07 Nov 06
Originally posted by vistesdYou see, I don't mind someone telling me I don't know how to read the Bible provided they can actually make a decent case for the alternate hermeneutic provided. That isn't the case here.
All that is a long-winded way of saying that, at the end of the day, I think sjeg is right on this point: the only way we can have fruitful discussions (even good arguments!) among followers of different religions is to let each one present their own religion as best they can—without telling a Muslim that s/he doesn’t know how to read the Qur’an, or ...[text shortened]... sn’t know how[/i] to read the Gospels, or a Jew that s/he doesn’t know how to read Torah!
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAgreed; in fact I can’t bring enough hermeneutical knowledge to the table to challenge Islamic exegesis of the Qur’an. Let me try an example vis-à-vis Jewish/Christian hermeneutics—
You see, I don't mind someone telling me I don't know how to read the Bible provided they can actually make a decent case for the alternate hermeneutic provided. That isn't the case here.
Well, I can’t make a case that the beginnings of the Trinity are not in the canonical Gospels and letters; nor can I make a case that Christians cannot find hints and allusions in the Tanach—if that is what they are looking for. Our hermeneutics are guided by our presuppositions: whether one is taking an approach of historical criticism, or one is doing midrash or lectio divina, or trying to find prophetic “proof-texts,” for instance.
Of all the “Judaisms” (as Jacob Neusner puts it) in the 1st century CE, only two survived as distinct groups: what became rabbinical Judaism and what became Christianity. When Christians look at their own Jewish foundations, they seem to—in my mind—over-estimate the feature of apocalyptic messianism. But while that may have been a feature of some groups (such as the Essenes, and the followers of Jesus), it was not a feature of those attached to the Temple system (such as the Sadducees), nor was it prominent among the Pharisees, the largest specified grouping.* The Tanach as a whole does not speak univocally about messiah, or have any clearly articulated messianic “doctrine”—nor does Judaism, broadly, today.
My point is that Christians are naturally going to bring a Christological hermeneutic to their exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures. Rabbinical Jews are going to bring a different hermeneutical viewpoint to their exegesis. But these are, for religious exegetes, a priori.
Thus, if you were to argue, say, that a Christological hermeneutic is the only proper one—or a hermeneutic that gives greater relative weight to certain messianic references as opposed to others—then the most that I can do is to point that out, and offer the counter (perhaps pointing out the differing applications of moshiach throughout the Tanach). Then we’re done. And we can either respect one another as honest brokers of different traditions, recognizing both as legitimate given their particular starting points, but yet disagreeing as to the ultimate truth of each religion, or not.
It would be absolutely fatuous of me to look at such powerful intellects and scholars as, say, Paul Tillich (Protestant Christian) and A.J. Heschel (Orthodox/Conservative Jew) and assert that either one was ignorant, stupid or perverse with regard to their theology or their hermeneutics. (I believe they were personal friends.) Or, you might want to some time take a look at the argument/dialogue between Jacob Neusner and Andrew Greeley, dear friends who respect each other’s religious beliefs (and prowess), without giving up their commitment to their own.
Or, you might want to take a look at Neusner’s A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, which (then) Cardinal Ratzinger called “By far the most important book for the Jewish-Christian dialogue to have been published in the last decade.”
___________________________
* I am not assuming that all apocalyptic messianists were affiliated with the Essenes, nor that every Jew who felt attached to the temple was a member of the Sadducees, nor that every Jew who was following the pattern of nascent “rabbinicism” was actually a member of the Pharisaic party.
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by vistesdJust a few points:
Agreed; in fact I can’t bring enough hermeneutical knowledge to the table to challenge Islamic exegesis of the Qur’an. Let me try an example vis-à-vis Jewish/Christian hermeneutics—
Well, I can’t make a case that the beginnings of the Trinity are not in the canonical Gospels and letters; nor can I make a case that Christians cannot find hints an ...[text shortened]... was following the pattern of nascent “rabbinicism” was actually a member of the Pharisaic party.
But [different hermeneutical viewpoints] are, for religious exegetes, a priori.
