At the Belzian Educational Foundation, our intention is to release quality articles on a variety of subjects regarding religions and their adherents. As religious topics can be controversial from time to time, we are approaching this with sensitivity.
The comments and opinions that are made by me do not reflect on those of any guest speaker. As with toleration, there will be disagreements between view points. The key is getting past those differences and accepting diversity.
- Homosexuality and the Bible: Part 1
- Homosexuality and the Bible: Part 2
- Homosexuality and the Bible: Part 3
- A Modern Reformation of Christianity
- Judaism and American Slavery
- Criminology and Religion
- A Comparison of a Hindu Creation Myth and the Christian Creation Myth
- The Buddha in Light of the Jesus Tradition
- The Sacrifice of Jesus in a Non-Religious Perspective
- Choosing a Bible
Homosexuality and the Bible: Part 1
This is the first part of a small series of articles I will be presenting on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible.
The Bible has been used to justify many forms of intolerance. During the early years of the United States, the Bible was used by some to justify slavery and the horrible treatment of anyone who was not a white male. Others have used it in order to justify persecution of people of various ideas, ethnicities, and religious beliefs. To an extreme, it has been used to justify the killing of innocent people simply because they were different, as well as genocide.
Today, one of the most widespread uses of the Bible in order to justify intolerance has come in the form of the opposition to homosexuality. This justification, by hiding behind one’s Bible, has caused Christianity as a whole to suffer. Like many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity or God, personal prejudices and ideals are at fault, not a religion or a “Holy” book. This is true in the case of homosexuality as well.
At the same time, instead of focusing on the real problem causing opposition to homosexuality, many focus on demonizing a religion that is not at fault. By focusing on Christianity, or the Bible as the reason to why individuals oppose homosexuality, the real problem is being masked. It is true that various Christians have had a tendency to use the Bible in justifying their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong or to an extreme, an abomination. However, such claims are primarily being motivated by those individuals personal biases. When the Bible is consulted, there is a different picture of homosexuality that is presented.
Most importantly, the idea of homosexuality did not exist in the time periods in which the books of the Bible were being written. The notion of sexual orientation was not developed until relatively recent times. For the writers of the Bible, the idea of homosexuality is completely foreign concept. It has only been over time, and repetition, that the idea of homosexuality has been attached to the Bible.
What we see in the Bible instead is not the condemnation of a sexual orientation, but that of an act. That act specifically being a male lying with another male as he would do so with a female (Lev. 18:22). Or, to put it simply, the act of male anal intercourse. Two chapters later, in Leviticus 22:13, one can read that the penalty for this act is death. However, this all needs to be put into a more complete perspective.
As I said earlier, these verses do not deal with homosexuality, but with an act. That act being male anal intercourse. Now, it is not only homosexuals (and in fact, many homosexuals do not engage in this act anyway. It must be remembered that females can also be homosexual) who engage in male anal intercourse. When we examine this act in the Bible, we see that it is not associated by those who would be deemed homosexuals, but it is portrayed as an act of force (rape), associated with humiliation, revenge, or subjection. Even in our present society, there are many cases in which a heterosexual male will engage in male anal intercourse. And the same motivation is still common for this act; humiliation, revenge, and subjection.
It is important to read the verses for what they are, and not to read one’s own preconceived biases into them. For centuries, that has been the problem regarding these verses. Instead of understanding what they mean, they have been used to justify one own’s prejudices. By doing so, individuals have been able to hide behind the Bible instead of just admitting to their own intolerances.
For a discussion on this, go to Religious Forums or at my Facebook Page.
Homosexuality and the Bible: Part 2
In my previous essay, I examined the verses in the Old Testament (Leviticus) that has been used in order to condone their own intolerance or justify the persecution of homosexuals. In examining these verses, we saw that they did not necessarily condemn homosexuality but instead the act of male anal intercourse. Since homosexuality is not defined by male anal intercourse (in fact, many homosexuals never engage in the act. The most obvious exception are lesbians), and in fact various heterosexual males are also known to engage in male anal intercourse, those verses in Leviticus do not single out just homosexuals.
As was pointed out in a discussion that I was involved in concerning my previous essay, just because those verses do not deal with specifically nor condemn homosexuality does not mean that there was not prejudices towards homosexuals. We can be fairly certain that in fact there were similar prejudices towards homosexuals in that culture as in our culture. However, when the Bible is examined in regards towards male anal intercourse, we do not see homosexuals being the subject of those passages. Instead we see the act of male anal intercourse being committed by what are most likely heterosexual males for the purpose of humiliation, subjugation, etc. So when we do consult those verses in Leviticus, it is important to not read into them more than there really is. Those verses are in regard to an act, not a sexual orientation.
One does have to wonder why those laws concerning male anal intercourse were formed though. Since we do not have access to the author of those versus or the creator/s of those laws, we can never be completely sure what the background of those laws are.* (discuss in short detail the composition of the Torah). However there are a few possible reasons that we can deduce as to why those laws were created. If we examine the Old Testament passages regarding the act of male anal intercourse, we do see that the act is associated with humiliation, subjugation, etc. That being so, those laws could have been put into place as the act was associated with inhospitality. This does make sense as we can also find a variety of other laws that dealt with how we treat others. This position is strengthened when we examine the story os Sodom and Gomorrah. Many scholars have concluded that the actual sin committed by those cities was inhospitality. This position has been a popular interpretation for quite some time.
A second possible explanation for these verses concerns the commandment regarding be fruitful and multiply. It is obvious that some one who is engaging in male anal intercourse is not being potentially fruitful or multiplying. Building a nation is quite difficult if the males are engaging in male anal intercourse instead of intercourse that lends itself to multiplying.
A third possible explanation is that the Hebrews were trying to differentiate themselves from the other cultures that were surrounding them. We see a few other ways in which they go about doing this, such as the prohibition of eating pig. More than likely though, it was not just one factor that led to these laws but a variety of factors.
This leads to an important realization: the Jewish laws were meant to be followed by Jews. Non-Jews, or Gentiles, were not commanded or expected to follow Jewish law. Thus, verses such as the ones we have been discussing in Leviticus did not apply to Gentiles, which includes, for the most part, Christians. So it is telling when Christians or non-Jews use these verses in order to condemn homosexuals when at the same time they ignore a vast amount of the other Laws mentioned in the Old Testament. Obviously there is something deeper to this intolerance than just a religious idea. And it is that deeper cause that must be examined and recognized in order to help solve this problem of intolerance. We will cover that more in depth shortly.
In the next installment of this series of essays, we will be discussing a New Testament stance towards homosexuality as well as what the underlying problem is that must be dealt with.
For a discussion on this essay, go to Religious Forums or my Facebook Page.
Homosexuality and the Bible: Part 3
Having examined the Old Testament scriptures that have been used in order to condone the intolerance towards homosexuals, and seeing that they do not support such an intolerance, especially in the case of non-Jews, our next task is to move onto the New Testament and see what we can find there.
Concerning the New Testament, Paul is our earliest writer. In his writings, even though he never uses the term homosexuality, he describes what can only be described as such in two separate passages. In a moment, we will look at these passages to see what we can gather from them.
One thing that must be remembered is that Paul was living in a different time, and did not have access to the information we do today. That is important to keep in mind as we have had many advances in research concerning sexual orientation in general.
Now, when looking at Paul, he clearly labels homosexuality as a sin. In the verses in question (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:26-27), Paul describes more than just male anal intercourse, and thus shows a progression from the Old Testament laws that we have already examined. In his passages, Paul makes it clear that is is talking about individuals, both male and female, who give up, what is in his mind natural, for the unnatural. In context, we see that he is talking about sexual practices, and while regarding males in general, the Greek itself makes it clear that Paul is referring to homosexuality in general.
To illustrate this point, we will look at both passages individually. First, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
The key terms in this passage are male prostitutes and sodomites. We will first look at male prostitutes. When looking at the Greek word, it can refer to an adolescent boy who sold sexual favors to older men; however, in a more general use (which we see here) it could also refer to the more passive male in male anal intercourse. The Greek word for sodomite also can have a similar meaning. It is a term used more to describe the active male in male anal intercourse. That being so, it is quite clear what Paul is talking about here.
Unlike the Old Testament passages, what Paul is talking about is more clear. In the Old Testament passages, as we saw when examining the Old Testament, the passages did not necessarily refer to homosexuality. When looking at the act of male anal intercourse (which the Old Testament is describing), we see it more describing an act of force, used to subjugate and humiliate the passive male in the act. For Paul, there is not the sort of suggestion. In context, we see other forms of sexually “immoral” acts also being described, as well as acts that are entered into willingly for the pleasure that they bring to those committing them.
Interesting though, homosexuality is not singled out here. Instead, we see it being listed with other random sins, such as stealing, being greedy, and being a drunkard. So the focus on homosexuality, at least in this case, is unwarranted. Even more interesting though is if we continue to read the passage; verse 11, “And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” It truly is sad that more do not actually continue onto this verse, but instead choose on picking out a small portion of the passage and use it to condemn another.
Moving on to Romans, we see a similar situation; verses 26-27: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.”
This is the only passage in the Bible regarding lesbianism, and the fact that Paul also covers women being with other women, gives all the more reason to consider that he is speaking about what we today refer to as homosexuality. It also gives a little clue to Paul’s mindset on the subject. Paul describing the acts of homosexual sex as unnatural shows the misunderstanding of sexual orientation that was present during his time. Paul states that these individuals exchange their natural intercourse for unnatural, implying that it is a conscious decision to be homosexual. With modern research, we now understand that homosexuality is not a choice, but like heterosexuality, is something that we are born as or possibly are predetermined to being.
As with the passage in 1 Corinthians though, if we read a little more, we see that homosexuality is not necessarily being singled out. If we continue to read Romans 1:29-31, we see other sins being addressed: “They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
And as with 1 Corinthians, if we continue to read Romans, we also see that Paul states in chapter 3, verse 22-24: “….For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Again, it is sad that more are not willing to read all of what Paul says instead of taking a few verses out of context in order to justify their intolerance.
What we see in these passages is that Paul is stating that homosexuality is a sin. There really is no denying that. It is something that should be accepted, and understood. Paul is saying that homosexuality is a sin; however, he also states that being a drunkard or a gossip is also a sin. Paul lists a number of other sins as well, and it does not make sense just to pull one out and condemn it while ignoring the rest. More so, Paul tells us that we are all sinners. We are all guilty of sin.
Expanding on that, Paul also tells us not to judge others. In Romans 2:1, “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.” Moving onto verses 4-5: “Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgement will be revealed.”
It is signification that these verses follow right after the verse concerning homosexuality. Even though Paul acknowledges these sins, he also advises that one should not pass judgment on those who commit these sins. This is the same attitude that we see with Jesus.
Coincidently, Jesus never mentions homosexuality. However, one should not really read too much into this. All that this suggests is that the topic never came up. But we can take some advice from Jesus that does relate to this issue.
In Matthew 7, we see a number of verses dealing with not judging others. First we see verses 1-5: “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged (Luke 6:37 also adds, “do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven) For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speak in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” Moving on a few verses, we see the golden rule in verse 12: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.” (As a note, the Pharisee Hillel also voices the same idea. So we have do have the suggestion that it was a common idea that the golden rule was widespread. Paul, being both a follower of Jesus, as well as a Pharisee, like Hillel, it is likely he also held a similar idea).
What we see here is that both Paul and Jesus, regardless of what they believe to be sin, they tell their followers not to condemn nor judge others. That even though one may sin, we all are guilty of such. We all have short comings, and according to Paul and Jesus, none seem to be worse than another. Thus, it is foolish to focus on one sin out of many, especially, as Jesus states, we all have a log in our own eye.
So regardless of whether or not one may consider homosexuality to be a sin, many should take a lesson from Jesus and Paul; do not judge others. We all have faults, and really, we are in no position of pointing out what we may see as a fault in another person. When it really comes down to it though, even though Paul may consider homosexuality as a sin, that does not justify the intolerance that is shown towards homosexuality, especially when we consider that a far greater command is the love of one’s neighbor, as well as the repeated command not to judge.
We now finally come to the question, if the Bible is not a logical justification of the intolerance towards homosexuality, what fuels this intolerance? Considering that we also see this intolerance in both the religious as well as nonreligious, why do we see it at all? I propose that the reason is simply that homosexuality is a minority.
As with many minorities over the centuries, they are seen to be different. And in that same regard, since they are seen to be different, they are persecuted. We see this to be true with many minorities throughout out time. When people do not understand them, they fear them, they try to change them, or they try to get rid of them.
It does not have to be this way though. If understanding can be spread, and this can be done through providing sound information, this intolerance that leads to persecution can be fought. And when one realizes that the true enemy is not religion, but that it is deeper and more widespread, then this intolerance can be better dealt with. However, by focusing ones attention on religion as the culprit of this intolerance, all that is created is further problems, and additional intolerance. Instead of fighting the problem, what occurs is the creation of a problem by making the imagined opponent defensive. When really, what should be done is the spreading of information.
For a discussion on this you can either go to Religious Forums, or my Facebook Page.
A Modern Reformation of Christianity
Christianity is a religion that has survived and flourished for nearly two thousand years. Through these years, it has changed, branched off, and evolved into what can be described as multiple Christianities. At the same time, much of Christianity has become stuck in the past, unwilling to change or improve. In the name of Christianity, atrocities are still committed, and intolerance justified. There are some forms of Christianity that has set out to rectify these wrongs; however, there are also those that refuse to make the changes that they need to. These forms of Christianity are now at a cross roads, in which they can choose to change for the better and continue into the 21st century, as respectable institutions, or they can slowly die out, leaving behind a legacy of intolerance, and disgust.
Before moving further though, it has to be realized that there is no single, defining form of Christianity. The religion, as would be expected, has changed many times throughout the course of its life, evolving into something better defined as multiple Christianities. Within this spectrum of Christianities, we see a vast variety of beliefs. We have on one side, those who see the Bible as infallible, the very word of God, and their form of Christianity as the only way. On the other side, we have those who see the Bible as an important historical or literary work, written by various different men for different reasons, and their form of Christianity only being one among many true ways.
This is important to realize as Christianity is extremely diverse. One form of Christianity does not define another form. What one group of Christians believe, is not necessarily what all Christians believe. By grouping all Christians together, one does an injustice to those Christians actively trying to make a difference, as well as isolate others who would have otherwise been willing to try to make matters better.
When I use the term Christianity in rest of this essay, I am referring to Christianity in general terms. I recognize that many Christians, and various forms of Christianities have already began changing for the better. I am not addressing those forms when I use the term Christianity. Instead, I am referring to the forms of Christianity that refuse to change, and insist of justifying intolerance, narrow mindedness, and unquestioning blind faith.
