and violence.
Wars and violence caused by religious tribalism and motives is more widespread than many are willing to accept. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is justified by Putin as the traditional Russian Orthodox manifest destiny claim over Russian Asia and Eastern Europe.
The necessary intent of religion and spiritual guidance today is to heal the wounds of tribalism of the past. Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not offer the spiritual guidance in today's world. It is best to give up the ancient tribalism of ancient religions including Christianity and move on to a more universal perspective of God and the evolving spiritual nature of humanity, and accept science as science, and provide the guidance for science to advance the civilization of humanity.
Last edited: