Probably because the point was to show people, Christians in particular, how much prejudice and ignorance they have and that doesn't sit well since the faithful of each major religion exhault the word of God but practice hate
Social Experiment. Perception of Quran vs. Bible
- Thread starter dogman6126
- Start date
Probably because the point was to show people, Christians in particular, how much prejudice and ignorance they have and that doesn't sit well since the faithful of each major religion exhault the word of God but practice hate
Ok. So I have read part of King James and part of The old testimant. I did not see some of the old testimant in what I read of king james. Either because I never got to it or missed it altogether. But then again Ive never claimed to be an expert on either. My impression was that King James offered part of the Old Testimant as kind of a historical accounting but not as a "This is still gods word and you better follow it." . Its been 20 years or so since I have tried to read it.
The Old Testimant is some evil crap. Its ok to kill, rape and maim your enemies. Its ok to have slaves so long of course as its done in the name of god. Thats just a start. I thought king james moved pretty far away from that. My thought had been is that people finally said hey we dont want that and thats where the new version came from.
Yeah I get that. I guess that I don't get why they don't target the religious doctrines and books that are producing most the hate right now.
Exegesis and hermeneutics, folks. You always have to read - what ever text we're talking about - in it's historical setting and ask what it's purpose is. So you say women should be silent and submissive to their husbands? Yeah, it's in the bible all right, but if you compare the bible to the rest of the Roman society at the time you'll see that the bible is more of a progressive text rather than conservative.
To say that husbands are NOT the head of the wife would be too much of a radical move in the first centuary, since this wasn't some norm brought by the early church but rather the roman/hellenistic society. It would have been to controversial for the Church to say anything else. But they still say some controversial thoughts: the man should love his wife as his own body, and he should treat her as she was himself. For us this often goes us by, because we see it as not that controversial at all - off course you should love eachother as they were our own body! But in the Roman culture this was revolutionary! The women was worth nothing! The man had it all! And now the relation between the man and the women gets compared with the sacrifice of Christ - no one has shown any greater love, and now the man should show his wife that love!
The first to witness the resurection of Christ were women. To give the women this right was revolutionary! At the time womens witness in court was worth nothing. The New Testament is full with women. But still, it's written in a patriarchal society. To expect any text not to be influenced by it's time is naive.
Let us see at what direction of progress the bible points out rather than sticking with the culture and history is was written in. I don't know how to put it in better words... I wish I could!
Oh, one last thing: yes, it has been said that women should be silent in church. But, again, what's the historical setting? Women didn't get to go to school, wich wold lead them to ask questions about the most basic things during the sermons/readings, and so disturb it. That is why they say "silence!", not because they are women, but because they couldn't answer all the basic questions. Instead they were told to ask their husbands instead. They had gone to school, so they knew the answers. Women were pastors and leaders just as men (a somewhat controversial thought for some even today, but read the scripture - they have womens name). They were profets, healers, etc. etc. Men and women are equal.
The Old testament is still a though one even for me, but I know you have to understand the cultural setting even here. I would only assume the same goes for the Koran.
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Ephesians 5:21-28
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Ephesians 5:21-28
To say that husbands are NOT the head of the wife would be too much of a radical move in the first centuary, since this wasn't some norm brought by the early church but rather the roman/hellenistic society. It would have been to controversial for the Church to say anything else. But they still say some controversial thoughts: the man should love his wife as his own body, and he should treat her as she was himself. For us this often goes us by, because we see it as not that controversial at all - off course you should love eachother as they were our own body! But in the Roman culture this was revolutionary! The women was worth nothing! The man had it all! And now the relation between the man and the women gets compared with the sacrifice of Christ - no one has shown any greater love, and now the man should show his wife that love!
The first to witness the resurection of Christ were women. To give the women this right was revolutionary! At the time womens witness in court was worth nothing. The New Testament is full with women. But still, it's written in a patriarchal society. To expect any text not to be influenced by it's time is naive.
Let us see at what direction of progress the bible points out rather than sticking with the culture and history is was written in. I don't know how to put it in better words... I wish I could!
Oh, one last thing: yes, it has been said that women should be silent in church. But, again, what's the historical setting? Women didn't get to go to school, wich wold lead them to ask questions about the most basic things during the sermons/readings, and so disturb it. That is why they say "silence!", not because they are women, but because they couldn't answer all the basic questions. Instead they were told to ask their husbands instead. They had gone to school, so they knew the answers. Women were pastors and leaders just as men (a somewhat controversial thought for some even today, but read the scripture - they have womens name). They were profets, healers, etc. etc. Men and women are equal.
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
Galatians 3:28
The Old testament is still a though one even for me, but I know you have to understand the cultural setting even here. I would only assume the same goes for the Koran.
The description of the video states that this is being done because apparently, Islam is currently under a lot of 'scrutiny' as of late. I wonder why that is.....
