Post Reply
Page 5 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View How do you know whose claim is true?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 12:02AM #41
Pam34
Posts: 2,649

Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:31PM, JAstor wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 6:46AM, Pam34 wrote:


However, we don't have a concept of a place of eternal punishment at all. Once you die, you either survive spiritually or you don't. Basically, the truly wicked live their lives and die, and that's the end of them. The normal average person lives his or her life, and has the hope of survival afterwards - whether immediately, in some undefined state, or resurrection TO life at the end of time itself.



Actually, Judaism does espouse the concept called Gehinnom, which is an experience akin to the Life Review that people with Near Death Experiences have described. Here souls confront the failures and certainly the evil they did but did not confront - or confront fully - while in life.






I stand by my statement. Judaism has no concept of 'hell'. The 'limbo' state you refer to here is definitely NOT a place of eternal torment and punishment. Our basic teaching on that state is that not even the worst of humankind spend any more than a year in that condition.



As I said before, the truly wicked fail to 'survive' death. Normal average everyday good folks spend a varying amount of time in that 'post life review' state and THEN enter 'heaven' (or Gan Eden, or whatever). The rare tzadik (outstandingly good person) occasionally moves directly in.


Judgment? certainly. But 'condemnation' is a very different concept.



I believe this hinges on the Christian concept (which I believe is from the Greeks) that the human soul is something different from the human person, and is innately immortal. To Judaism, the soul is part of the human person, and is NOT innately immortal, but is GRANTED eternal 'life' by God - IF God so chooses ('remember me unto life'). Evil people die, body and soul, and God does not 'remember' them to eternal life.



Blessed are You, HaShem, Who blesses the years.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 12:33AM #42
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,818

Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:07PM, browbeaten wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:04PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 3:18PM, JAstor wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:58PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Come on! The Christians consider their Bible inerrant and they regard the Old Testament as a veritable history book. No scholarly historian does. If anyone, the Christians do not qualify as objective referees on the matter. That's a ridiculous argument.



This is irrelevant. The historicity of the Bible is a separate argument. This is about ascertaining from extant texts which one is original and which one was changed.



The historicity of the Bible stories is very relevant when discussing which account is the "correct" one. I don't give two hoots as to which account is the more ancient one since many Biblical stories are rooted in more ancient versions. My point is that the Bible is not a history text book. Neither is the Qur'án. Please prove to me with recourse to reliable scholarly reference that the Qur'án is a text based on the Bible. Please prove some minimal scholarship and avoid, at the outset, from making any reference to Christian apologist "scholars" hiding under pseudonyms such as Gerd Puin and Christoph Luxenberg.


Muhammad was inventive for sure. He openly disagreed on many points of doctrine and history with both the Christians and the Jews. But there's simply no objective evidence to suggest that the Qur'ánic deviations from the Bible stories are due to ignorance or careless plagiarism, as convenient as such a state of play would be for a non-Muslim. There are only claims to that effect which are usually propounded by somewhat unscholarly commentators that are either known apologists for other religions or otherwise emotionally positioned against Islam.


Kind regards,


Wabbit




Simply put, did Muhammad have both the Tanach and the NT at his disposal, if not open in front of him when writing the Qur'an?





Simply put, scientifically speaking nobody knows. There are scientifically unsubstantiated claims he did. There are scientifically unsubstantiated claims that he was illiterate and couldn't read. There are scientifically unsubstantiated claims that he heard the stories from Christians and Jews while busy with survival, wars and town rulership. There are scientifically unsubstantiated claims that he was a prolific innovator who claimed to know the true nature of these stories and set out to correct the mistakes in the old ones. There are scientifically unsubstantiated claims that he was a Messenger of God who told the truth and nothing but the truth.


My entire point is that all of your claims are scientifically unsubstantiated. They're all based on personal convenience. The truth remains to be discovered on a purely subjective basis. And that's a great thing!


Now children, let's all have a great big group hug.


Wabbit


P.S. The divine authority of the Tanakh can be, and has been, disputed by very similar fault-finding strategies. Hence the double-standard is baffling. As the prophet-founder of the Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'u'lláh, wrote about later revelations from God: If ye deny the Book, by what proof do ye believe in an earlier one?

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 12:54AM #43
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,818

Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:56PM, JAstor wrote:


And I don't understand your position. Do you believe Muhammed was infallible? That he couldn't make a mistake?


I know you're not Muslim, so I'm surprised you seem to believe so. 




