posted
It should be noted that most people reading a 3000-year old text are reading a translation, even if the paper contains the exact same characters. This is especially true for those whose first language differs from the language of the text.
Most people reading a second language are actually translating as they read, not reading in the second language. Of course, there are lots of people who do read in the actual language, and they probably do most of the reading of those texts that is done.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Christians, so far as I know, have no care whatsoever about original languages, yet many will argue at the top of their voices about specific quotations justifying this or that or the other thing.
That would come as a surprise to the thousands of Christian clergy who are required to study the original languages as a requirement for ordination. (For example, all the Presbyterians.) And even the ones who are not required by their denomination but only strongly encouraged.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All presbyterians are required to speak and read Hebrew and Aramaic? Wow. Didn't know that. Guess that falls under the "so far as I know" category.
So, I retract "no care whatsoever" and replace it with "almost no care whatsoever". The thousands taken as a very small percentage of the several hundred million Christians in the world.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All Presbyterian clergy are required to read Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
And I'm using that as an example -- the presbys have one of the most academically rigorous sets of ordination requirements. Some denominations only require Hebrew or Greek. But the ability to read the original languages, at least enough to research particular words, is valued in all the mainline denominations. You will not find a Biblical Studies professor in a mainline seminary who can not read the texts she or he teaches in the original languages.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm going to imagine that the ratio of "presbyterian clergy and christians who read and understand Biblical Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic" to the number of total Christians in the world has to round to less than a hundredth of a percent - possibly even less than a thousandth of a percent.
But it is nice to know that such folk are out there, and certainly such an absolute statement excluded this very small group. So, please amend that "almost" in there.
quote:Not at all. I know something you don't. That doesn't make my view narrow. Merely more informed.
I'm still not clear what it is you know that I or the approximately 1 billion citizens of the planet who consider translations of the Hebrew Bible to be scripture do not know. Perhaps when you could be more precise about what knowledge I'm lacking.
If Scientology were to announce tomorrow that the Christian Bible was part of their new scriptures, along with the Collected Writings of Tom Cruise, and used a "translation" of the Christian Bible that translated "Jesus" as "Xenu", I think most Christians would also reject that as being scripture. They'd claim that they had the Gospels first, and the Gospel "versions" the Scientologists were using were certainly not the real thing. Certainly not to be seen as scripture.
This really isn't any different.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: However, as most of the world is not able to read Hebrew, they must rely on variations of the text in different languages if they are to have any access or understanding of the Jewish faith.
You're completely right. And I don't actually have any problem with translations. So long as the reader is aware that they are reading a translation, and that it is, by necessity, not fully accurate. Not truly what the Hebrew Bible says. No more than an approximation.
I said earlier than I've only read a small amount of the Qur'an in the original. I've read the whole thing in English. I just don't consider that to be the same thing.
And I'll even use an English translation of the Hebrew Bible if I'm looking for something quickly. I can scan when reading English. I can't when reading Hebrew. Or not well. But if I need to know what it really says, I go over to the Hebrew.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
The real distinction I spoke of originally was the distinction between a disputed claim and undisputed claim. All Muslims agree that the Qur'an is only the Qur'an if it is in Arabic. Only a small minority of people in the Judeo-Christian tradition believe that the Bible isn't holy scripture if it isn't in Hebrew. The one position is universally accepted, the other is highly disputed. If you claim to have read the Qur'an, but you read an English translation you are making a claim that all Muslims would see as invalid. If you claim to have read the Bible, but read an English translation rather than the Hebrew, you are making a claim that virtually all Christians and Jews would see as a valid claim. Even if you are one of the minority that view this second claim as invalid, you should be able to see a difference between making a claim based on a widely accepted definition vs making a claim that is contrary to a universally accepted definition.
To see and that accept that distinction, doesn't require one to accept or reject the validity of either claim.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that reading any text in its original language can be preferable to reading it in translation, but I also think that people over inflate their ability to read a language that is not their mother tongue accurately. Unless you truly understand all the subtleties of language, your understanding of the original text could easily be worse than translators.