It should then be obvious as to why Christianity must change. The justification of intolerance is more than enough reason for a change to be made. It should be no surprise then that we see one of the major complaints about Christianity being that it is an intolerant religion. I see no better example than the consistent protests that are seen in European countries when the Pope visits. Without fail, we see charges of intolerance being leveled at the Church with each visit. Intolerance towards homosexuals, and the intolerance towards women (in the form of refusing to ordain women), are issues that are brought up repeatedly when the Pope goes to visit. This is clearly a sign that there is a major backlash against this intolerance that is being condoned and justified by a religion.
It is not just the intolerance towards groups of individuals that is the problem though. It is also the narrow minded thinking that many Christians, and in general the religious, are guilty of. The idea that “my way is the only right way” needs to be abandoned. The condemnation of an eternity in hell, for those who choose to believe in a way different than ones own, needs to be abandoned. Such a position is arrogant, and foolish. It shows the exact opposite of what Jesus said was one of the most important commandments; that is to love one’s neighbor. One can not truly love their neighbor and at the same time condemn them to hell.
To have a god that condemns the vast majority of individuals to hell simply is not a loving god. It is a god full of hatred, and simply is pitiful. God does not have to be that way. One can truly believe in an all loving God, and still be true to their religion. One can believe in a God who is not so spiteful that it would send those who do not believe in it to hell for eternity (even though that God refuses to supply any evidence for it’s existence, but relies on the follower to have faith). What it really comes down to though is the acceptance of others. It is becoming a little more humble, and acknowledging that they are not some extremely special individual that has been granted one of the few places in heaven. What is needed is for Christians to stop being so arrogant, so self-centered, that they believe only they are good enough to be worthy of all of God’s love. Really, it means maturing.
It also means though that one should feel free to challenge their beliefs, and not just simply follow them blindly. When a religion is so easily used to justify atrocious acts, that religion needs to be questioned, and challenged. But even more so, the leaders, and member of that religion that allow their religion to be violated in such a disgusting manner, need to be challenged, and possibly removed from any form of power.
Christianity needs to be challenged. It needs to be questioned. It needs to change. For too long individuals have been allowed to hide behind a religion in order to justify their own intolerant beliefs. That is simply unacceptable, and should not be allowed any longer. And the people who must change this are other Christians. Christians can no longer allow others to sully the name of the faith they follow as well. They need to be the ones who instigate this change, that is long over due. It is no longer acceptable to simply stand aside and allow other Christians to continue to portray Christianity as a disgusting, and perverse belief system.
For a discussion on this you can either go to Religious Forums or my Facebook Page.
Judaism and American Slavery
When trying to evaluate the role and amount of participation that Judaism had in the slave trade, as well as slavery in the United States in general, we are immediately faced with a number of difficulties. The first difficulty is defining what a Jew is. Through the 14th century and onwards, many Jews were forced to convert to Christianity.1 At the same time, many of those same Jews continued to practice Judaism in secret. And even though a Jew may have converted to another religion, they still would have remained being Jews.2 So we have to take into consideration that various individuals who would have still identified as being a Jew may not have been a religious Jew.
A more severe difficulty though is the way in which this subject has been treated by scholars and researchers in general. Much of the scholarly research on the subject, until relatively recently has either glossed over the issue, or have been apologetic in nature. A partial cause for this is the lack of want to leave the behind the Eurocentric perspective on Jewish history.3
On the other end of the spectrum, there are a number of authors and “scholars”4 who have taken a very different approach by claiming that Jews played a disproportionate role in the slave trade as well as slavery in general in the Unite States. One of the main sources, in recent years, for such claims has been the book “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews Volume 1.” This is a book written by the Nation of Islam, and has been rejected by most scholars on the subject as being both anti-Semitic as well as inaccurate.5 After the publication of this book, The American Historical Association issued a statement that condemned many of the charges present in the book published by the Nation of Islam.6 However, regardless of this statement, there has sprouted up a number of websites and the like that continue to support the proposition that Jews played a major role in the slave trade and slavery in the United States.
Thus, approaching this subject means that we must continue carefully, as to not fall victim to either extreme of the subject; to neither deny or gloss over the participation of Jews, nor exaggerate their role concerning slavery. It is somewhere in the middle that the Jewish role in slavery will be truly seen.
There is little doubt that Jews did play some role in the slave trade as well as slavery in the United States. However, this role in general was minimal. Throughout history, Jews have consistently been minorities nearly everywhere they have settled. This was true in Europe as well as in the United States. Being a minority also effected just how much impact they had on slavery in general. By 1860, the Jewish population in the south was estimated to be between 15 to 20 thousand.78 Out of these individuals, we see roughly a fourth of them owning slaves, which in total, constituted only 1.25% of all Southern slaveowners.9 In general, roughly a fourth of Southerners also owned slaves.10 Thus what we see is that the Jews, for the most part, participated in slavery at the same level as the general population in the South. However, since they were a minority, their impact on slavery was minimal as well.11
As with other Southerners, as well as other groups, Jews also debated amongst themselves regarding the slave issue.12 Among Jews, we see a number of individuals who were vocal abolitionists, or against slavery in general. One such individual was the Rabbi Sabato Morais, who in a sermon delivered on April 20th, 1861 (8 days following the attack on Fort Sumter), blamed the reliance on slavery as the cause of the war.13
However, there were other Rabbis who supported slavery. The most prominent of these rabbis was Rabbi Morris Jacob Raphall. He would participate in one of the most notable debates between rabbis concerning the issue. His opponent was Rabbi David Einhorn, who was a leader in the Jewish Reform movement in the United States. Noteworthy though was the actual stance Rabbi Raphall held. In his treatise entitled “The Bible View of Slavery,” he suggested that he was not one who liked the idea of slavery, but instead supported the idea as he saw the Bible supporting it, and thus God supporting it.
Even more though, there were Jews who were opposed to both sides; pro-slavery or abolitionist. Rabbi Issac Mayer Wise was one of these important figures. He saw both sides as being political extremes. Looking back at his writings,14 we can see that Wise, on ethical and moral grounds, was not proslavery.15 In fact, after the emancipation, Wise made his views clear by printing a series of articles. He was opposed to slavery, and it was his opinion that even Moses had attempted to abolish slavery by creating laws that made its existence nearly impossible.16
However, Wise was also opposed to abolitionism.17 Wise saw the abolitionists as instigators of the war, and saw them as hypocrites. Instances such as the people of Massachusetts adopting anti-alien laws in 1859, while the state itself was notorious for violent abolitionists, led Wise to believe that it was not humanitarianism that they were worried about but politics.
All of this points to the idea that there was no official stance towards slavery among Jews. Instead, like many other Americans during the time, they followed the ideas of the area that they were in. Much of this also had to do with Jews feeling welcomed in the United States. They saw a freedom in the United States that they had not seen elsewhere, and thus quickly tried to be integrated into society.18
In the United States, Jews experienced a freedom that they had not in previous areas. They quickly began to be recognized as citizens of the State they lived in. In order to be recognized as a citizen of a State, it meant adopting the values, cultures, ideas, etc of that state. This did not mean that they necessarily abandoned totally their previous ideas, values, and cultures, but that they incorporated additional ones into theirs.19
In the end, we see that Jews, like their other counterparts such as Christians, in the United States, were split on the idea of slavery. In the South, there was more of a tendency for Jews to support slavery, while in the North, there was less of a tendency to do so. On both sides of the issue, there were various rabbis who spoke out on the subject; either defending slavery, or condemning it. However, the defining variable in this issue seems to be simply from what area a particular individual was from (there are exceptions). Thus, instead of Judaism defining a stance on slavery, it was the general consensus in an area that defined what the Jewish stance was.
