• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Yawehism a "Religion of Peace"?

Is Yawehism a "Religion of Peace"?


  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
No other religion is allowed to exist within the borders of Israel. All temples and peoples worshipping other gods are to be destroyed. However, non-religious people are allowed to exist within the borders of Israel. This may be different than Islam. :shrug:

According to Israeli tradition and Kosher law Islamic Mosques and Christian churches are to be destroyed within the borders of Israel. People are supposed to be executed for practicing a different religion or trying to convert someone to a different religion. Have you ever read the first 5 books of the Bible? It has been very accurately translated from the original Hebrew Texts.

Is that what's happening?
 
This says absolutely nothing about whether Christianity or Judaism are religions of peace. I'd say if anything Judaism has a stronger claim to "peace" than Christianity. For the most part, they've been either oppressed or in defense. On the other hand, Christian nations have spent the last 1600 years in continuous struggles of different sorts through different processes. From the Crusades to colonialism to neo-colonialism, Christian nations have found a way to embroil themselves in wars with others and themselves for both dogmatic and material reasons.

That has more to do with the fact that there have never been that many Jews and how they were scapegoated in the New Testament in an attempt to appeal to a Roman audience. I doubt the average Joe Palestinian, having witnessed his kids dying after a U.N. shelter was targeted, would argue that religious Jews are anymore peaceful than Christians or Muslims are when you arm them.
 
You make my point, thank you. You are still focusing on what props up your own view instead of the systematic view that scripture teaches. Do you believe Justice is a virtue? Can one have Justice without some form of consequence? Now, if there were no mention of human will, mercy, forgiveness, or atonement you might have a point. But scripture does and you don't, all you have is a myopic view that holds no merit.

Justice? So by not believing something that is UNPROVABLE the punishment should be eternal hellfire? No, that's not justice, and it's not mercy. Some consequence would be ok, but eternal hellfire with NO chance of mercy, that is not justice or mercy.

I notice now this is irrelevant because your signature quote suggests you're a calvinist, which is in my opinion the most despicable belief system in human history. You want to talk about justice and yet you believe that god created people destined to be sent to eternal hellfire and torture? Mercy my ass.
 
IOW, when Muslims are in their Own countries they are Radical and Intolerant.
BUT....When Confined to small Minorities in the Secular Christian West, where this is not "allowed", they are somewhat Domesticated.
You don't post in the Europe section much, do you? There are Serious problems with 2%-10% of same.

You sure made the case for the peacefullness of Islam!
as long as they are Squashed by a much larger, more civilized, more secular, Christian West.
Oh Yeah!
This was another riveting point for Islam.. when put under a civil Non-Muslim control.
What a backfiring excuse of a post.

They run wild when allowed to, just as Christians would run wild if they had their own countries where they were allowed to. Europe's problem is that their largely liberal governments have allowed Muslims to go crazy there too, out of some ridiculous liberal desire not to offend anyone. They have allowed them to set up Sharia courts and live under Sharia law. Most of the Muslims in Europe came directly from Islamic countries where they're allowed to do what they want religiously. We don't allow that in the United States, we don't have those problems.

Besides, I never said Islam was peaceful. I've said NO RELIGIONS ARE PEACEFUL. They only achieve that state when forced into it kicking and screaming by secular society. You ought to learn to read.
 
Obviously you have no Idea of what you are talking about. Deuteronomy was written to instruct Jews for their culture, in that time. You have failed to make distinctions between God's universal law and an historical event. Those historical texts have nothing to do with Christianity.


Ah yes, rationalizing your way around the Bible. A typical Christian trait. :roll:
 
Revisionism? It's well known history.

The gregorian reform was the first major shift in the relationship between church and state. That relationship evolved from there. Why was it possible? Well the nugget is in a well known bible quote "render unto Caesar...".

Most of those reforms were internal, and did nothing to stop the church's violent domination over European culture. They still tortured and murdered people all the time, still meddled in the politics of countries, still conducted inquisitions, still conducted crusades... There's nothing resembling modern secularism, or any form of secularism where I'm not burnt at the stake, for a long time after this.

And I'm not American, but I notice you ducked the question about the bill of rights being a meaningless historical event because slavery still existed.

Fine, western secular liberal views. Views that were not in any way a part of Christian doctrine. I ignored that question because it's absurd. The bill of rights is currently law. It is not meaningless at all. Nor did it even address slavery. Was the notion that "all men are created equal" hypocritical in that slave owners wrote it? Yes. They didn't live up to that ideal. But nobody even had the ideal that religion shouldn't have power over people who didn't want to be a part of that religion until at least the Enlightenment, possibly later.

And secular culture did not supplant Christian culture, since 80% of Americans are Christian. Christian culture just happens to be fertile ground for secularism.

Their Christianity would be quite unrecognizable to Christians of a few centuries ago, especially the ones during your vaunted reforms. But despite their religious affectation, our culture is secular. Our laws are secular, our capitalism is extremely secular. Our views on money, sex, morality, and our place in the universe, for all but the most ignorant religious people (which are the minority of religious people, of course) are secular, to the point where their Christianity is having to twist itself around to incorporate those views and claim they had them all along. Somewhat like what you're doing.
 
Some people may call this religion Judaism, Israelites, Yawehism or something else. I am referring to the ancient religion that is derived from the first five books of the Bible.

When you read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy do you view a society of peaceful individuals? Are you able to visualize this ancient religion without mixing your ideas of modern Judaism?

When I read the first five books of the Bible I see a religion very violent in nature and similar to Islam. It makes it very clear to me why these two tribes insist on killing each other all the time.

Is Yawehism a "Religion of Peace"?

Christianity is. Which is why I wonder why extremist Christians aren't extremely Chrst-like, but that's for another time.
 
Very poorly informed statement. Where exactly in scripture are Christians commanded to kill those who differ in their religious view? You can't answer can you?

Are we allowed to utilize Old Testament texts?
 
I think one has to make a distinction in the types of "Law" that God has given. In the establishment of ancient Israel and the cultural practice that characterized that ancient culture, Judaism certainly was not a peaceful movement. It was an instrument of God's wrath and a law for building cultural unity amongst tribes. However, the "religion" is a bit different than the building of the culture. The religion was a system of atonement for the transgressions of law. In this aspect it was indeed a religion of peace and mercy. From an affirmative perspective, look at the 10 commandments; is there any thing in them that is not peaceful? No. Once transgressed and from a negative perspective things could get bad, however the religion was established as a vehicle for mercy, while at the same time maintaining justice. So yes it is a religion of peace.

The first commandment can inspire adherents to submit to violent teachings against the infidel.
 
I don't believe that is accurate at all. Judiasm was practiced by all Jewish tribes.

When was the term Jew, Judaism or Jewish used in the first 5 books of the Bible? These were Israelites not Jews.
 
The point in all of this is that peaceful Muslims look to the Koran and see a religion of peace. Peaceful Christians look to the Bible and see a religion of peace. Violent Muslims look to the Koran and see a religion that commands them to defend their faith by any means necessary. Violent Christians look to the Bible and see a religion that commands them to defend their faith by any means necessary. The only difference today is that there are more fundamentalist violent Muslims than fundamentalist violent Christians.

Of course a peaceful Christian would look at a violent Christian's interpretation of scripture and think its heretical. Similarly, a peaceful Muslim looks at an Islamists interpretation of the Koran and thinks its heretical. However, the point is that both Christianity, Islam, and Judaism can find plenty of examples of some of the most violent acts imaginable in their respective holy scriptures.

I guess it is hard to make a distinction. Is the religion violent in and of itself? Is the culture of people practicing these religions violent people? I think for Islam you can say yes to both. I think of Yahwehism you can say yes to both. I think with Christianity you can say no to both. I wasn't referencing Judaism or Christianity in my opening post. The texts of the Koran are violent. The texts of the Old Testament are violent. The text of the New Testament are not violent to my knowledge.

I wonder if it is possible for us to critique the text, ignore current culture and ignore current events. :confused:
 
Of course I can and already have. You seem to have "conveniently" ignored it. I'll do it again. Try Deuteronomy 13:12-15. It says quite clearly that if you come across a town that worships another god, that you are to slaughter its inhabitants down to the last man, and the cattle for some weird reason, because cows apparently can be heretics too.

Mixed breed cattle are an abomination to God. The cattle of the Philistines were likely hybrids not necessarily heretics.
 
Mixed breed cattle are an abomination to God. The cattle of the Philistines were likely hybrids not necessarily heretics.

Mixed fabrics are an abomination too, that doesn't seem to bother most modern Christians.
 
Is that what's happening?

Is the Israeli government destroying Mosques and Churches within it's borders? Maybe but I am not aware of it. What are you trying to say?
 
I guess it is hard to make a distinction. Is the religion violent in and of itself? Is the culture of people practicing these religions violent people? I think for Islam you can say yes to both. I think of Yahwehism you can say yes to both. I think with Christianity you can say no to both. I wasn't referencing Judaism or Christianity in my opening post. The texts of the Koran are violent. The texts of the Old Testament are violent. The text of the New Testament are not violent to my knowledge.

I wonder if it is possible for us to critique the text, ignore current culture and ignore current events. :confused:

One has to look at origination of a religion in the context of the historical circumstances the founders of that religion were in. In the case of Christianity, the New Testament was written by Jews that were living under Roman occupation, when Judaism was a pariah in the Roman Empire. They had to watch what they said and did lest they be executed for sedition. Thus, the New Testament is not overtly violent because they were trying to appeal to Romans when they wrote it.
 
You want to talk about justice and yet you believe that god created people destined to be sent to eternal hellfire and torture?

Would you like to explain to me how you could stop God from sending you to hell unfairly?
Would you like to explain to me how you could stop God from sending you to heaven unfairly?

If an omnipotent being exists then we have absolutely no control over this being. Is the Calvinistic logic that hard to understand? If God doesn't like you there is nothing you can do about it. If God likes you there is nothing you can do about it. Otherwise this being known as God isn't omnipotent.
 
Mixed fabrics are an abomination too, that doesn't seem to bother most modern Christians.

In the scripture you referenced God didn't command them to burn the clothes.
 
Justice? So by not believing something that is UNPROVABLE the punishment should be eternal hellfire? No, that's not justice, and it's not mercy. Some consequence would be ok, but eternal hellfire with NO chance of mercy, that is not justice or mercy.

I notice now this is irrelevant because your signature quote suggests you're a calvinist, which is in my opinion the most despicable belief system in human history. You want to talk about justice and yet you believe that god created people destined to be sent to eternal hellfire and torture? Mercy my ass.

You are entitled to your own opinion concerning religion, you are not entitled to omit what doesn't fit your pre-conceived ideas. As for my signature line, One doesn't have to be Calvinist to appreciate quotes from Calvin. I do however find Calvinist interpretation very meaningful and it offers a version of Christianity that emphasizes humility. I doubt that you can support your disdain for Calvinist Theology with any facts, so that is a meaningless statement.
 
Ah yes, rationalizing your way around the Bible. A typical Christian trait. :roll:

Actually it not rationalizing, it is identifying what I am reading and understanding it prior to forming an opinion. You'd do well to try that!
 
Only towards the unbelievers.

Is there any equivalent and overtly stated precept of violence in Christian theology or uniquely Christian scripture, excepting the crucifixion of Christ?
 
Are we allowed to utilize Old Testament texts?

Only if those texts were written to Christian communities. You can appropriately use those texts to attack the character of God if you so choose, however you cannot use them to attack Christian theology, as they are specifically for the ancient Jewish community that they addressed. The only impact those historical texts have on Christianity is the theological meaning they provide, not their example.
 
The first commandment can inspire adherents to submit to violent teachings against the infidel.

It could if the individual chose to, but unlike Islam that is not required. In Judaism I believe the directive was to cast them out. This again was more cultural than religious, The Israelite had just left a land of plenty in Egypt and were now in wilderness (desert), it was imperative to build unity of culture for survival.
 
Back
Top Bottom