JAstor,


I'm a Bahá'í. The Bahá'ís accept that most (but not all) of the great prophets of the past indeed derived their inspiration from the same God. We believe in progressive revelation and we believe Bahá'u'lláh is the prophet for our age. He closed the era of the Qur'án, just like the Christians believe the New Testament replaces the Old. However, unlike usual "replacement theologies" we believe Bahá'u'lláh will also be replaced in the future, and so will his successor, and his, et cetera ad infinitum. Bahá'u'lláh said: "All men have been created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization." God, through his progressive revelation, is the only source of that ever-advancing civilization. Being attached to one ancient prophet and one ancient book stalls civilization. It's that simple. These attachments are the source of religious animosity, prejudice and conflict. The Mid-East is a case in point. The only way out of it is either complete secularism, or the sincere acceptance of them all as divine in origin. It seems mankind has chosen secularism. For now.


Due to our cherished tenet of eternal and progressive revelation, we will always defend the divine origin of all the great prophetic revelations. That includes the Qur'án. I have no qualms defending the Qur'án against accusations of cheap plagiarism of Judeo-Christian narratives by an illiterate Meccan merchant. I'd proudly do the same if someone were similarly hell-bent on proving the Sinaitic Covenant as the ramblings of a mountaineering lunatic. Defending the divine origin (which is not the same as defending all their current beliefs, practices and holy writings) of all the great world religions comes with the territory of being a Bahá'í. It just happens that on this particular debate I'm on the side of the Muslims, since the divine origins of the Qur'án is being disputed, not the Torah. There are other debates where you will find me opposing Muslim opinion. As a Bahá'í I'm firmly convinced that the Qur'án was relevant for an age that is long past. Its social teachings are, for the most part, thoroughly antiquated. But so are those of the Torah in the Bahá'í opinion. However, both books contain precious spiritual and moral insights that no passage of time can render invalid. Only a blind and soulless man would insist otherwise.


The only thing that frankly bothers me is the infantile naming and blaming by both the Jews and the Muslims on these boards. It is a sacrilege. It flies right in the face of the dignity and virtue that both Islam and Judaism used to represent.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 3:14AM #44
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Apr 3, 2012 -- 4:27PM, JAstor wrote:


How do you know whose claim is true?



You can't know.


But I think you have to be careful and consider the case possible that yours may be wrong, and the other's may be right... See here.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 7:35AM #45
Ibn
Posts: 4,401

Apr 5, 2012 -- 11:29AM, rocketjsquirell wrote:


Lilwabbit


Everyone has a bias. My bias is that I would rather have my faith accurately portrayed by others. Mohammed DID NOT do so.



Apr 5, 2012 -- 6:41PM, Ibn wrote:

Did Jesus portray your faith accurately?


If yes, why did Jews try to have him crucified?


If no, did he not read the same faith books?


I have no doubt that the Jews did not accept both Jesus and Muhammad because they both criticised the Jews for not following Jewish faith properly and deviating from the original true faith of Moses.



Apr 5, 2012 -- 6:09PM, JAstor wrote:

Actually, in rejecting their claims to divinity, new revelation and change of laws the Jews were fulfilling Deuteronomy 13:2. 


Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:59PM, Ibn wrote:

They never made any claim to divinity.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 6:56PM, JAstor wrote:

 Jesus' own assertions 


Jesus never claimed to be God or begotten Son of God. Any of such claims are made through mental gymnastics. I can also do the same mental gymnastics, using the New Testaments books, and show Jesus' own assertion that he denied to be equal with God and, therefore, rejecting to be divine equal with God.


I can also show from the Old Testament books that you have more than one son of God (including Adam and Israel).


Did Muhammad make any such claims? 


Apr 5, 2012 -- 6:41PM, Ibn wrote:

They did not worship any other God than the God of Jews. The Jews rejected them because they had pinpointed the deviation of Jews in following their faith and this had made the Jews very angry.



Apr 5, 2012 -- 6:56PM, JAstor wrote:

No, they were the dreamers of dreams and false prophets that the verses (13:1-6) spoke about. 


- Do you observe the 7th day?


- Do you wear fringes on your garments?


- Do you wear totafot between your eyes?


- How many of the 613 commandments are you not keeping?


Jews got it wrong in each case. They were not the false prophet or else Jews would have managed to killed them both. Foolish Jews did try to kill them but failed each time and both of them completed their respective ministries.


I can also quote from your own holy book to show you that you, Children of Israel, had agreed with G-d in a covenant to help any Messenger of G-d that He sends to you. You broke that covenant by not helping these two messengers.