For a discussion, you can go to my Facebook page, or feel free to email me at Dustin@Belzian.com
1Marranos was the term used for Jews who converted to Christianity. There was suspicion that many of these Jews continued to secretly practice Judaism, and it is true that some did exactly that. Because of issues like this, determining the number of Jews who participated in slavery in the United States and the slave trade.
2It is generally accepted that once an individual becomes a Jew, either through birth (being born to a Jewish mother, or in the case of Reform Judaism, being born to a Jewish parent in general) or conversion, they are always a Jew.
3Johathan Schorsch, “American Jewish Historians, Colonial Jews and Blacks, and the Limits of Wissenschaft: A Critical Review ,” Jewish Social Studies (2000): 102-120.
4It may not be fully accurate to call such authors scholars. In general, the work that has been produced claiming that Jews played such major role in the slave trade and slavery in general have been produced by organization that have a clear anti-Semitic bias, or in their words an “anti-Zionist” bias. The work itself usually falls under the category of pseudo-history or conspiracy theories.
5Winthrop D. Jordan, “Slavery and Jews,” September 1995, www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95sep/noi.htm
Jordan provides a great review of “The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews.” The points he makes include difficult to find sources as the footnotes are organized in a confusing manner, much of the research is outdated, and it ignores any contrary evidence to its case.
6Karen J. Winkler, “Group Issues Statement on Role of Jews in Slave Trade,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 17, 1995
8Mintz, S., “Slavery Fact Sheet.” Digital History, www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/slav_fact.cfm
11Many early scholars stressed this aspect of Jewish involvement, that it was minimal. However, such is misleading as they participated in slavery at the same amount that the general population did.
12In general, the split those for or against slavery was North and South. Rabbis in the North tended to be against slavery, while those in the South supported slavery.
14Wise’s periodical The Israelite shows us many of the ideas that Wise held onto. The Israelite was a very influential periodical and was a powerful force in forming Jewish public opinions.
15Wise also responded to the work of Rabbi Raphall that was earlier mentioned in this paper; “The Bible View of Slavery.” After Raphall died though, Wise tried to clear Raphall of pro-slavery ideas. Wise stated that in later orations Raphall attempted to correct his error, but was unsuccessful as he had already created an impression that he was proslavery. If Wise is correct, and looking at Raphall’s own words makes that plausible, it would seem as if Jews in general were more against slavery than for.
16This series of articles was printed between November 11, 1864 to December 23, 1864. The series is entitled, “On the Provisional Portion of the Mosaic Code, with Special Reference to Polygamy and Slavery.”
17As with Rabbi Raphall, Wise had differences with Rabbi Einhorn as well. Wise saw Einhorn as a radical. However, Wise never attacked Einhorn directly, but did attack abolitionism. In a series of articles ranging from November 30th, 1860 to January 24 1862, Wise had a lot of negative comments regarding abolitionism.
Religion and Criminology have gone hand in hand for centuries. It is in the name of religion that some of the greatest atrocities have been committed. Understanding why religion has this profound effect can better allow the situation to be dealt with, as well as prevented in the future. In order to understand the various influences that lead to these crimes, a few examples must be examined.
Three cases should suffice for this discussion. In the late 1960′s Charles Manson and his “family” committed a serious of murders that made headlines, and still interest people today. In the early 1990′s, an event known as the Waco Siege, in relation to apocalyptic group called Branch Davidian’s and their compound 14 miles outside of Waco Texas, resulted in the death 76 people when the building was burnt down. Most memorable, in 2001, an event now known as 9/11 occurred, in which four passenger jets were hijacked and crashed, two of which into the World Trade Centers. These three cases provide examples of three main influences that lead to these religious crimes.
One major influence of religious crimes is a charismatic leader. Charles Manson is a great example of this sort of leader. A charismatic leader inspires loyalty and obedience from followers. In the case of Mason’s followers, their obedience and loyalty led them to commit a series of murders.
Charismatic leaders are effective for the reason that they are able to in influence their members. They do so by knowing what certain groups of people want to hear. Many target groups that are vulnerable. In the case of Manson, he targeted individuals who felt abandoned by all others. They were individuals who wanted to feel apart of a family, and that was what Manson did. He created a family so they felt accepted.
Manson’s followers were partially based on their assumption that he was Jesus Christ. The religious implications in the thought that Mason was Jesus made what Manson say to be the truth, but even more, made what he commanded to be right.
In the case of the Waco Siege, we see a separate influence. The influence most associated with this occurrence is the misinterpretation of scriptures. This primarily works with people who are under the assumption that various scriptures are the infallible word of God. Under that assumption, what ever the scriptures states has to be the truth, as well as dictate how one should live their lives.
In the Waco incident, we see an apocalyptic sect of Christianity interpret the Bible in a way that made them believe that the so called “rapture” or second-coming of Christ, in which he would take up his believers into heaven, was close at hand. Believing such, the Brand Davidians prepared themselves for such an event. In doing so, logic and reasoning were cast aside.
The problem with this is that these people put themselves in danger, as well as innocent bystanders. With the thought that soon this world would pass away for them, the laws of this world no longer need apply.
The final incident, that of 9/11 was partially based on the influence of promises of grandeur. The terrorists who hijacked those four planes fully believed that what they were doing was right. More so though, the believed that what they were doing would also be greatly rewarded in the afterlife, giving them that extra motivation that was needed. In addition though, many of these individuals had spent a life time, or a considerable amount of time being conditioned to believe a certain way. The basis of this was a particular interpretation of Islam.
Again, this also relates back to the second influence discussed: the misinterpretation of scriptures. In this case, we see a larger problem then was seen in regards to the Brand Davidians. The misinterpretation of scriptures in this case has led to a fanatical terrorist sect. By believing that they are doing the work of God, and that they will be rewarded thusly, they have all of the motivation they need in order to commit these acts of crime.
In order to fight these influences, as well as prevent these crimes, there are a few things that can be done. The first being education. All three influences are partially based on a lack of education. This is not very surprising as religious education is done solely by churches and religious leaders; some being charismatic leaders and others teaching misinterpretations of scriptures. Each of which only add to the actual problem.
A scholarly approach to religion would help reduce misinformation greatly. A general education of religion in school, from a scholastic point of view, would reduce the effect that charismatic leaders and misinterpretation of the scriptures would have. This would not solve the problem fully, but it would lead to more understanding, as well as reduce the amount of bigotry surrounding religion.
In the case of 9/11, the religion that is in question is Islam. Islam, in theory, is a religion of peace. However, as with any religion, one can interpret its teachings in order to justify killing. The major problem with this though is that the attacks of 9/11 had more long reaching effects. Primarily, because of the lack of education that the Western World has about Islam, a tension has been formed.
Crimes such as those mentioned above lead to major tensions that fuel hatred and bigotry. The reason for this is that the only thing most people are aware of about these religions are the evils in which they have committed. Since that is the only aspect of these religions that are shown, and most individuals do not seek out additional information about these religions, a negative viewpoint is created. This problem would be solved by mandatory classes on world religions in order to inform people of what these other religions truly teach.
