Being a religion of peace

[Cerebrum123]

I am sure he just found that verse on a muslim website. I doubt if siam has read the bible.

It's a very typical argument used on Muslim apologetics sites. Sadly, these sites are often worse than extreme atheist websites when it comes to arguments. Sometimes the will even borrow said "arguments" to try and bolster their own. This has the side effect of shooting themselves in the foot given the way the Quran portrays the Bible.

[siam]

I have not read the Bible...Though I did go through some of the Torah (Hebrew Transliteration with English translation) Some of the words used in the Torah are also used in the Quran because Arabic and Hebrew are sister languages.....For the NT....I have looked at a few passages here and there....

Luke---Thankyou for the explanations...but...I would also like to know the context and the parable ---out of curiosity---also, In Islam, context is provided by Tafsir (though the Quran also gives context if read as a whole)...where do Christians get context from?

In John 14:6 it says " “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."---This passage is often shown to Muslims by Christians and it has meaning for them....But a Muslim reading this as is--without a Christian interpretation----would find this very familiar because that is also how we understand God (come to the father)---through the way (Islam), the truth (Quran) and the life (Sunna/Hadith of the Prophet)....

Likewise, the passage from Luke could be interpreted (from Muslim perspective as "slaying of the ego" because one needs to have humility to come to God) as Jihad---the internal struggle/striving towards God......(a Muslim was discussing it in the context of Jihad and that is where I got it....but this was a Muslim perspective and I wanted to know how Christians understood it)

[shunyadragon]

The only religions that I believe could qualify as religions of Peace based on the historical evidence and their scripture or writings. are Buddhism, Unitarian Universalists. and the Baha'i Faith.

[shunyadragon]

The destruction of Jerusalem was a pretty violent act. So...

Unfortunately I believe this lacks a parallel to the parable. The Romans destroying the Temple is not a parallel to the command 'bring them before me and slay them.'

[siam]

The only religions that I believe could qualify as religions of Peace based on the historical evidence and their scripture or writings. are Buddhism, Unitarian Universalists. and the Baha'i Faith.

I don't know much about UU and Bahai so I will agree with you...but Buddhism?....If history and scripture are the criteria---then Buddhism is as "peaceful" as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism....etc.

The Buddhists have "warrior monks" because it is part of their belief that defense of religion is an obligation. They also have the concept of "Compassionate killing".......and Buddhists have participated in wars....

[siam]

Humanity has a similar general disposition....the same ideas found in religion are also found among non-religious....

Sam Harris---(End of Faith) "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them"...."we will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas."

Micheal Walzer, a Western intellectual and philosopher---(Just and Unjust Wars...) "No government can put the life of the community and all its members at risk, so long as there are actions available to it, even immoral actions, that would avoid or reduce that risk..." and "Can soldiers and statesmen override the rights of innocent people for the sake of their own community? I am inclined to answer this question affirmatively...."

Context and nuance are not just for the religious...but all philosophies....

[Cerealman]

The only religions that I believe could qualify as religions of Peace based on the historical evidence and their scripture or writings. are Buddhism, Unitarian Universalists. and the Baha'i Faith.

Whether a religion is pacifist centered or not I think that any Religion can be considered "peaceful" if they only choose to retaliate if necessary.
I don't mean peaceful in terms of never fighting back.

[shunyadragon]

Whether a religion is pacifist centered or not I think that any Religion can be considered "peaceful" if they only choose to retaliate if necessary.
I don't mean peaceful in terms of never fighting back.

Well, history is a witness, Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not always choose to wage war only to retaliate only if necessary, and do not have specific spiritual laws forbidding aggressive war. The point of Buddhism, Quakers as Christian denomination could be considered pacifist centered. The Baha'i Faith, Buddhism and UU in some way have spiritual laws or principles that forbid aggressive war, and not necessarily pacifist centered, though Buddhism and UU may encourage pacifism. Their history reflects these values.

[Cerebrum123]

I have not read the Bible...Though I did go through some of the Torah (Hebrew Transliteration with English translation) Some of the words used in the Torah are also used in the Quran because Arabic and Hebrew are sister languages.....For the NT....I have looked at a few passages here and there....

So you know very little about the books of the "People of the Book"?

Luke---Thankyou for the explanations...but...I would also like to know the context and the parable ---out of curiosity---also, In Islam, context is provided by Tafsir (though the Quran also gives context if read as a whole)...where do Christians get context from?

What type of context are you asking about? For the historical and social stuff it's best to go to scholars in history and ancient societies. Especially of the Ancient Near East. Then there are things like commentaries you can look at. Even many translations have comments in them to help the reader understand. Look, the "Injil" was not compiled piecemeal like the Quran. The NT is mostly books and letters written to various communities. Reading the whole of each book is important. The stuff before and after each verse, as well as that which is even found in other books helps to inform the context. Learning about the culture of the ANE, especially 1st century Palestine will help too.