Not necessarily. I think exegetes from different religious traditions can agree on common hermeneutical principles which can then be used to evaluate the respective merits of different viewpoints.
Thus, if you were to argue, say, that a Christological hermeneutic is the only proper one...
I wouldn't do so on the a priori assumption of Christ. I would do so because it is the most reasonable interpretation of the text in question.
It would be absolutely fatuous of me to look at such powerful intellects and scholars as, say, Paul Tillich (Protestant Christian) and A.J. Heschel (Orthodox/Conservative Jew) and assert that either one was ignorant, stupid or perverse with regard to their theology or their hermeneutics.
You don't need to be ignorant, stupid or perverse to make mistakes. (You could be a bit obdurate, but that's a different matter.)
In some cases alternative viewpoints cannot be resolved simply because the information needed to resolve it does not yet exist.
07 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/b]Just a quick response, then I have to run—
Just a few points:
[b]But [different hermeneutical viewpoints] are, for religious exegetes, a priori.
Not necessarily. I think exegetes from different religious traditions can agree on common hermeneutical principles which can then be used to evaluate the respective merits of different viewpoints.
Thus, if you were to argue, s ts cannot be resolved simply because the information needed to resolve it does not yet exist.
Not necessarily. I think exegetes from different religious traditions can agree on common hermeneutical principles which can then be used to evaluate the respective merits of different viewpoints.
If talking about such “theologically neutral” hermeneutics as form criticism or historical criticism, I agree. Both Jews and Christians can agree/disagree about the Documentary Hypothesis without touching on their religious divide.
I wouldn't do so on the a priori assumption of Christ. I would do so because it is the most reasonable interpretation of the text in question.
With regard to the Hebrew Scriptures, how do you decide? I would say that the earliest Christian “midrash” on HS texts (e.g., the Gospel of Matthew, or St. Paul) have already made the Christological decision based on their perception of Jesus as messiah. This is not to say that messianic texts (other than references to individuals such as the King of Israel, or Cyrus, or Isaiah’s self-reference) cannot be found that clearly might be read as such—but I can find no univocal messianic doctrine in the Tanach. What this partly means is that Jews who think in terms of messianism, do not necessarily think in terms of the messiah, as a single personage. Messianism, like soteriology, is not as much a “big-ticket” item in Judaism, generally, as it is in Christianity—of course, that is because the Christians believe that the messiah has been identified; but, again, it may also be because alternative apocalyptic-messianic groups did not survive in prominent numbers (despite later popular messianic debacles).
In some cases alternative viewpoints cannot be resolved simply because the information needed to resolve it does not yet exist.
Good point. "Parousia," anyone? 🙂
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by vistesdI have to run as well:
Just a quick response, then I have to run—
Not necessarily. I think exegetes from different religious traditions can agree on common hermeneutical principles which can then be used to evaluate the respective merits of different viewpoints.
If talking about such “theologically neutral” hermeneutics as form criticism or historical criticism, I ...[text shortened]... ormation needed to resolve it does not yet exist.[/b]
Good point. "Parousia," anyone? 🙂[/b]
With regard to the Hebrew Scriptures, how do you decide?
I wasn't talking about things like "Isaiah's Suffering Servant refers to Jesus of Nazareth aka the Christ". But can we say that Isaiah's Suffering Servant refers to some future messiah (lowercase 'm'😉?
"Parousia," anyone?
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of "Dang! If only that Isaiah chap were around so we could simply ask him what he meant..."
07 Nov 06
Inborn in each individual dwells desires for the self.
Inborn in each individual dwells desire for Truth.
Inborn in each individual dwells a voice that says what is Truth.
Truth is absolute.
Love is Truth in action.
Truth and Love are known by all cultures.
Truth and Love are known by many names.
A guide to Christianity:
Sin = Desires for the self
God = Truth
Jesus = Desire for Truth (Love)
Holy Spirit = Voice that says what is Truth
At least this is what I have I come to believe thus far. I have to plead ignorance to Islam, so perhaps ahosney will be good enough to provide a "Guide to Islam" in the context of the above. It'll be good to establish some common ground.