The second method in order to fight this growing problem is stricter punishment on religious frauds. Stricter laws would also help solve this problem. Not allowing charismatic leaders to even begin a following would reduce many of these crimes. The problem is though to not over step the boundary of freedom of religion.
However, the problem can not just be ignored. Closer examination of rising religious followings, and monitoring them would go a long way. This way, these religious followings would not be able to get out of hand. Even more though, it would help prevent religious crime by monitoring potential suspects, and allowing them to be dealt with if a problem should arise.
Religious crime is a problem in our society. Understanding the reasons in which it arises, and dealing with those issues in a productive manner can greatly reduce the problem. General education and stricter laws would be able to help counteract the three main influences that spawn these problems. If maintained, religious crimes can be prevented, and even more important, ignorance will also be reduced.
For a discussion, you can go to my Facebook page, or feel free to email me at Dustin@Belzian.com
A Comparison of a Hindu Creation Myth and the Christian Creation Myth
Many cultures have various creation myths. In this article, we will be exploring two. The first is a Hindu creation myth. We will be comparing that creation myth with the Christian creation myth. The particular Hindu creation myth we will be exploring is found in the Brihad-Aranyaka Upanishad 1.4.1-3. As many will not be familiar with this particular creation myth, I will list it here as well:
“In the beginning, this universe was self, in the form of Person. The Person looked around and saw nothing other than himself. First the Person said, “I am,” and thus the word “i” originated…. The person was afraid, and therefore whoever is all alone is afraid. But the Person reflected, ‘Since there is nothing other than me, of what am I afraid?’ Then his fear vanished… But neither did he rejoice, for one who is all alone does not rejoice. The Person desired a second. Now the Person was of the same size and kind as a man and woman closely embracing. He caused himself to fall into two parts, and from him a husband and a wife were born… He united with her, and thus humankind was born.” (quoted in Francis Xavier Clooney’s book Hindu Wisdom for All God’s Children page 2).
I believe that in order to understand this, it is beneficial, for Westerners, to relate it to the closest similar story I which we posses; that being the creation story described in Genesis. In doing so, it allows for one who is unfamiliar with Hinduism relate it to something that they are familiar with. It also provides an opportunity to examine the learning style of the hunter-sage.
The beginning of this passage begins in a similar manner as the Genesis story. We seee that in the beginning, what can be described as a creator was there. However, in contrast, unlike the Genesis account, which speaks of a formless void, which suggests at the very least something, this passage only contains the Person. The Person here is all alone.
Similarly , the passage from Genesis as well as this passage have creation begin by an idea spoken. It is through the spoken word that creation is made. Incidentally, it is a pleasant coincidence that the Person in this passage uses the phrase “I am,” which is also a phrase accredited to God (while he was speaking to Moses).
It is through this speaking/creation that the Person becomes, at least in part, aware. We could find a similarity with this in Genesis, in the story of Adam and Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit. Through this awareness, we also see fear (which is true for both stories). This fear gives us a wonderful example of a hunter experience (an emotional experience).
By becoming aware, the Person allowed himself to be driven by emotion. And the emotion that surfaced was fear. Right afterward, we see the sage style of learning. The person examines what is around them, and see that their emotion is not warranted. This is a much better situation than the one in Genesis where Adam and Eve do not take on a sage like mentality, but remain reacting on emotion and hide from God.
The next part of this passage is what intrigues me most. We again can find some similarity with the Genesis story. In the creation of humankind, in Genesis we see woman being brought forth by man. In addition, it is from the creator all life creator all life forms and who’s image we take. So, in a borad sense, we can see a similarity.
However, this passage also points to another idea. It is through the union of this Person/creator that all humankind was born. Unlike Genesis though, here we see humans not being just created in the image of creator, but instead being part of it.
One could see this as us being the sons and daughters of “God,” but I think it is a better argument that the passage is saying that we are part of “God” or that “God” is part of us. We are part of the divine.
Personally, I think such a message is wonderful. However, in examining such a passage as this, I for one found the hunter/sage struggle in reading it. At one point, emotion does peak through. For some, it may be from disgust that one may describe humans as part of the divine. On the other hand, it may be joy from realizing partly who we are. I think this passage in particular is a great example of how a reading can bering about the hunter within us.
Also though, the sage also shines through, if one choose to try to understand the passage. For me, this was through relating it to another story that I am more familiar with and drawing connections between the two. But the key here, to allowing the sage to shine through, is the yearning for knowledge.
For a discussion, you can go to my Facebook page, or feel free to email me at Dustin@Belzian.com
The Buddha in Light of the Jesus Tradition
Looking at the Buddha from a Western perspective can be a difficult experience. Much of this has to do with an ignorance in regards to other religious perspectives. In the United States, we generally receive an education concerning Christianity; however, in regards to a religious education, that is generally as far as it goes. Yet, when we realize that during the last quarter of a century, our culture has seen an increasing recognition of religious pluralism, it becomes apparent that we must strive for a fuller understanding of other religions. Understanding a foreign religion though can be a difficult task. Especially when that religion is as diverse as Buddhism is. Yet, even though learning and trying to understand a religion such as Buddhism can be a very difficult task, it is not impossible.
In this particular instance, narrowing the religion down to its founder is a good step in the right direction as knowing who the founder was, or who they were said to be, can give us a basic insight into the religion itself. Yet, even a discussion about the Buddha can be a monumental task; one made even more difficult by many of the ideas concerning the Buddha appear to be foreign to our western point of view. It does not necessarily have to be that way though. By comparing the Buddha with a familiar religious figure, such as Jesus from the Christian tradition, we can transcend the seemingly impossible barriers separating these two faiths, and better understand one more world religion.
Delving in to the topic, there are certain parameters that must be set. Examining either the life of the Buddha, or Jesus, can be a difficulty in themselves. Much of the information we have on either individual are included in works of hagiography. They contain both “history remembered” as well as “history metaphorized.1” For the sake of this work, we will focus on how each figured was remembered by their respective followers, and how they were to be remembered. This may not be an accurate portrayal of who they were, but an accurate portrayal of who they were believed to be.
Keeping that in mind, the best place to begin with this comparison between these two religious figures is at the beginning: their births. The birth of Jesus is well known in western cultures, as well as many eastern cultures as well. It has been a story that has been disseminated to the global population quite effectively. That being so, only a brief examination of the story should suit.
The story opens with Mary (or Joseph depending on version) is visited by a heavenly messenger, which foretells the birth of a savior. Mary (or Joseph) is at first troubled by this information as she is supposed to be a virgin (Joseph even considers breaking the engagement), but are comforted by the message that she has become pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Important to this story is that Joseph, the “earthly” father of Jesus, is a descendant of King David, and thus, allows Jesus to be of a royal lineage. This birth is said to have been foretold in the scriptures.
We can find many similarities with the story of the Buddha’s conception and birth. In the story of the conception of the Buddha, we are told that his mother, Queen Maya, had a prophetic dream. In this dream, she was carried off by four devas, to a lake. There she bathed, and was then clothed her with heavenly clothes. It is then said that a white elephant (the elephant being an important symbol in Nepal2) appeared, and entered into Queen Maya’s womb through her side. According to some Buddhist traditions, this white elephant was the Buddha3 and he had decided to enter Queen Maya in order to be reborn on Earth. In some Buddhist traditions, Queen Maya was also a virgin during this encounter4, and it was through this dream encounter that she was to become with child.