I think all religions are terrible each with their own versions of violence and bigotry, and I think this experiments proves that both Christianity and Islam are as bad as each other. Culture is one thing, but morals? Western morals and principles used to be backed by religion, but were not a direct product of it, until we decided to be a little more secular. I think morals that have been created within Western society through considerate discussion and debate directly outrank religious ideas by-definition because religious ideas are God's ideas, and the texts in both the Bible and the Qur'an are orders straight from 'God'. However somebody wishes to interpret these texts is of course, up to them, but just because these books carry 'good' texts, that doesn't mean they carry with them a religious copyright.
I don't disagree entirely except for one thing. I disagree that this experiment proves that they are as bad as each other. To prove that they are as bad as each other we'd have to compare them to each other.
You are quite right. I was using my own knowledge as well as from the video. It is fair to say that although they hold equally bad values, they are very different doctrines to a certain extent.
[MENTION=13285]Oscillation[/MENTION]
The historic context is problematic when crossed with fundamentalism.
It gets even more interesting when people pick and choose what to keep and what bits get glossed over to fit with modern society. Just look how submission of women and homosexuality kind of grew to have much different levels of enforcement. What made one rule become more important than the other?
The historic context is problematic when crossed with fundamentalism.
It gets even more interesting when people pick and choose what to keep and what bits get glossed over to fit with modern society. Just look how submission of women and homosexuality kind of grew to have much different levels of enforcement. What made one rule become more important than the other?
I think the video is biased. They will always edit a video to include the most uninformed people. I've known a lot the crap that was in the Old Testament since I was a kid and forced into Sunday School.
As an adult, The Old Testament means nothing to me. It is merely an historical account of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... a time that does not apply presently. No one knows who wrote the Old Testament. Some of the books were written (probably by a scribe) by Moses, but otherwise they were stories told over and over through the generations.
Here is my rebuttal (by the help of one of my favorite books):
"As you read the Gospels, you'll find that Jesus routinely challenges the prevailing interpretation of scripture and regularly calls his hearers and the Pharisees to move beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. He frustrates the religious leaders by his refusal to abide by the Sabbath restrictions, noting that it is okay to heal or to pluck grain on the Sabbath because 'the Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath' (Mark 2:27). Jesus' teaching on teh Sabbath stands in stark contrast to Moses, who taught that if a man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, he was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). At the same time, he called upon his followers to see the deeper call of the commandments. He noted that while the commandment prohibits adultery, we're not to even look at another with lust in our hearts. Whereas the Law forbids taking out extraordinary revenge, limiting justice to an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, Jesus said his followers were to love their enemies and to forgive.
...
Jesus's ethic was a call to live in radical obedience to God. Yet this was coupled with a radical view of grace and an emphasis on God's love for sinners. Though Jesus clearly called out religious leaders for their hypocrisy, he demonatrated amazing mercy toward tax collectors, prostitutes, adulterers, drunkards, and thieves. He expressed both a prophetic anger toward religious hypocrites and amazing pastoral concern for the broken and lost." (Making Sense of the Bible, Hamilton)
People who are "Christian" should know better. Our whole faith is to follow Christ and his teachings ... not the Torah/Old Testament. Even though the scriptures the men stated were in the Old Testament, they should have stated they were in the Torah.
As an adult, The Old Testament means nothing to me. It is merely an historical account of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... a time that does not apply presently. No one knows who wrote the Old Testament. Some of the books were written (probably by a scribe) by Moses, but otherwise they were stories told over and over through the generations.
Here is my rebuttal (by the help of one of my favorite books):
"As you read the Gospels, you'll find that Jesus routinely challenges the prevailing interpretation of scripture and regularly calls his hearers and the Pharisees to move beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. He frustrates the religious leaders by his refusal to abide by the Sabbath restrictions, noting that it is okay to heal or to pluck grain on the Sabbath because 'the Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath' (Mark 2:27). Jesus' teaching on teh Sabbath stands in stark contrast to Moses, who taught that if a man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, he was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). At the same time, he called upon his followers to see the deeper call of the commandments. He noted that while the commandment prohibits adultery, we're not to even look at another with lust in our hearts. Whereas the Law forbids taking out extraordinary revenge, limiting justice to an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, Jesus said his followers were to love their enemies and to forgive.
...
Jesus's ethic was a call to live in radical obedience to God. Yet this was coupled with a radical view of grace and an emphasis on God's love for sinners. Though Jesus clearly called out religious leaders for their hypocrisy, he demonatrated amazing mercy toward tax collectors, prostitutes, adulterers, drunkards, and thieves. He expressed both a prophetic anger toward religious hypocrites and amazing pastoral concern for the broken and lost." (Making Sense of the Bible, Hamilton)
People who are "Christian" should know better. Our whole faith is to follow Christ and his teachings ... not the Torah/Old Testament. Even though the scriptures the men stated were in the Old Testament, they should have stated they were in the Torah.
Last edited:
Beautifully said. What books is that from?
Radicalised Christian:
St Francis of Assisi
Attachments
I don't disagree.
I think part of the confusion is that SOME people will thump you with any verse they find convenient for whatever they're trying to browbeat you with, and this can lead to a very legalistic examination of the scriptures out of context.