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis is the opening chapter of Quran I think it give a ground of what a Mulim belive: (Included three translation because of course Quran is written in Arabic)
Inborn in each individual dwells desires for the self.
Inborn in each individual dwells desire for Truth.
Inborn in each individual dwells a voice that says what is Truth.
Truth is absolute.
Love is Truth in action.
Truth and Love are known by all cultures.
Truth and Love are known by many names.
A guide to Christianity:
Sin = ...[text shortened]... "Guide to Islam" in the context of the above. It'll be good to establish some common ground.
001.001
YUSUFALI: In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
001.002
YUSUFALI: Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
PICKTHAL: Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
SHAKIR: All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
001.003
YUSUFALI: Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
PICKTHAL: The Beneficent, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: The Beneficent, the Merciful.
001.004
YUSUFALI: Master of the Day of Judgment.
PICKTHAL: Master of the Day of Judgment,
SHAKIR: Master of the Day of Judgment.
001.005
YUSUFALI: Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
PICKTHAL: Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
SHAKIR: Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
001.006
YUSUFALI: Show us the straight way,
PICKTHAL: Show us the straight path,
SHAKIR: Keep us on the right path.
001.007
YUSUFALI: The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.
PICKTHAL: The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.
SHAKIR: The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize
We belive in Allah the only GOD of the universe. We only worship him and obey him. We only ask forgivness for him because he is Most Merciful.
08 Nov 06
To summarizeI understand that Allah is the only God of the universe in Islam. I'm not sure you understand that Christians have only one God. It is my personal belief that Allah and the Christian God are one and the same. They are both the God of Truth.
We belive in Allah the only GOD of the universe. We only worship him and obey him. We only ask forgivness for him because he is Most Merciful.[/b]
It seems that you have a problem with the concept of the Trinity: God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I have to admit that it confused me for the longest time, but I think I may now understand it. The outline I provided in my earlier post are my personal beliefs. I believe that the statements are universal. What I termed as a "Guide to Christianity" was my attempt to assign Christian terms to those statements in an effort to give you another way of thinking of the Trinity. I was hoping you could provide something similar for Islam.
For example, it's my understanding that the Holy Spirit is the Christian name for the inner voice that tells a person what is Truth. I personally believe that ALL people are born with this voice. Unfortunately, the desires of the self make this voice hard to be heard. So the Holy Spirit is not a God. God is God. The Holy Spirit is the voice that's given to all people. Or to state it another way, the Holy Spirit is the VOICE of God that dwells in all people. I'm thinking that there's probably a similar concept in Islam. Is there?
Similarly Jesus is not God. God is God. Jesus represents the desire to follow God. Or to state it another way, Jesus is the love of God that people need to cultivate in themselves. Not out of fear, but from understanding Truth and loving that Truth. Loving that Truth more than the desires of the self. This is my understanding of the message He brought. I'm thinking that there's probably a similar concept in Islam. Is there?
Just as there are many divisions of Christianity and many divisions of Islam, I believe that Christianity and Islam are just two of many divisions of the understanding of God (Truth). I hope there comes the day when all people believe this. Perhaps only then will we have "Heaven on Earth".
Just to make things clear, I am not a Christian in the conventional sense. That said, I've had a Christian tell me that I follow His ways better than anyone else she knows. Similarly I'm not a Buddhist in the conventional sense, but I've had a Buddhist tell me that he thinks I follow Buddhism. This doesn't surprise me. All religions that follow Truth are, at their core, about the same thing.
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf this is what you belive then you are not Christian. All Christians belive that Jesus is GOD.
I understand that Allah is the only God of the universe in Islam. I'm not sure you understand that Christians have only one God. It is my personal belief that Allah and the Christian God are one and the same. They are both the God of Truth.
It seems that you have a problem with the concept of the Trinity: God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I have ...[text shortened]... ise me. All religions that follow Truth are, at their core, about the same thing.
Trinity is not the only difference.
Another major difference is Salvation. Christians belive that Jesus came for their Salvation. Beliving in him is enough to go to the heaven.