In John 14:6 it says " “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."---This passage is often shown to Muslims by Christians and it has meaning for them....But a Muslim reading this as is--without a Christian interpretation----would find this very familiar because that is also how we understand God (come to the father)---through the way (Islam), the truth (Quran) and the life (Sunna/Hadith of the Prophet)....

Jesus is saying there is no way to God except to accept Him for who He is. It's pretty clear from the chapter that He is claiming to be God.

John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”

Jesus the Way to the Father
5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

Likewise, the passage from Luke could be interpreted (from Muslim perspective as "slaying of the ego" because one needs to have humility to come to God) as Jihad---the internal struggle/striving towards God......(a Muslim was discussing it in the context of Jihad and that is where I got it....but this was a Muslim perspective and I wanted to know how Christians understood it)

Jihad means for more than an internal "struggle"* for one, and that's not what it's about at all. Here's the whole parable.

Luke 19:The Parable of the Ten Minas
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

This is about being responsible with what God gives you.

*

Source: Answering-Islam.org

“Tafsir of Ibn Kathir”, volume 2, pages 116, 117 on verse 2:191, [8], states:

As Jihad involves death and the killing of men, Allah draws our attention to the fact that the disbelief and polytheism of the disbelievers, and their avoidance of Allah’s path are far worse than killing. Thus Allah says, “And Fitnah is worse than killing.” This is to say that shirk (Polytheism) is more serious and worse than killing.

© Copyright Original Source

[Jesse]

Unfortunately I believe this lacks a parallel to the parable. The Romans destroying the Temple is not a parallel to the command 'bring them before me and slay them.'

Then you know very little about Biblical parables. I would suggest a deeper study.

[shunyadragon]

Then you know very little about Biblical parables. I would suggest a deeper study.

Not a problem. I disagree with 'interpretations' of parables that tend to make Christians comfy.

[shunyadragon]

I don't know much about UU and Bahai so I will agree with you...but Buddhism?....If history and scripture are the criteria---then Buddhism is as "peaceful" as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism....etc.

The Buddhists have "warrior monks" because it is part of their belief that defense of religion is an obligation. They also have the concept of "Compassionate killing"....

Yes there is a concept of compassionate killing, but you need more information how it applies. Defense of the monasteries was one of the roles of the Bodhisattva warriors. The question is does Buddhism advocate an aggressive war, or war in the name of religion. The answer is not.

To understand this better read The Bodhisattva Warriors by Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio.

...and Buddhists have participated in wars....

Actually no, the Buddhists of Japan took a pacifist view, and suffered the consequences in World War II. The warrior religion of Japan is Shinto, not Buddhist. I know of no war fought in the name of Buddha.

[siam]

Luke "parable"--I agree with Shuny---I found it confusing----but in my case, I find a lot about Christianity confusing....

@Cerebrum123
Thank you for taking the time to explain...appreciate it.

@Shuny
In the East, Buddhism is integrated into the existing culture/religion/philosophy so it is hard to say an individual is Shinto but not Buddhist, or Buddhist but not Shinto....
(For those who do not know...Buddhism of the West is different from Eastern Buddhism)

You are correct that Buddhists do not fight "for Buddha" but they do fight for Dharma (Law) and this concept has been abused by those in power (Kings) to justify fighting ---and Buddhist kingdoms have fought with each other. This idea to fight for the Law/righteousness/defending right principles---is not that different from Sam Harris saying we have to fight for our ideas, or George Bush saying they are fighting for democracy...etc....
also, there are a few passages in Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Nirvana Sutra) that are not pretty....

But, if one were to interpret "scripture" broadly, then the Talmud has restraints on human violence in Sanhedrin which says killing an individual is like killing a whole community, and Christianity has the Catechism (CCC2307-2314) which elaborates on the idea of Just war and conduct in war. Islam has the Quran---(Which may come as a surprise to some) but the Quran restricts war to 2 (defensive) occassions, 1) Oppression and 2) the breaking of treaty terms. The Quran/Islam also specifies humane behavior to non-combatants and prisoners of war and prohibits destruction of property as well as advocates for the most speedy conclusion to war in order to resume peace negotiations as soon as possible. Historically, all religious people have ignored their own wisdom teachings/philosophies when they found them inconvenient....For example...Americans used to find torture unethical and they had restraints for torture---but when they found this inconvenient---they overturned these restraints and torture was practiced....

So if history and scripture are the criteria...then one can say Buddhism is the same as many other philosophies---it is people who interpret scripture and act in history---and people have a similar general disposition. But if we were to base the criteria on the practice of peace---then Buddhism would be better than Judaism or Christianity because it has the mystical discipline...(But so does Islam and Hinduism)

[Jesse]

Not a problem. I disagree with 'interpretations' of parables that tend to make Christians comfy.

There is nothing about that parable that would make a Christian comfortable or uncomfortable. So I am not sure what you are trying to say.

[Paprika]

There is nothing about that parable that would make a Christian comfortable or uncomfortable. So I am not sure what you are trying to say.

If anything the parable would make many contemporary Christians uneasy because it speaks of Jesus violently and devastatingly smiting His own people which is in contrast with the non-violent 'loving' peacenik image many have of him.