As for Sabbath, the 7th day, it was only for the sons of Israel. Command of Sabbath for us (who are not sons of Israel) is different. It is on Friday from the time call is made for prayer and assembly. All work or trade must stop and go to the mosque for worship.


The Sabbath for Children of Israel was for a certain reason in a part of their history. Abraham, Issac or Israel did not observe "7th day" as it was Commanded later after them. For Muslims, it is absured to even think that G-d created heavens and earth in six days and rested due to tiredness on the 7th day. G-d does not get tired or need rest every 7th day.


We do not need fringes on our garments to remind us of G-d's Commands. Are your minds so poor in rememering G-d's Commandments that you have to rely on fringes or tassels? It is like someone saying that we do not worship idols but the idols help us to remember G-d.


Once again, wearing fringes is Command for Children of Israel. You must obey the Command whatever the case for others.


Totafot? Again, you need to obey the Commands in Deuteronomy and in Exodus. It is for blessings. This also proves my past claims that blessings for Children of Israel are subject to you keeping the terms of the Covenant rather than a free everlasting blessings one-way license from your G-d to the Jews.


In terms of 613 or 620 commandments, I understand that you Jews are supposed to be killed for not keeping some of them (or even one in certain cases). I don't believe all Jews keep them all but are never killed as "Commanded". Jesus and Muhammad knew this. G-d knew this about Children of Israel so He had released you of the yoke round your necks. What was the point of you pretending to keep these Commands and sinning each time (when not keeping them)? 

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 9:07AM #46
JAstor
Posts: 3,957

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:02AM, Pam34 wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:31PM, JAstor wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 6:46AM, Pam34 wrote:


However, we don't have a concept of a place of eternal punishment at all. Once you die, you either survive spiritually or you don't. Basically, the truly wicked live their lives and die, and that's the end of them. The normal average person lives his or her life, and has the hope of survival afterwards - whether immediately, in some undefined state, or resurrection TO life at the end of time itself.



Actually, Judaism does espouse the concept called Gehinnom, which is an experience akin to the Life Review that people with Near Death Experiences have described. Here souls confront the failures and certainly the evil they did but did not confront - or confront fully - while in life.


I stand by my statement. Judaism has no concept of 'hell'. The 'limbo' state you refer to here is definitely NOT a place of eternal torment and punishment.



You're mixing in a few concepts, Pam. You're right that it's not eternal (Talmud, Avodah Zara at the beginning). And punishment for punishment's sake is also not a Jewish concept. But that the experience is not painful, as I assume you mean by "torment," is simply not correct. It's extremely painful to stare one's failures in the face, failures that one had the opportunity to correct but did not during life. Luckily, at one point, for the vast majority, the effects of the failure are purged and the soul moves on. 


Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:02AM, Pam34 wrote:


Our basic teaching on that state is that not even the worst of humankind spend any more than a year in that condition.



The reason we say Kaddish for 11 months, not 12, is that we don't want to assume that the person we are saying Kaddish for is one of those who fall into the category of those who continue in Gehinnom beyond the equivalent of an Earth-year. 


People like Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, Haj al-Husseini, suicide-bomber mass murderers are not getting off so lucky. They have too much moral failure and evil to purge it off in the normal amount of time. And in the final analysis probably nothing will completely purge it for them. They are those who will eventually just rise at techias hameisim, receive their final verdict and become "dust under the feet of the righteous."

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 9:08AM #47
LeahOne
Posts: 16,090

Wabbit, you are mistaken here.  The Oral Teachings are part of Torah, and Orthodox Jews consider them 'miSinai' - ie, of divine origin.


No other religion seems even aware the Oral Teachings exist....except to denigrate and disparage them as 'teachings of men'.  Yet it's obvious when one reads the Gospels that Jesus was well aware of the Oral Teachings and did NOT urge tossing them aside. 


If you rip away the Oral Teachings, the Written is not 'complete' nor 'perfect' - and to others it will look 'impossible' - which is where all that nonsense got started, by others deciding FOR JEWS that the Oral Teachings were not worth following.


Fine, go your way in peace.  We don't tell you how to follow YOUR faith:  how can you presume to tell us we are not following Judaism properly *while you toss out our Oral Teachings which were imparted to Moshe upon Sinai* 


WE were all at Sinai - even my husband and my son's children (who are not yet born).  WE KNOW that the Oral Teachings were given then. 


Since you could not have been there, you cannot know this.  But then you don't need to, to be good at following your faith.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 9:44AM #48
JAstor
Posts: 3,957

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:54AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:56PM, JAstor wrote:


And I don't understand your position. Do you believe Muhammed was infallible? That he couldn't make a mistake?


