Ernie: BF Replies in text Billy ---------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 5/21/2009 3:00:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Billy, On May 21, 2009, at 2:51 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Exodus 22 : 20 specifically applies to Jews living in a Jewish nation, > or cie vous plait, about to live in such a nation in the near future. > It is not a universal that applies to all people , everywhere. > This strikes me as one of those interpolation for which we have > that racial bigot Ezra to thank, putting words into Moses' mouth, > and in > clear contradiction to Deuteronomy 32: 8 & 9, the mixed multitudes > in Numbers, > and such later verses as Malachi 1 : 11 ( which in Hebrew is present > tense, > NOT future tense as in the NIV ) . I still think you're stretching to avoid the comparison. Specifically: a) Weren't the words of the Koran also intended for Muslims living in a Muslim nation? Because it --the Qur'an-- makes such principles universal. Granted, Muslims are practical, and outside of Muslim nations such punishments are uncommon, but no-one should confuse impracticality with morality. The clear sense of all shirk injunctions ( against Atheists, Muslim apostates, Goddess devotees, etc ) is that if at all feasible the death penalty should be carried out. When it is not, then alternative punishment is obligatory, especially ostracism. Not mild ostracism, but banishment from the community. house imprisonment, and the like. Even in the West, killing is sometimes carried out despite local laws, although mostly this concerns women ( daughters ) who a father may say has dishonored the family. This means in most cases . a Qur'anic law that says that a woman who marries a non-Muslim is liable to death. Hence "honor killings" in past months in Texas and upstate New York. There are not flukes outside of Islam, but letter-of-the-law punishments that are standard practice in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, at least parts of Yemen, parts of Pakistan, and so forth. b) Even if you blame Ezra for their presence, I think it is safe to say that observant Jews from post-Exlic times forward have all treated them as legitimate portions of the Torah, and thus (modern) orthodox Jews considered them normative. Right? Yes, indeed, and hence my disdain for some of the Orthodox. But not all of the Orthodox are equally observant and a % really are Conservative in character, probably most American Orthodox. But the ultra Orthodox Haredis strike me a sick in the extreme/ My point is: if serious, religious Jews who consider such words a central part of their religious scriptures have found a way to work around extreme intolerance, is not reasonable to hope that serious, religious Muslims might as well? Here again is the assumption , that the Qur'an has much the same status for Muslims as the Bible for Jews or Christians. IF it did, then, yes, a reformation is thinkable. But, alas, this is not the case. Instead, the Qur'an is for Muslims the actual real life speech of God, it is God incarnate, not merely a report of God's words which scribes may have copied incorrectly in the past, or otherwise not expressed with maximum clarity when the text was written down. That is, as hard as it may be to grasp the concept, the Qur'an is for Muslims what Jesus is for Christians, not something anyone can compromise with in the least. Therefore, reform is Mt Everest by way of metaphor, maybe Mt Everest piled on top of another Mt Everest, an impossibility, while for Christians or Jews even of most strict persuasion, reform is just an average mountain in Arizona or New Mexico. But there always is the possibility of a "reform religion" that breaks away from Islam, like the Baha'is, while retaining various features of Islam. I have zero problem in relating to Baha'is even if I have some serious disagreements. True, you could certainly make a case that it could only happen via conquest and minority status over a thousand years, but at least we could have the discussion... -- Ernie P. > > Are all such passages redactions by Ezra ( or Nehemiah ) ? No. just > the majority of them. See Richard Elliott Freidman's "Who Wrote the > Bible ? " > for a solid case to this effect. For another extensive set of > redactions > ( falsifications ) see Raphael Patai's "The Hebrew Goddess." > > That is, while for me the clear majority of verses in the OT are > inspired and reliable, > this means much more than 51 % but nothing like 99 %, although I > cannot be > more precise than this. > > Essentially all judgements of this kind need to be case by case. > _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