I am a fluent German speaker. I have had numerous upper level (including graduate) German literature courses. I have read scientific papers in German. I have lived and worked in German speaking countries and even taught workshops in German. Still when I have compared German texts to an English translation, I find that when my understanding of the German differs from the translation it is as likely to be my error as the translators. There are subtleties in every language that are often impossible to translate. But at the same time, a non-native speaker often misses those subtleties.
The situation becomes even more complex because the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an were not written yesterday. Words are not static, their connotations and denotations drift with time. I can think of numerous English words whose meaning has changed substantially during my lifetime. If I read things written only a few generations ago, I find even greater differences. For example, one of the early explorers of the Pacific Northwest referred to the "awful grandeur" of Mt. Rainier. In that context, its pretty obvious that either “awful” or “grandeur” had a substantially different connotation in the 19th century than it has today. But if I came across the word “awful” in another context, that different connotation would likely be invisible to me and I could easily misunderstand the intent of the author.
It is one thing to be able to read the Bible in Hebrew or the Qur'an in Arabic and to understand what the words mean in a modern context. It is an entirely different thing to be able to read the words in Hebrew or Arabic and understand what they meant to the author when they were written. This distinction is particularly important when considering religious texts because the interpretation of scriptures has resulted in changes in the connotation of the words within the language. For example, the connotation of the English word “charity” has changed dramatically because of its use in the King James Bible. The way we understand words like sacrifice, prayer, worship, forgiveness, atonement, etc. have been shaped by centuries of theological debate and religious tradition. If this has happened to English words, it certainly happens to words in other languages as well. When reading a 16th century English text, one could go back to other 16th or even 15th century texts and research the connotation held by the word when it was written. Unfortunately, Moses had no contemporary authors whose works have survived to this day.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
The real distinction I spoke of originally was the distinction between a disputed claim and undisputed claim. All Muslims agree that the Qur'an is only the Qur'an if it is in Arabic. Only a small minority of people in the Judeo-Christian tradition believe that the Bible isn't holy scripture if it isn't in Hebrew.
See, but I don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing. What Christians think is what Christians think, and it has as much to do with what Jews think as what Scientologists think about what Christians think. If that.
I'm talking about the Hebrew Bible. That's ours. To the extent that it's been co-opted by other religions, they'll obviously do with it as they see fit, but I will reiterate that they are mistaken if they think that their translations of our books are the same as the books themselves.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The one position is universally accepted, the other is highly disputed.
Rabbit, "if 50 million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." That's Anatole France. The jist of it is that the number of people saying a thing has nothing whatsoever to do with its truth or lack thereof.
So I will repeat that the universality you mention makes no difference.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you claim to have read the Qur'an, but you read an English translation you are making a claim that all Muslims would see as invalid. If you claim to have read the Bible, but read an English translation rather than the Hebrew, you are making a claim that virtually all Christians and Jews would see as a valid claim.
What Christians think about the matter doesn't concern me. Nor does what uneducated Jews think about it. There's a difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. Sheesh.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Even if you are one of the minority that view this second claim as invalid, you should be able to see a difference between making a claim based on a widely accepted definition vs making a claim that is contrary to a universally accepted definition.
No. And again, no. Truth is truth. It does not change because many people espouse it or because few people espouse it. I can't even believe you're suggesting otherwise.
There's an issue of categories here. You're setting up a category of Muslims on the one hand, and a category of "Judeo-Christians" [sic] on the other. I could posit a category of monotheists, give Christians entry to that category simply for the sake of argument, and say that the view that the Qur'an must be read in Arabic to really be the Qur'an is a minority view. That'd be no different than what you're doing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
In my personal opinion, having an english language translation/adaptation doesn't really make a lick of difference, because I wouldn't be reading any of these holy texts as "truth" or "scripture". I would be reading them to glean whatever wisdom I might.
The Tao te Ching actually starts off saying something along the lines of "the Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way" and "the Name that can be named is not the true Name". They understood that true meaning can't be carried with words, and that the words are only a shadow of truth. So, the Tao te Ching is flawed, simply by way of it being written or spoken.
That, of course, doesn't mean there is no wisdom in it, or that one shouldn't read it and try to adapt its words to a greater context in their own lives.