The two birth narrative, or more correctly, conception narratives, follow a basic premise, one that we could also find in a variety of different historical figures,5 which concerns an important figure being born in a divine manner. In each story, we see a virgin mother67 who become pregnant through some divine means. In the story of Jesus, it is through the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, descending upon Mary from which she finds herself with child. In the story of the Buddha, it is through a dream encounter in which a white elephant enters into the womb of Maya from which, upon waking, she finds herself to be with child. Both are seen to be the fulfillment, or foretold by some sort of prophetic means. For Jesus, we see a heavenly figure speaking to either Mary or Joseph, and informing them of the greatness that will be done by their child. For the Buddha, we see heavenly beings (the devas) facilitate the encounter between Queen Maya and the white elephant. We also see the white elephant entering into the womb of Queen Maya, which would symbolize the greatness that her child would achieve.
We also see some distinct differences between the two stories though. For instance, the means in which the mothers received the information concerning their children. While Mary has a heavenly figure speak to her, Queen Maya is told through a dream. Yet, the basic message is still the same. Both stories fill the purpose of conveying the idea that these figures are in some way important. These stories make the suggestion that each of these figures, from being born in a divine or miraculous manner, were from their births, great figures. That they were in fact, born, and even conceived into greatness8.
The conception narratives are a great beginning to see how at a basic level, these two figures, the Buddha and Jesus, are similar. Whether or not we see these conception narratives as historically accurate really is not an issue in this case9. Looking beyond the matter of historical accuracy, we can see that these stories are still important as they relate to us ideas about how these figures were seen, are are still seen. More so though, they allow a reader to realize a basic reality about these figures, and their nature; ideas that are shown throughout the lives and stories of these figures.
These ideas shine through when we begin to examine the ministry of each individual. Interestingly, both the ministry of the Buddha, as well as Jesus began with a temptation from a demonic being. In the case of Jesus, we have Satan as the tempter which climaxes in the offer of power over the kingdoms of the world, only if Jesus would bow down and worship Satan. In the case of the Buddha, we have the demon Mara as the tempter, who tries to seduce the Buddha with visions of beautiful women10. These temptations also occur during a period of fasting in which both figures are under going11.
The stories of temptation that each individual faces gives us a little more insight into who they were. Both fight off worldly pleasures. For Jesus, it was the power he could have had over the world. For the Buddha, it was the sexual pleasure he would have attained from the women Mara was tempting him with. The ability, and willingness to overcome these temptations reveals an important character trait that each of these individuals possess. It shows that they are able to transcend worldly pleasures in order to pursue a higher cause.
However, it is more than just overcoming these major temptations. Because at the same time, both Jesus and the Buddha were also fasting during this experience. While each one of these religious leaders were overcoming major temptations, they were at the same time overcoming a basic temptation, a temptation of physical sustenance. In this, we see that both individuals are disciplined, but even more so, they are trying to attain wisdom. In fact, that is the reason in which both of these individuals have gone into the “wilderness” to fast.
Even before we get to the ministries of either one of these great religious figures, we begin seeing that at the very foundation, they are very similar. There are differences, of course, yet the basic idea, thus far, has been the same. Through these introductory narratives12 we see who these individuals are without examining there teachings. These narratives shine a light onto who these two individuals are, and show us, that at least at a basic level, their followers saw them in similar lights. However, when we do examine the teachings of these two religious figures, we also see that many of there teachings were comparable.
When speaking of the teachings of either the Buddha or Jesus, we do find an interesting problem. Even though we have teachings accredited to each of these religious leaders, scholars have raised many doubts as to whether or not these sayings really go back to either individual. It has long been realized that both of these individuals sayings were passed on orally, before they were ever written down. This oral tradition, which the sayings of both teachers were kept, were passed from follower to follower, until they were eventually written down, much later. This process of transmission has made it rather difficult to trace where each saying really originated; whether or not it really originated with the Buddha or Jesus, or if they were sayings that were latter accredited to them. For the purpose of this work though, the origination of the saying is not as important as whether or not the idea was accepted to be from one of these teachers.13
One of the basic teachings of Jesus is what is known as the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.14” This saying sums up much of the teaching of Jesus, especially his teachings concerning compassion. We see the same idea being presented by the Buddha: “Consider others as yourself.15” These are very basic teachings; however, they sum up much of each of these figures teachings. Each figure spends a considerable amount of time expanding on this idea, and clarifying this teaching. For instance, we see the Buddha also teaching: “If you do not tend one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick16” and “The bodhisattva loves all living beings, as if they were his only child.17” The basic of these latter to sayings is still treat others as yourself.
We similarities in other areas of there teachings as well, such as how one should live; how to be a good person. In order to be a good person, both taught that certain things must be overcame. Jesus stated, “Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid18,” while the Buddha stated, “May fear and dread not conquer me.19” Or, as Jesus stated, “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin20,” compared to the Buddha’s saying, “People compelled by craving crawl like snared rabbits.21” Each of these sayings speak the same basic message, that we must overcome various weaknesses. In order to become better individuals, we must first face ourselves, and overcome ourselves. Whether that be overcoming fear, or the temptation of sin/craving. Even though stated in different ways, each teacher teaches the same basic idea.
Some of the most striking similarities in their teachings though regard salvation and the future. Both of these teachers taught what they considered the truth. It was this truth that would set their followers free, and bring them happiness: as Jesus stated, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free22” compared to the Buddha, “One who acts on truth is happy on this world and beyond.23” These sayings do seem to be different at first, but they strike at the same idea. For Jesus, it is truth that will allow one to be free. It would be this freedom that would make one happy. Being free from bondages is a rejoicing experience. And the thing that allows one to be free, and happy because of this freedom, is the truth. Which is what the Buddha is teaching. It is the realization that knowing the truth, which is freeing, will make one happy, and both teachers express that, but in different manners.
But salvation itself would be in having faith in what each teacher was saying was the truth. Compare the saying of Jesus, “Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die24,” to the saying of the Buddha, “Those who have sufficient faith in me, succinct love for me, are all headed for heaven or beyond.25” The basic message of both is that by following the way in which they have taught, and having faith26, one will receive salvation27.
This salvation is important, as each teacher agrees that this world is only temporary. As Jesus stated, “Heaven and earth will pass away,28” while the Buddha said, “This great earth will be burnt up, will utterly perish, and be no more.29” Yet even though this world was temporary, and each teacher would only be here for a short time, both agreed that there was a future in their ministries; a chance for salvation for future generations: according to Jesus, “In a little while the world will no longer be able to see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live,30” while according to the Buddha, “And the Lord said: ‘It may be that you will think: ‘The Teachers’s instruction has ceased, now we will have no teacher!’ It should not be see like this, for what I have taught and explained to you will, at my passing, be your teacher.31”
Even though each teacher realized that they would one day pass away, their teachings, their “ways” would continue into the next generations, and guide others. Part of the reason their messages would continue on is because they adopted disciples. For Jesus, we are told that he had chosen 12 disciples32, while the Buddha is reported as having had many disciples33. It would be these disciples, as well as later followers, who would help spread the messages created by Jesus and the Buddha.
At the same time though, their messages continued on partially because of the means in which they taught. Both teachers were itinerate preachers, which meant that they traveled from place to place as they taught. Through this method of preaching, each teacher was able to reach a great audience, and at the same time, disseminate their message more thoroughly. At the same time though, it shows something interesting about both of the individuals. It shows that they were interested in reaching the most people possible with their message. And instead of having people come to them to receive this message, they found it worth their effort to bring the message to the people.
