Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Mosque at Ground Zero...
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Uh, no. Jews don't believe Jesus is the Son of God and Mohammed is the Muslim prophet. I think a Mosque at Ground Zero is taking political correctness way too extreme. |
Anonymous
Well, Islamics might call Jesus Mohammed, and the Jews might call him Jehovah, but it is the same Jesus, just like we all read the same Holy Bible, though we may call it different names. I don't believe in these dogmatic differences. |
Anonymous
Tongue in cheek, right? Or have we found the most religion-illiterate person in America? |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
It's my understanding that the Holy Figure is actually named Brian. Where do you get "Jesus" from? |
Anonymous
|
There's Brian of course. But Muslims believe that Muhammad heard directly from God. Among the things he heard was that the Jews and Christians got it wrong. So they believe in Abraham, Mary and Jesus, but often the items of belief are quite different. For example, you don't get the turn-the-other-cheek Jesus in the Koran, instead eye-for-an-eye makes an explicit comeback.
I wish schools would teach the Koran, and when they do I wish they would teach all of it, not just carefully selected bits. |
Anonymous
Nooooo, that's wrong. Islam views Judiasm and Christianity as its brothers in faith. They (Jews and Christians) are People of the Book. Muslim men can marry Jews and Christians, and Mohammed himself had both a Christian and Jewish wife. |
Anonymous
21:25 again. I take it back. I misunderstood what you had written initially. I thought you were saying Islam was directly opposed to the other two religions. Yes, there are differences, but not huge ones, IMO. |
Anonymous
|
Muslims recognize Jesus as one of a long line of prophets, including Abraham and culminating with Mohammad.
Also, "turn the other cheek" Jesus wasn't as touchy-feely as he's made out to be. And "eye for an eye" Jesus (which really came out of the Old Testament) wasn't so vengeful, either. Those are just modern interpretation that lack context and which are exploited for other agendas. |
Anonymous
Yes, but if a non-Muslim man wants to marry a Muslim woman, he has to convert. And Christians and Jews have to pay special taxes to the Muslim rulers. Plus, in certain - nit all, I'll grant you - parts of the Koran, it's ok to Jews who don't toe the line. |
Anonymous
Sorry, I don't get this. In the New Testament, Jesus explicitely revokes the "eye for an eye" tradition. Unless you're coming at this from a Koranic viewpoint, in which case we have different truths and we'll have to agree to disagree. |
Anonymous
|
The "eye for an eye" concept was initially a call for restraint, not for vengeance. It was to be read as "ONLY an eye for an eye" etc, because of the tendency of the time to just kill anyone for any offense, or otherwise inflict disproportionate punishment. It was exploited, both then and now, to enact vengeance but was never intended in that way.
As for "turn the other cheek", reading that within the cultural context of the time, was a call to subvert violence through exploiting the social customs. By turning one's cheek, the "victim" put the aggressor in the impossible position of violating the social custom of not employing the left hand for such work OR addressing the victim as an equal through an open faced slap or punch. It was not, as it is often used today, a call to stand idly by while violence is committed against oneself, but instead to engage in active non-violence. Pretty interesting stuff. Wikipedia has some basic explanations of this stuff, but a lot more is available on the interwebs. Obviously, there are other schools of thought on these two quotes, but these are the ones most widely accepted by biblical historians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek#Literal_interpretation -and- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye#Lex_talionis_in_Christianity |
Anonymous
|
I think that's one interpretation of "turn the other cheek", but the key passages where the phrase is used make it more explicitly about non-resistance and about submission to the enemy, especially where it says "do not resist an evil person" and to "give him your tunic as well". Those statements do not fit the interpretation that this is a call to nonviolence as a tactic.
Also, the quotation follows Jesus' delivery of the beatitudes, which say a lot of things but unfortunately do not advocate resistance. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6&version=NIV Personally, I believe in Liberation Theology. But Matthew 5 and Luke 6 are very challenging to the concept. They seem to preach the opposite of nonviolent resistance, which is acceptance of the situation, non-resistance, and charity toward enemies. If they say anything about change, it is that being good to your enemies is the right thing to do. So maybe that can make change, but the passages do not really allude to it. I am not familiar with the history of "eye for an eye", but your comment makes me want to read it over again, so thanks for that. |
Anonymous
|
Yes, thank you for the "eye for an eye". The "turn the other cheek" piece was also interesting.
I tend to see a lot in what 6:33 says, too, both because I too support Liberation Theology, but also because she highlights some of the more passive passages in the NT. |
Anonymous
|
Yes, there are obviously lots of different interpretations, no doubt about that. I embrace the interpretation I offered, in part because of a shared interest in liberation theology.
Regardless, I get frustrated when, in my eyes, Jesus is reduced to a series of touch-feely fortune cookie statements that lack context. Some very genuine, very earnest understandings of him essentially paint him as a mildly prophetic hippie, sitting around singing Koombaya. If we recognize him for the revolutionary he was, whether we accept him as the Messiah or just a leader of men trying to enact change, I think it's important to "read between the lines" and get more to the heart of what he's saying. Obviously, this opens up a Pandora's Box of possible interpretations and is how many of the supposedly Biblical justifications for horrible things were deduced. That is why I try to ground my understanding in the cultural context of the time. That's my take, at least, which I realize is not the only legitimate one. |
Anonymous
9:29 here again. Yes, there are lots of interpretations, and I too am torn. I like the concept of an "aggressive anti-violence" stance. But I have a hard time getting past the "give the other person your coat" statements. Fortunately I'm OK with a little ambiguity. 
|