I feel the same way about the Bible, the Quran, etc, etc. The exact wording, to me, is not important, because it is not "scripture" to be quoted, and it was not divinely inspired. It's text that holds wisdom and teaching from thousands of years ago, which can be digested and applied to a different context today.
YET, those who feel it important to quote scripture as ultimate truth (read: not me), to focus on some exact literal meaning of the words, cannot, in my opinion, legitimately do so with a non-original version of the text.
All those quoting chapter and verse of the King James Bible while denying variations in other versions seem silly - both versions are adaptations of words not even in the English language.
It's just as silly, to me, as someone reading Shakespeare in Arabic, Greek or Japanese. Shakespeare's great strength is the wordcrafting, and that does not translate to different languages, let alone different alphabets. The same goes with almost any poetry - I mean, look at all the different translations of Homer.
Of course, my focus when reading holy texts is not on the precise wording, but in the overarching messages and wisdom handed down from earlier cultures. Getting too caught up in what is "right" and what is "scripture" and what is "truth" and all that is, to me, not seeing the forest for the trees.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The situation becomes even more complex because the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an were not written yesterday. Words are not static, their connotations and denotations drift with time.
That's precisely why God gave us the Torah with both written and oral components. And with a system by which it would be taught, so as to maintain the correct meaning.
The 6th commandment is lo tirtzach. We know what that means. In King James' time, they translated it as "Thou shalt not kill", which was fairly accurate. Today, that's a completely inaccurate translation, and does not match the actual meaning of the words. Because retzach, which is what's forbidden in that commandment, doesn't mean "taking a life". That's what "kill" means today, after all: "taking a life". But that's not what it meant at the time of King James. A better translation of that commandment today is "Thou shalt not murder".
We know what the commandment means, in all its details, because we were the ones who received the Torah from God. And He told us what the meaning was. The 8th commandment, ordinarily translated as "Thou shalt not steal"? Is actually a prohibition against stealing a human being. It's a prohibition against kidnapping. The several prohibitions against stealing things appear elsewhere in the Torah.
God didn't just toss us a book and say, "Read up, people. Catch ya later."
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It is one thing to be able to read the Bible in Hebrew or the Qur'an in Arabic and to understand what the words mean in a modern context. It is an entirely different thing to be able to read the words in Hebrew or Arabic and understand what they meant to the author when they were written.
Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Unfortunately, Moses had no contemporary authors whose works have survived to this day.
Since Moses wasn't the author, that's not really relevant. God was, and He did give us detailed information as to intent.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, but I don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing
OK, so you don't recognize the existance of a religion followed 1.2 billion people and which has existed for over 2000 years. I will remember this in future converstation.
It is clearly impossible to engage in intellegent discussion with someone who does not recognize the existence of my religion and considers my beliefs to be a "foolish thing" .
Our credo here at Hatrack is that we speak with passion and listen with respect. Your clear lack of respect of Christians and Jews who disagree with you is repugnant. If you can not listen and treat other traditions with respect, there is no point in your participating in these discussions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's precisely why God gave us the Torah with both written and oral components. And with a system by which it would be taught, so as to maintain the correct meaning.
This does not solve the problem because the words in both the written and the oral traction drift in their meaning.
Despite the most intense scrutiny and the strictest rules, the written Hebrew Bible has not been preserved with out error for the past 2000 years let alone the past 4000 years. The evidence for this is clear and can not be logically disputed since their are differences between the Masoritic texts and the Qumran texts. It is well known the oral traditions are much more plastic than written texts. What you are claiming is that the Jewish tradition which you follow is fundamentally different from all other human traditions. That while all other human traditions have not been and can not be passed down perfectly over even a few generations let alone thousand of years, yours has been. That claim is a matter of faith. If you expect those who do not share your faith to see it as anything other than idol babling, then you are very naive.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, but I don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing
OK, so you don't recognize the existance of a religion followed 1.2 billion people and which has existed for over 2000 years. I will remember this in future converstation.
Aw, Rabbit. At least pretend to realize that everyone here is capable of reading what I really wrote. It makes no sense whatsoever for you to try and twist my words when my words are right there for anyone to read.