It was not just a new message that each figure brought to past though. In each of these teachers names, a new world religion was formed. It may not have been the intention of either of these figures to do such, yet, their followers continued and spread; thus causing a need for a religion to fully form. Interestingly, both of these religions formed out of older religions. It was not necessarily that each figured was the catalyst for a new religion, but through their actions, they reformed the religions of old. For Jesus, he was seen as a reformer of Judaism, while the Buddha a reformer of Hinduism.
Yet, when both figures eventually did pass away, their followers did not think that they would be gone necessarily forever. In both traditions, there was an idea that this savior figure would return. For Christians, the idea of the second coming, in which Jesus would come back to finish his work and bring about the Kingdom of God was formed. For Buddhist, they saw the idea that their would be another buddha in the future34; one who would reissue into this world the knowledge of Buddhism. In essence, both figures would return in due time to bring about a necessary change for the good.
However, there are also a number of differences between the Buddha and Jesus. For instance, Jesus taught firmly against the idea of divorce, while the Buddha left his wife and child in order to continue with his path. There is also a significant difference between how they would be seen later on. Jesus eventually was seen as the Son of God, or even an incarnation of God. On the other hand, the Buddha was still seen as a man35, even though a remarkable one, who found a religion that did not necessarily need a god.
However, we see a basic similarity between these two religious leaders, similarities that allow an individual from the west to better appreciate both the Buddha, as well as Buddhism. And even though there are a number of differences, they may not be important while trying to understand who the Buddha was.
Even though we did not really delve into the religion of Buddhism, studying the Buddha allows us to gain an introductory knowledge of the religion. In the same way that many Christians strive to emulate Jesus, one could say that Buddhists also strive to emulate the Buddha. In the same way that Christians derive their teachings and ideas from who they perceived Jesus to be, the same is true with Buddhism in regards to the Buddha. Yet, it can be difficult to study the Buddha, as he seems to be very distant from us. This is why seeing him in light of the Jesus tradition can be a benefit, at least for Christians. It allows us to see this other great teacher in a way that is familiar to us, and allows us to break through the shroud that seems to be over the Buddha.
For a discussion, you can go to my Facebook page, or feel free to email me at Dustin@Belzian.com
1Borg, Marcus J. Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally. [San Francisco]: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. Print.
2It may be worth explaining why the white Elephant was important. In Hindu mythology, from which Buddhism will sprout, the white elephant became the vehicle of Indra, who is the King of the Devas (demi-gods) and Lord of Svargaloka (Heaven). Elephants also were seen in general to bring good lukc and prosperity.
4These are much later traditions. Interestingly, we do see Christian figures, such as Saint Jerome, in the 4th century, saying that Buddha was born from the side of a virgin. It is also worth mentioning that it is not a widely accepted tradition either. It is recognized that Queen Maya had been married for quite some time, and it is unlikely King Śuddhodana and her had not come together.
5Both Alexander the Great, as well as Augustus were said to have had miraculous conceptions, in which a god, in some way, impregnated their mothers, and thus made their fathers divine in nature.
6This is not necessary for such a divine birth story, as we do see other cases in which it was through the sexual union of a god and a human woman that a child was conceived. However, it is an interesting similarity in these two stories.
7The virgin birth is not attested to in all of the traditions concerning the birth of the Buddha, nor Jesus. However, for the sake of this discussion, we will be focusing on those traditions that do include the virgin aspect of the conception.
8This keeps with the ancient idea that a person’s personality, or being, was static. Instead of our modern idea that we change throughout our lives, based on the various experiences that we have, the idea was that a great person was born great.
9Scholars generally agree that these stories are mythical in nature, and do not reflect historically accurate occurrences. Yet, even though they may not be historically true, they can still contain truths in the sense that they relate ideas about these figures that are believed to be true.
11From a psychological standpoint, one could argue that it was the effects of fasting that caused each individual to have these visions, or even hallucinations. However, by analyzing the stories in such a manner take away from the theological message that is being presented, as well as the truth that is being conveyed.
12I believe it is appropriate to call these narratives we have discussed up to this point as introductory narratives as they both lead up to the ministries of each figure. They contain information that is clearly mythical in nature, and most likely relate to us how these figures were remembered. Yet, they also give us information about these individuals that will be important to consider throughout the lives of each figure. Thus, in a way, they introduce us to who these figures really are.
13Even though all of these sayings may not have originated from either the Buddha or Jesus, they still relate what their early followers believed their religious leaders to have conveyed. Thus, for the sake of this work, it still opens up an understanding of what was believed about the Buddha, as well as Buddhism in general.
26 Walpola, Rāhula. What the Buddha Taught. New York: Grove, 1974. Print.
This is a loaded term. In Western thinking, it has come with certain connotations, and thus may not be the best choice of word for Buddhism. In Buddhism, the term is saddha, which even though generally translated as to faith, or belief, is more than our western definition of those words. One could instead call it a confidence, born out of conviction. In this regards though, it could also be said to be true of the teaching of Jesus in this particular instance.
27Salvation is another word that has certain connotations in western vocabulary. But I think the word expresses the same idea which both teachers are conveying. This salvation is a freedom from this world.
32Some scholars, such as E.P. Sanders have argued that 12 was more of a symbolic number, instead of an actual number of how many disciples Jesus had. It also should be noted that even though Jesus is said to have had just 12 disciples, he is said to have traveled with additional followers, including a number of women.
35There are instances in which the Buddha is seen as a god, but those tend to be lesser.
The Sacrifice of Jesus in a Non-Religious Perspective
Throughout history, we have seen many great individuals sacrifice themselves in order to promote an idea or message they thought would be for the betterment of humankind. Many of these individuals did make great impacts on the world, which had long lasting impacts. Others simply have been lost to the sands of history. One such sacrifice was that of Jesus. Yet, it is also one largely misunderstood, or even denied by various individuals. With a closer, historical look, we can once again see what his sacrifice was, and whether it still effects the world today.
The Collins English Dictionary defines a sacrifice as “a surrender of something of value as a means of gaining something more desirable or of preventing some evil.” Such a definition can be problematic in regards to it being quite subjective. For instance, does surrendering ones life, even though they believe that death is not the end, constitute a sacrifice? Personally, I believe that such is still a sacrifice, as I do not think that a sacrifice is negated by the possibility of a reward. And as per the above definition, gaining something more desirable is part of the sacrificial experience. More so, if we put such a stipulation on a sacrifice, then we run into the problem of denying the sacrifice a many great men and women.
When we look at Jesus, we see that there was a surrendering of something of value. Most of use would agree that there is value in a human life. Looking at the historical figure which is Jesus (here I do have to differentiate from the Jesus of faith, and the Jesus of history. The Jesus is faith is the idea of Jesus that has been formed within the religious mind. The Jesus of history is the figure that did in fact exist. To find the Jesus of history, one has to strip the Biblical character of the myth and legends that formed around this persona later on. When we look at the Jesus of history, we see a figure that was an itinerate preacher, that went up against the authority, and was subsequently crucified. The resurrection dwells in the realm of the Jesus of faith), he does surrender his life. We see him being crucified by the Romans.