I know you're not Muslim, so I'm surprised you seem to believe so. 




Due to our cherished tenet of eternal and progressive revelation, we will always defend the divine origin of all the great prophetic revelations. That includes the Qur'án.



I have no problem with that belief. I'm just confused because earlier you accused me of posting here only because of some knee-jerk reaction to defend a faith position. However, you seem to be doing the very thing you accused me of! Which is fine. I respect you -- even as I disagree with some of your positions on things.


It's fair for you to accuse me of not necessarily being objective about the Torah, but it is also fair for me to say that because of your tenet of faith you may not be objective about accusations that Mohammed was fallible and there are statements in the Quran that reflect his lack of omniscience.


Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:54AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


The only thing that frankly bothers me is the infantile naming and blaming by both the Jews and the Muslims on these boards. It is a sacrilege. It flies right in the face of the dignity and virtue that both Islam and Judaism used to represent.



This is not untrue. I admit that I am sometimes guilty of not living up to the dignity and virtue you describe. It's hard to remain 100% unemotional and objective when you or your religion is accused of things that are untrue and sacriligeous. Feel free to point this out to me when I do so.


Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:54AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


I'm a Bahá'í. The Bahá'ís accept that most (but not all) of the great prophets of the past indeed derived their inspiration from the same God. We believe in progressive revelation and we believe Bahá'u'lláh is the prophet for our age. He closed the era of the Qur'án, just like the Christians believe the New Testament replaces the Old. However, unlike usual "replacement theologies" we believe Bahá'u'lláh will also be replaced in the future, and so will his successor, and his, et cetera ad infinitum.



I hope you don't mind that I went back to the beginning of your quote, after addressing other parts of it first. 


In the Torah perspective the revelation at Sinai was a one-time revelation that was never and will never be matched (Deut. 4:22-23). But it is an on-going revelation that the leading sages of the generation have been empowered to apply to changing circumstances (Deut. 17:11). The Torah expected non-Jews to draw from Torah teachings and growing morally/spiritually from them (Isaiah's famous "light unto the nations"). However, true prophecy ended with the destruction of the First Temple, and thus claims of later revelations -- Christianity and Islam included -- are false. That doesn't mean that these later "revelations" can't have good things in them (especially when they draw accurately from the Torah) that their followers can't gain from. They do, according to a famous passage in Maimonides. But that is different than being a true and infallible revelation in all aspects. 


Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:54AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Bahá'u'lláh said: "All men have been created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization." God, through his progressive revelation, is the only source of that ever-advancing civilization. Being attached to one ancient prophet and one ancient book stalls civilization. It's that simple. These attachments are the source of religious animosity, prejudice and conflict.



As a Bahai I just wanted to point out that you, too, have an "attachment" that may in fact lead to a stall in civilization: the tenet of faith that "unlike usual "replacement theologies" we believe Bahá'u'lláh will also be replaced in the future, and so will his successor, and his, et cetera ad infinitum." Your axioms include: 1) the Torah has been replaced, 2) Bahá'u'lláh has not been replaced yet, but only in the future, 3) no relevation (like Sinai) can be eternal, but must be replaced eventually.


Now, that's fine. I'm ok with different beliefs. But I'm saying that it too can -- in theory -- be an attachment that stalls civilization and be a source of animosity, prejudice and conflict. To my knowledge, people of the Bahai faith are not sending out suicide bombers, demanding the conquest of holy lands and other lovely extensions of some other faiths. But, in theory, any tenet of faith -- even the one you described -- can be a civilization-staller. 


It's like the sophomore who says, "There are no absolutes," to which the professor answers, "Even the absolute of 'no absolutes'?"


In other words, it could very well be that the Torah's tenet -- Sinaitic revelation; on-going as explicated in Torah-true sources -- is true.


Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:54AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


The Mid-East is a case in point. The only way out of it is either complete secularism, or the sincere acceptance of them all as divine in origin. It seems mankind has chosen secularism. For now.



This is what I like about your thinking. It's very clear and broad minded.


However, I would qualify your statement slightly differently. I don't think it's only a choice between complete secularism and acceptance of all of them as divine in origin (as Bahai faith believes). 


By the way, it will be Passover in a few hours, and I hope to be re-experiencing the exodus from Egypt for the next week, freeing myself from the spiritual bondage we all find ourselves in. Hopefully, I'll have the spiritual fortitude to not do things to disturb that state of mind like getting into heated discussion here on Bnet. So if you don't see me responding to your posts in the next week or two don't be surprised. It's nothing personal or to be alarmed about. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 9:59AM #49
JAstor
Posts: 3,957

Apr 6, 2012 -- 7:35AM, Ibn wrote:

They were not the false prophet or else Jews would have managed to killed them both.