I never said I don't recognize the existence of Christianity. Although the fantasy of "over 2000 years" is a little funny. There was no Christianity 2000 years ago.
I said:
quote:See, but I don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing
And I repeat it. Judaism and Christianity are not two parts of one thing. There's nothing "Judeo" about Christianity, and there's certainly nothing Christian about Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It is clearly impossible to engage in intellegent discussion with someone who does not recognize the existence of my religion and considers my beliefs to be a "foolish thing" .
Find where I said I don't recognize the existence of your religion, and I'll take it back. I'll apologize. I'll print it out on the laser printer down the hall, and I will tear it into little pieces and eat each piece. I will jump up onto my desk right here at work and shout at the top of my lungs, "I'm an idiot!"
Alternatively, stop pretending that I said something I didn't.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Our credo here at Hatrack is that we speak with passion and listen with respect.
Does the "listen with respect" part include attributing statements to others that they never said? That's fascinating.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since Moses wasn't the author, that's not really relevant. God was, and He did give us detailed information as to intent.
The Oral Torah was not written down until the second century CE. It is my understanding that it was not written down, but was passed orally from generation to generation, because it was intended to be fluid. Though it was intended that the principles remain the same, the application of those principles was meant to be adaptable to new times and circumstances. Given this history, it takes an enormous leap of faith to believe that the Oral Torah has preserved unchanged the will of God even when the written Torah could not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, No, I don't think anyone here understands what you mean when you say you "don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing". Perhaps you can explain it in a way that is less offensive so that I might have some chance of understanding.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:oes the "listen with respect" part include attributing statements to others that they never said? That's fascinating.
What words did I attribute to you that you never said? I thought I cut and pasted them directly from your post. It was not my intent to misrepresent you. If I did, it is because I honestly misunderstood your intent.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's precisely why God gave us the Torah with both written and oral components. And with a system by which it would be taught, so as to maintain the correct meaning.
This does not solve the problem because the words in both the written and the oral traction drift in their meaning.
The words aren't as important as the meanings of those words. The words provide an anchor, is all.
For example, the verb nasa in biblical times meant "lift up". By Talmudic times, it was used for "to marry". But there isn't any confusion, because we're always quite aware of the context. We know that when the word is used in the Bible it doesn't mean "marry".
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Despite the most intense scrutiny and the strictest rules, the written Hebrew Bible has not been preserved with out error for the past 2000 years let alone the past 4000 years.
In fact, it has.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The evidence for this is clear and can not be logically disputed since their are differences between the Masoritic texts and the Qumran texts.
The Qumran texts belonged to a small sect in the desert. They weren't a part of the mainstream Jewish culture. Your logic is impaired, Spock.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It is well known the oral traditions are much more plastic than written texts.
Funny thing about things that are "well known". They aren't always true. This is a case in point. If you want to maintain the meaning of a text, an oral tradition is almost invariably going to be more accurate. "Plastic", only in the sense of "flexible", but that's a good thing.
This isn't like playing "telephone" at a kid's party. Among the differences are that in telephone, a single word is whispered by one person at each stage, and with the Torah, thousands upon thousands of people spend their lives studying it with extreme care each generation. It's a system with a tremendous degree of redundancy.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What you are claiming is that the Jewish tradition which you follow is fundamentally different from all other human traditions.
Thank you. Praise the Lord, we have a winner. Yes. A system of law and lore created by God and given to a group of people He charges with the sacred responsibility of maintaining it according to rules embedded in the system itself is fundamentally different from all other human traditions.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: That while all other human traditions have not been and can not be passed down perfectly over even a few generations let alone thousand of years, yours has been.
Well, see, God's not a dummy. When He gives a Torah that contains "eternal covenants" and "eternal statutes" and so on, it'd be fairly lame not to do so in a way that would facilitate (if not guarantee) its integrity. I mean, I couldn't do it. You couldn't do it. But God is different. He's not bound by time. If the system He gave didn't work out the way He wanted it to, He could have given it differently, ab initio. The point of equilibrium is where no changes are needed. Think it through.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: That claim is a matter of faith.