It ends up being "well you say this because it's in the Bible, well this other thing is also in the Bible, so there!" and to some people it seems like there's an inconsistency of authority.
What they did isn't prove bias.
They just did dihydrogen monoxide hoax but for the bible. The greatest deception is a partial truth.
See here: http://web.archive.org/web/19961031232918/http://media.circus.com/~no_dhmo/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
They just did dihydrogen monoxide hoax but for the bible. The greatest deception is a partial truth.
See here: http://web.archive.org/web/19961031232918/http://media.circus.com/~no_dhmo/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
I agree... I think. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in the first sentence. I agree upon the latter though: there is too much of a "pick and choose" attitude in not only the Church, but in humankind overall. We are "pick and choose"-ers! On the topic of homosexuality we can't compare it with another "rule", as you call it, because what if they aren't comparable? I'm not stating any opinion of mine about homosexuality, I'm just saying that just because we "got rid of one rule", we can't get rid of them all, believing that they are all the same. We have to, again, look at the scripture at a whole and ask what it's trying to say - not what a single verse tells us.
I for one have a lot of thoughts and questions when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, but I feel there is too much "war" going on between the two parties/opinions, that I would never be able to even start without getting back stabbed by either one. Think about this for starters: "It gets even more interesting when people pick and choose what to keep and what bits get glossed over to fit with modern society". How do we know homosexuality isn't just "a bit to fit with modern society"? I'm not saying it is, I'm just asking a retorical question. I'm not up for a heated discussion about it - I'm sick of it! I seek peace.
What I'm saying in the first sentence is that fundamentalists tend to believe that things should not be modified. They tend to not care whether something fits the times, it says what it says and according to them, you shouldn't change it if you truly believe.
As for what rules you pick, maybe you're right, maybe they aren't comparable. How do you decide that? Based on what authority? Interpretation? Everyone thinks their interpretation is right.
Look how many denominations the Christian church splintered into, and they reference the same book. Some times they even change it a little.
The DMH hoax is also an example of people's bias. They are different versions of the framing effect.
Indeed, everyone thinks their interpretation is right! And here the dialog comes into place, both the dialog between individuals and the dialog between the denominations in the Christian Church. Then we will only have to trust that God "himself" speaks to us and corrects us. I know, I know... there has always been lunatics saying they have their authority from God, and then they go of and kill someone or something. So how do we know who's right - the lunatics or the maniacs?
I don't know! But I believe neither one of them is right.
Wich interpretation of the bible is correct?
The one that is uniform with the Holy Spirit.
How do we know what the Holy Spirit tells us?
We don't. We trust. Or not...
It's just the same for all other knowledge we have: how do we know we're not living a lie all together?! We don't, we'll just have to trust our senses, our intellect and eachother. We are somewhat stranded in this Universe, knowing nothing about anything, making up things as we go, and if there is a god we'll hope he/she/it will steer us on the right path towards greater knowledge and community with God.
The very core of the Gospel is that we has a human race are unable to grasp our own salvation from this uncertanty, this life doomed to death that we are living, but in the midst of that story, God interviens... God decides to step down to our level and create a pathway between our simple mind and his everlasting knowledge. We are unable to know the Truth as it really is - we are always doomed to believe our own interpretations - so our only salvation was for God to give us a gift: himself. We were unable to reach upwards, so he stepped down, and became man, so that we could became gods. This is the Gospel (and much more).
Sorry for "preaching". I was more of speaking out loud for my own sake... I don't always believe this myself, but since we're stranded in obilivion, we only have to hope we're on the right path.
This is probably increadably Off Topic, and I should stop.
Beautifully said. What books is that from?
Radicalised Christian:
St Francis of Assisi
I adore this book. The author is a Methodist minister and tackles a lot of hot social topics. I would highly recommend it to anyone to read if they want a clearer picture of the Bible, and an understanding of the context by which it was written. I have found in myself that it brought me back to God, considering the church teaches scripture in a way that it suits them (just like the churches in the Bible, this tends to be an ongoing trend) ... even though internally I found myself struggling with the content (non-Methodist.) The author bases his opinion via studying a wide range of resources (which are wonderfully cited in his bibliography.)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/006223496X/?tag=infjs-20
http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews...hamilton-offers-scandalous-take-on-scripture/
the Old Testament is part of the King James Version so....
anyways, the aren't many people who got tricked in this video.
Did you read that article? The title isn't even the main point of the article, and the historian doesn't do anything of the sort. It's a whole lot of opinion and absolutely zero facts. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to admit I read that if I posted that, because the title is just click bait.
You also did realize that unlike Christianity and the bible which contain both the NT and the OT that the Quran is only 14% of their religious texts, right? Taking the Quran itself isn't genuine just like using just the NT isn't genuine. Did you know that if something appears later, in the Sira or Hadith then it gives more weight than what is in the Quran? Wow, I wonder what we'd come up with if we compared them all to each other.