Muslims don't have the same belive. We salvation is only according to what person do in his life. No one can take my sin for me. And only GOD can forgive me.
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by ahosyneyJust as there are many divisions of Islam, there are many divisions of Christianity. The reason for these divisions in both cases are because there is disagreement in beliefs.
If this is what you belive then you are not Christian. All Christians belive that Jesus is GOD.
Trinity is not the only difference.
Another major difference is Salvation. Christians belive that Jesus came for their Salvation. Beliving in him is enough to go to the heaven.
Muslims don't have the same belive. We salvation is only according to what person do in his life. No one can take my sin for me. And only GOD can forgive me.
First of all, I'm not certain ALL Christians believe that Jesus IS God. I'm assuming that what you have a problem with is the idea of Christianity having more than one God. From what I know this just isn't the case. Most commonly the belief seems to be that Jesus is the Son of God. I hope you can make the distinction.
Secondly, I'm quite certain that not ALL Christians believe that professing belief in Jesus or even God for that matter guarantees salvation, though there are many that do. I happen to believe that they are mistaken. See the following scripture:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?'
Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
08 Nov 06
2 edits
After following most of this discussion, I have to point out from my POV: This debate is a good example of why both Islam and Christianity cannot be coming from a real god. A real god would not set up two religions like these two that allows, indeed DEMANDS, the death of non-followers of each. Christianity, as you have pointed out, is fractured into so many branches, inconsistancies abound, and Islam broken into two sects, Sunni and shia who are killing one another as we speak, including the odd christian. A true god would not set up religions to allow this. If there was a real heirarchy of divinity, the ones who are allowed to get the 'message', would have the same message, not messages where its ok for christians to kill muslims, as in the crusades or the present intifada's going on and the militarily forced conversion of whatever religion people have in africa to islam.
Or the idea if a muslim leaves that faith you are liable to be killed.
The latest person to be accused of apostasy was allowed to live and leave by the skin of his teeth because of international pressure, but you can be sure that individual would now be dead if there was no international press reporting the issue. Also he would be dead if he had been, say, a Jayne or Hindu as the international press is extremely christian biased, therefore ASSUMING christianity is somehow morally superior to Islam or any other religion. All you have to do is site the millions of people throughout the world forcefully converted to christianity, whole civilizations destroyed because of the assumtion of implicit superiority of christianity. Both religions are evil in my opinion because of this. Right now in Iran, Bahai's are being forced to convert or be banned from the country and if they cannot stay muslim, the apostasy law takes over and they are killed. I know this for a fact because my own daughter was for years a Bahai. Jesus is allowed by Islam to be a prophet but any others are not recognized, in fact they are enemy to Islam from their stantpoint and Bahai is a 19th century prophet and so not allowed that status. The way muslims treat women is another evil that should be stamped out of the planet. For instance, besides the dress code, in Saudi, women cannot even get drivers licenses, it seems muslim men are so fearful of women ever getting some kind of control over their own lives the keep them in abject poverty. In the christian world women are second class citizens. So tell me how a real god would set up this kind of relationship between other religions and between the sexes. If people kill one another rationalized by religious dogma it could not have come from god. Therefore the ones who started these religions have no connection to god, only self-aggrandizing charismatics who have a power structure to build using the name of god as the excuse. Shame on Islam, shame on Christians. You are both nothing better than the worse of you, you are both killers. Your combined behavior is a sure sign neither of your religions will ever really evolve past hatred towards a real godliness.
08 Nov 06
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseIslam don't need me to talk about it. If you really care about the truth you should read about Islam taking out you daughter's story from you mind. Because I know you cann't think that your daughter may be wrong so I think you will not be able to do so. But all what I can say that most of what you said about Islam is not true. I don't know if you want me to talk about it. It seems to me that you already made your decision.
After following most of this discussion, I have to point out from my POV: This debate is a good example of why both Islam and Christianity cannot be coming from a real god. A real god would not set up two religions like these two that allows, indeed DEMANDS, the death of non-followers of each. Christianity, as you have pointed out, is fractured into so many ign neither of your religions will ever really evolve past hatred towards a real godliness.