Only in the sense that the existence of God is a matter of faith. I don't actually think it is.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you expect those who do not share your faith to see it as anything other than idol babling, then you are very naive.
You mean "idle babbling". And I'm not naive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: starLisa, No, I don't think anyone here understands what you mean when you say you "don't recognize a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as existing". Perhaps you can explain it in a way that is less offensive so that I might have some chance of understanding.
I did. Judaism is Judaism. Christianity is Christianity. The idea of a "Judeo-Christian" tradition is sort of like "jumbo shrimp". Or "military intelligence".
(That's a George Carlin reference, so please don't bash me for making a joke about the military.)
We don't share a tradition. We never have. We've continued on our merry way, and you must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understood what she meant by denying a "Judeo-Christian tradition". It combines two religions into one tradition, whereas she is pretty adamant about there being a definite and clearly delineated distinction between Judaism and Christianity.
While Christianity may have roots in the texts she places at the center of her religion, it is not "Judeo" in any sense of the word she accepts.
By the same token, Judaism (with the exception of Jews for Jesus, which is an entirely different thread) really has no connection to the Gospels or anything Christian.
It seemed she was rejecting the tie between the two religions that you had offhandedly lumped together.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We've continued on our merry way, and you must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
Of course, by mentioning Christianity as being a "wrong turn"... that's a little inflammatory, methinks. It's that "I'm right and you're wrong so there" sort of thinking that gets no one anywhere.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's nothing "Judeo" about Christianity, and there's certainly nothing Christian about Judaism.
I disagree. (Well, actually I agree with the second phrase and I can see why as a Jew you would say that.) But Christianity was born from a Jew, and follows the same God that was the God of the Jews, according to Christians. So Christians (meaning I) will say they see a lot of Judaism in Christianity. Since you're not Christian, you can't with any credibility announce that Christianity has nothing "Judeo" about it, when the Christians themselves recognize their Jewish roots and use Jewish scripture.
However, I can certainly see why you'd say there's nothing Christian about Judaism. In fact I'd say it's pretty certain that the phrase "Judeo-Christian" came from Christians who recognize their Jewish roots, and NOT from Jews who accept Christianity as anything similar to them. I never thought of this before, but I guess the term "Judeo-Christian" might only have meaning to you if you're a Christian.
Or if you're an atheist and want to lump us all together. Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, it's a square/rectangle thing, I think.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
All christian faiths have their roots in jewish tradition, but not all those with roots in jewish tradition have connection to christian faiths.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread has really enlightened me more about on the topic of why many Christians don't view Mormons as such.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Still, though, I think I may go look into grabbing some free holy texts from wherever they're available. I'm pretty sure the Mormons give out free books of Mormon, and the Gideon Bible seems pretty easy to get ahold of. Someone said they got a free copy of the Quran?
If nothing else, they'd be good to have (I'm a bibliophile), but they'd be worth reading through just on principle.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well, it doesn't qualify as "major." That goes for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, too.
Added: And Invisible Pink Unicornism.
Added 2: Wait, I've got my signals crossed. Pastafarianism is the same as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, no? >_<
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All about the free books. Of course, I can hardly make it from the door of my room to my bed for all the books, but what's a few more?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Since you're not Christian, you can't with any credibility announce that Christianity has nothing "Judeo" about it, when the Christians themselves recognize their Jewish roots and use Jewish scripture.
You do realize, though, that to us, Christianity is a heretical sect that got out of hand. So even if you view your religion as having Jewish roots, using the term "Judeo-Christian" seems gratuitiously offensive. Very "in-your-face", if you know what I mean. If that's what you think about Christianity, then "Christian" is a good enough descriptive, no?
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: However, I can certainly see why you'd say there's nothing Christian about Judaism. In fact I'd say it's pretty certain that the phrase "Judeo-Christian" came from Christians who recognize their Jewish roots, and NOT from Jews who accept Christianity as anything similar to them.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it had been either invented or at least heavily used by assimilated Jews who wanted to cozy up to the dominant members of society.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do realize, though, that to us, Christianity is a heretical sect that got out of hand. So even if you view your religion as having Jewish roots, using the term "Judeo-Christian" seems gratuitiously offensive. Very "in-your-face", if you know what I mean.