That's an assumption that has no basis, other than assumption. I mean if you want to believe that assumption you are entitled. But it is an assumption.


But I see where you're coming from: the classic Muslim position, still in effect today, to kill all the infidels you can. Very telling.


In any event, the Quran's fallibility is not demonstrated by whom God chooses to allow to live and not live long lives, but by demonstrably wrong statements, such as those raised on this thread, which you have not addressed. Of course, if you are interested in addressing them feel free to do so. '


Note: as I mentioned to LilWabbit in my previous post it will be Passover soon, and so I will be checking out for a while.


(Note: Passover includes several of the 613 commandments that the founders of Christianity and Islam do not follow; not that they have to, but to tell the Jews they don't have contradicts Deut 13, and thus disproves of their founder's claims that they are true prophets with revelations to abrogate or supercede the Torah.) 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 10:47AM #50
browbeaten
Posts: 2,943

Apr 6, 2012 -- 12:33AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:07PM, browbeaten wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:04PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 3:18PM, JAstor wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:58PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Come on! The Christians consider their Bible inerrant and they regard the Old Testament as a veritable history book. No scholarly historian does. If anyone, the Christians do not qualify as objective referees on the matter. That's a ridiculous argument.



This is irrelevant. The historicity of the Bible is a separate argument. This is about ascertaining from extant texts which one is original and which one was changed.



The historicity of the Bible stories is very relevant when discussing which account is the "correct" one. I don't give two hoots as to which account is the more ancient one since many Biblical stories are rooted in more ancient versions. My point is that the Bible is not a history text book. Neither is the Qur'án. Please prove to me with recourse to reliable scholarly reference that the Qur'án is a text based on the Bible. Please prove some minimal scholarship and avoid, at the outset, from making any reference to Christian apologist "scholars" hiding under pseudonyms such as Gerd Puin and Christoph Luxenberg.


Muhammad was inventive for sure. He openly disagreed on many points of doctrine and history with both the Christians and the Jews. But there's simply no objective evidence to suggest that the Qur'ánic deviations from the Bible stories are due to ignorance or careless plagiarism, as convenient as such a state of play would be for a non-Muslim. There are only claims to that effect which are usually propounded by somewhat unscholarly commentators that are either known apologists for other religions or otherwise emotionally positioned against Islam.


Kind regards,


Wabbit




Simply put, did Muhammad have both the Tanach and the NT at his disposal, if not open in front of him when writing the Qur'an?





Simply put, scientifically speaking nobody knows. There are scientifically unsubstantiated claims he did. There are scientifically unsubstantiated claims that he was illiterate and couldn't read. There are scientifically unsubstantiated claims that he heard the stories from Christians and Jews while busy with survival, wars and town rulership. There are scientifically unsubstantiated claims that he was a prolific innovator who claimed to know the true nature of these stories and set out to correct the mistakes in the old ones. There are scientifically unsubstantiated claims that he was a Messenger of God who told the truth and nothing but the truth.


My entire point is that all of your OUR claims are scientifically unsubstantiated. They're all based on personal convenience. The truth remains to be discovered on a purely subjective basis. And that's a great thing!


Now children, let's all have a great big group hug.


Wabbit


P.S. The divine authority of the Tanakh can be, and has been, disputed by very similar fault-finding strategies. Hence the double-standard is baffling. As the prophet-founder of the Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'u'lláh, wrote about later revelations from God: If ye deny the Book, by what proof do ye believe in an earlier one?




Thank you LilWabbit.  My entire point, which as you say cannot be verified, is only to show the same nonsense we get from the Muslim perspective.  Everything in the Qur'an cannot be verified or substantiated.  It would have been more appropriate for you to change your or OUR in your statement above.  The point is that all is a statement of belief and to each his own.  It ONLY becomes an issue when one belief attempts to discount or attack another's belief system.  I feel that the Muslims on this board attack "Judaism" without compunction, which, in turn, forces us to respond. 


P.S. The divine authority of the Qur'an can be, and has been, disputed by very similar fault-finding strategies.  Hence the double-standard is baffling. As the prophet-founder of the Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'u'lláh, wrote about later revelations from God: If ye deny the Book, by what proof do ye believe in an earlier one? 


Along these same lines, why would you dispute the Book of Mormons or anything else? 


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook