Tweet
Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont think 19th christians turned from the OT at all, though Im no expert. Did they turn from psalms, from the story of King David, from the Ten Commandments, from Isaiah and Amos and prophets of social justice? Or do you mean they turned away from legal texts that were never meant for them and whose proper interpretation they didnt know, and stories of the conquest of Canaan that, you know, only applied to Canaan and no where else?
And I dont really think the ills of the THIRTY years war, etc had much to do with say, the Book of Joshua. It had a lot more to do with differences over certain passages in the NT, like "on this petrus i will build my church" and what that implied about episicopacy and apostolic succession. Christianity was NOT enlightend by turning back to the words of Christ, but by the need to deal with Kant, Voltaire, Darwin, etc, etc. Islam doesnt need to change its founding books, it needs to deal with the modern world. Which incidently, many muslims are doing.
I dont think 19th christians turned from the OT at all, though Im no expert. Did they turn from psalms, from the story of King David, from the Ten Commandments, from Isaiah and Amos and prophets of social justice? Or do you mean they turned away from legal texts that were never meant for them and whose proper interpretation they didnt know, and stories of the conquest of Canaan that, you know, only applied to Canaan and no where else?
And I dont really think the ills of the THIRTY years war, etc had much to do with say, the Book of Joshua. It had a lot more to do with differences over certain passages in the NT, like "on this petrus i will build my church" and what that implied about episicopacy and apostolic succession. Christianity was NOT enlightend by turning back to the words of Christ, but by the need to deal with Kant, Voltaire, Darwin, etc, etc. Islam doesnt need to change its founding books, it needs to deal with the modern world. Which incidently, many muslims are doing.
When it comes to your last sentence, it is true, but to an extent. You can't deny that Christ's teachings are peaceful, while in Muhammad's teachings and actions You can find as many peaceful as warlike parts. Christians can support the ideas of enlightement by their holy scruptures, and adopt as their own, and that's what has happened.
Muslims can not do it so easily. They have to fight not only against tradition, must clearer and stronger than in christianity, but mostly against the deeds of the very fundament of their faith - Muhammad. That's why I said great deal of naivety or hipocrisy is needed, at least for the ones starting this trend.
By example: killing for apostasy. It was an acquired and well tradition in christianity. But it has no sanction in Jesus' teachings. Once the tradition is broken, it's hard to bring it back to life.
In Islam, it is part of Muhammad's teachings, though, lucky for us, there's the "there's no compulsion in islam" part as well. Lets say that the tradition is broken. But then someone reads that Muhammad did punish apostasy with death - and what he is supposed to do about it? This topic would come back on and on. And muslims can not neglect Muhammad's deeds like christians do when it comes to the prophets of OT
Jews lived in christian world (the part that really mattered for world progress in last centuries), and were not independant cultural circle. Creation of Israel changes that to an extent.
Comment