I didn't realize it, no, until you said something. In general I do just use the term "Christian", because to me, the "Judeo-Christian tradition" isn't one religion; it's just an attempt to distinguish "the group of Founding Fathers who were mostly Jews and Christians and all had the same 10 commandments," from "the Pagans and Muslims and Hindus and others." It was sort of a throw-back to a supposedly less diverse era in America, when everybody supposedly had a similar moral code on which all our laws were based.
I've never thought of it as offensive, because to me it is obvious that we have commonalities. But now that you mention it, I totally understand it, because it's the same way I feel about the break-off sects of "Fudamentalist Mormons" using the term Mormon or Restorationist. They may have the same beginnings as we do, but we feel there is no part of THEM in us.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do realize, though, that to us, Christianity is a heretical sect that got out of hand. So even if you view your religion as having Jewish roots, using the term "Judeo-Christian" seems gratuitiously offensive. Very "in-your-face", if you know what I mean.
And most Christians believe that they are the true followers of the ancient Jewisth tradtion and it is you who are the heretical sect. We could just as well claim its very "in-your-face" of you to call yourselves Jews.
Try to show a bit of respect for other peoples religious believes starLisa and you will get alot more respect for your own.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do realize, though, that to us, Christianity is a heretical sect that got out of hand. So even if you view your religion as having Jewish roots, using the term "Judeo-Christian" seems gratuitiously offensive. Very "in-your-face", if you know what I mean.
I didn't realize it, no, until you said something. In general I do just use the term "Christian", because to me, the "Judeo-Christian tradition" isn't one religion; it's just an attempt to distinguish "the group of Founding Fathers who were mostly Jews and Christians and all had the same 10 commandments," from "the Pagans and Muslims and Hindus and others." It was sort of a throw-back to a supposedly less diverse era in America, when everybody supposedly had a similar moral code on which all our laws were based.
I've never thought of it as offensive, because to me it is obvious that we have commonalities. But now that you mention it, I totally understand it, because it's the same way I feel about the break-off sects of "Fudamentalist Mormons" using the term Mormon or Restorationist. They may have the same beginnings as we do, but we feel there is no part of THEM in us.
posted
I was just debating whether to ask or not, but I really would like to understand, if someone would care to explain. Why IS it offensive for a Christian church to claim Jewish roots? I don't get that.
EDIT: I am LDS and subconsiously roll my eyes about fundamentalist Mormon's because of the confusion it creates but it's not offensive to me, especially if I'm having a conversation with someone about it and no offense is meant.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do realize, though, that to us, Christianity is a heretical sect that got out of hand. So even if you view your religion as having Jewish roots, using the term "Judeo-Christian" seems gratuitiously offensive. Very "in-your-face", if you know what I mean.
And most Christians believe that they are the true followers of the ancient Jewisth tradtion and it is you who are the heretical sect.
You could also claim that 1 + 1 = 34. Our God gave eternal statutes. Yours abrogated them. The burden of proof is on anyone who splits off, wascally wabbit.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We could just as well claim its very "in-your-face" of you to call yourselves Jews.
Or kill us. That worked wonders for centuries.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Try to show a bit of respect for other peoples religious believes starLisa and you will get alot more respect for your own.
Judaism and Christianity cannot both be true. They are inherently in conflict. But the argument between you and me here started when you decided to claim that you have as much right to determine what our books mean as we do. More, actually. And based on a "majority-rules" kind of argument, to boot.
There are other people I don't argue like this with. Ask yourself why.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am ethnically Jewish, but decided that it was outdated. I'm all about the new made up religions like Scientology and Church of Englandism.
I tried reading it when I was 17 or 18ish, to try to figure out why the crazy people did what they did. Whenever it said "enemies" or "infidels", I forget which, someone had written in "Jews." I was kinda turned off and gave it back to the Library.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
starLisa, If you had made even the slightest attempt to understand my point, you would have recognized that I wasn't talking about eternal Truths, I was talking about communication and language.
The word "Bible" and the word "Qur'an" are just random collections of sounds. They only have meaning because English speaks have come to a consensus that we will use these words to mean certain things. Webster's dictionary defines the Koran as "the book composed of sacred writings accepted by Muslims as revelations made to Muhammad by Allah through the angel Gabriel". If those books have been translated into English (or any other language) Muslims do not accept them as the revelations made to Muhammad, therefore by the common definition they are not the Koran.
In contrast, the Bible is defined as "the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion such as Judaism " and the common definition of the Hebrew Bible is "the common portions of the Jewish and Christian canons." Based on these most common definitions, using the "Bible" or the phrase "Hebrew Bible" to refer to a translation is consistent with common usage. If I said someone claimed to have read the Hebrew Bible, when they had read an English Translation, they would have communicated a truth to most English speakers based on what we as the majority of English speakers have decided that arbitrary arrangment of letters and sounds means. Even if you don't agree that the Hebrew Bible is Holy Scripture unless it is in the original Hebrew, the person has still made a true claim based on the most commonly used accepted meaning of the English words. This would not be true for the Koran.
The real distinction I referred to was a distinction about whether either claim contains any eternal truth. The distinction was about communication and whether the ideas communicated were true based on the most commonly accept definitions of utterly arbitrary words. It is relevant if you consider communication to be important.
The fact that you have a much narrower definition of "Hebrew Bible" than the one that is commonly accepted by other English speakers, doesn't exempt you the obligation to effectively communicate with others.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You could also claim that 1 + 1 = 34. Our God gave eternal statutes. Yours abrogated them. The burden of proof is on anyone who splits off, wascally wabbit.
You just don't get it do you Lisa? This is religion we're discussing. What your rationalization of Jewish law, traditions, and historical actions boils down to is that the God you believe in said to do it, so you did and do. That is the exact same thing that people of other faiths believe- that God wants them to do what they're doing.
I acknowledge that you have a fierce belief in your God. Perhaps you could recognize that others have the same strong beliefs in their God (or gods). There's really no reason to act superior about it.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Judaism and Christianity cannot both be true. They are inherently in conflict. But the argument between you and me here started when you decided to claim that you have as much right to determine what our books mean as we do. More, actually. And based on a "majority-rules" kind of argument, to boot.
No starLisa, I have never claimed that I could decide what your books mean. I have never claimed or even implied that could determine what books you recognize as the sacred word of God nor have I ever attempt to dictate to you what they mean. What I have been claiming all along is that in the English language (and every other language) the meaning of words is determined by majority rule.
If you wish to define the term "Hebrew Bible" in a way other than that understood by the majority of English speakers, such as "those books which starLisa believes to be the word of God.", then you will have to recognize that you are going to have a great deal of difficulty communicating with other English speakers.
quote:Or kill us. That worked wonders for centuries.
Neither I nor any of my ancestors for more than 10 generations have killed or persecuted Jews. In fact, my family gave refuge Spanish Jews during the Inquisition. The anti-semitic autracities performed by some Christians against Jews in the past in no way justifies your bigotry.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You could also claim that 1 + 1 = 34. Our God gave eternal statutes. Yours abrogated them. The burden of proof is on anyone who splits off, wascally wabbit.
You just don't get it do you Lisa? This is religion we're discussing. What your rationalization of Jewish law, traditions, and historical actions boils down to is that the God you believe in said to do it, so you did and do. That is the exact same thing that people of other faiths believe- that God wants them to do what they're doing.
I'm not objecting to that. I object to members of other religions claiming ownership of our holy texts. I object even more to people like Rabbit, who think that the claims of the many are somehow stronger than the claims of the original owners.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo: I was just debating whether to ask or not, but I really would like to understand, if someone would care to explain. Why IS it offensive for a Christian church to claim Jewish roots? I don't get that.
It's a little offensive, in that the single most fundamental aspect of Judaism is to worship God alone and to obey His commandments. Okay, that's two things. And by the standards which existed prior to the birth of Christianity, Christianity abrogated both of those.
But that's not what I was complaining about. Regardless of where Christianity came from, we have absolutely nothing in common. We have a lot more in common with Islam than we do with Christianity. The term "Judeo-Christian" is what offends me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