However, surrendering one’s life is not the only requirement. The surrendering, in this case, death, has to bring about something of greater value or prevent evil. And this is the important part here. From a Christian perspective, we can see a clear benefit from the death of Jesus. However, we are not looking at this from a perspective of faith, but from a secular point of view. In order to see it from a secular perspective, we must delve into the historical account of Jesus.
The first thing that we must examine is the message that Jesus preached and see whether or not it was a message that could have led to his death. We see with many other individuals who sacrificed themselves, it was for a message or an idea. A great example would be Martin Luther King Jr. It was his message, that conveyed an idea, that motivated his assassination. We see a clear connection between the message, and assassination. More important, he was aware of the possibility that he would die as a result of the message he was preaching.
So what was the message that Jesus preached? We may never be able to completely know exactly what Jesus taught, as he never left us with any sermons. However, we can gain a general idea regarding what Jesus taught. There are a few clues within the material available to us that can shine a light on his teachings. The first important clue is an event we can be positive occurred. That is the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. This is an event scholars agree is historical for a variety of reasons, including that it is an embarrassing story.
The baptism of Jesus by John is important as it tells us something concrete about the ideology of Jesus (at least at one point in time). There are a few reasons as to why Jesus would go to John to be baptized. It is nearly a given that Jesus subscribed to the teachings of John, otherwise there would be little reason for him to purposely go to John. Given that point, it may also be suggested that Jesus was in fact a disciple of John (there are a number of scholars who propose this very idea; however, it is not a point that can be stated with complete certainty). With this being so, by looking at the teachings of John the Baptist, we can get a glimpse into the teachings of Jesus. Now, we only have limited sources on John, but what we can gather is that he taught that the Kingdom of God would soon replace the Earthly kingdom (which was Rome at that time).
Looking at the sources we have on Jesus, this teaching seemed to remain within his teachings as well. More so, we see this teaching being carried on by Paul, so we can be reasonably sure that Jesus also continued on with this sort of teaching. He also expanded on this teaching though. Another teaching we can be sure Jesus had was one of acceptance. In the Gospels, there are a number of instances in which Jesus is criticized for keeping the company of tax collectors, or other individuals seen to be lower or outcasts. One could sum up much of his teachings with the “golden rule,” love your neighbor as yourself (this was an idea that we see also stretched to Paul. However, we see other Jews at that time saying the same basic idea). These two teachings, the one regarding the Kingdom of God, and that of acceptance, were intimately linked.
Having this background, we can see a clear reason why the message Jesus was preaching would have promoted his death. He was preaching a message that challenged the Roman Empire. By claiming that the Kingdom of God would replace the Roman Empire, it would have been a challenge to the Roman authorities. Combined with his actions in the Temple (the overturning of the tables and driving people out, which can be seen as a symbolic destruction of the Temple, which would have been apart of the Kingdom of God teaching), his fate was sealed. Importantly though, Jesus would have been well aware of what his actions could lead to, as he would have been exposed to just that throughout his life. It was the same basic reason why John the Baptist, who Jesus was connected to, had been executed as well.
Much like Martin Luther King Jr., we see a message which was connected to the death of the figure. Both of these individuals had a message that at their basis taught acceptance (or equality). And each knew that their messages, the ideas they were spreading, had the possibility of leading to their deaths. Yet both continued teaching this idea, which eventually led to them sacrificing their lives.
The message that both of these individuals had was one of greater value than one life. As in their messages, they taught that all life had value. They taught a message that have effected great numbers of people (in fact, the teachings of Jesus effected the ideologies of King as well), and in turn, cause additional people to help spread the idea of acceptance and equality. It is a message that transcends religions, or philosophies. It is one that all can embrace, and see the value in it. And with that, we can see the sacrifice of Jesus in a secular manner; in a manner that all should be able to relate to.
When trying to choose a Bible, one can become overwhelmed by the choice. Besides there being a plethora of different translations, there are also a variety of different editions and feature one has to consider. This guided is intended to help you navigate through the mess, and find a Bible that suits you. I will first begin with looking at some popular Bible translations, and then at the end, highlight a few Bibles that I personally prefer.
The first translation we will look at is the King James Version (KJV). This has been one of the most popular translations to date, and is still the one that the Gideon’s principally use. It was eventually considered an “Authorized Version;” however, it was never authorized by any ecclesiastical or legislative sanction. Instead, due to its popularity, it gained the the title of authorized in the national mind. As for a translation, it does have some wonderful qualities. For its time, it was the best English Bible that had been produced.1 The language used makes for some beautiful reading, especially in regards to the Psalms and other poetic material.
However, it is now an outdated translation. When creating this translation, there was no standard edition of the Masoretic2 Text of the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, it was based off of the late and corrupted text of Eramus (which was slightly modified by Stephanus and Beza). In short, the translation was based on texts that were of substandard quality. It was also written in a language that is now outdated. Those two factors rule it out as an accurate translation; however, it is still a beautiful piece of work.
By the middle of the 19th century, it became obvious that the Greek text used for the KJV was in fact corrupt, and contained many errors. This realization came to be known as in the time between the publication of the KJV, to the 19th century, various other manuscripts were found that were of better quality. For instance, in 1627, the Codex Alexandrinus, which is thought to have been written in the 5th century, was rediscovered. There was also the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which both date to the 4th century. With these discoveries, it became able to better know what the “originals” said.
Another major discovery that helped in Bible translation came between 1947 and 1956. This was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are the oldest known surviving copies of Biblical books (specifically, Old Testament books). This was a very important discovery in regards to Biblical study.
The first translation that took advantage of the use of the Dead Sea Scrolls was the Jerusalem Bible. It was the first complete Roman Catholic Bible in English, which breaking from the Latin Vulgate, was translated from the original languages. In regards to the New Testament, it usually reflected the current judgments of both Protestant and Catholic scholars. One of its major features though was the use of excellent notes. As a side note, J.R. Tolkien was one of the translators for this Bible. In 1985, a revised version of the Jerusalem Bible was released: The New Jerusalem Bible. It corrected problems with the pervious version, but also made the language more inclusive.
In 1978, the New International Version (NIV) was produced. This was a translation that was primarily motivated by the publication of the Revised Standard Version in 1952 (we will discuss the updated version of this translation later). This translation was written more for the conservative Protestant group, who believed the Bible was God’s Word in written form. One of the best qualities of this translation is that it is written in simple English. However, the translators took many liberties when working on this Bible, such as omitting words, or adding words.
1990 marked the release of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). It was a revised version of the Revised Standard Version, and was motivated partially because of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as other early Greek New Testament manuscripts. The intention was to improve on the Revised Standard Version by bringing greater accuracy, improved clarity, more intelligible English, and making it more inclusive.
There are a number of other worthwhile translations to be mentioned. The New King James Version was released in 1982. It used many of the same manuscripts that the KJV, including the Textus Receptus for the New Testament3. The main update of this version was the language, modernizing it for a modern audience.
2011 marked the introduction of the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE). It is derived from the New American Bible, which was released in 1970, and was the first Roman Catholic translation in America that was made from the original language. Like many other updated texts, it sought to use better manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. It also looked to create a more literal and accurate translation, in contemporary English. This can be especially seen in the Psalms, which provide a nice poetic sense. Most importantly though, they tried to make up for problems in the New American Bible, such as various divergencies. One significant change, which got swept up in the media, was the decision to change the word virgin, in Isaiah 7:14, to the more accurate translation of young woman.
Now what Bible do I use? I personally have a small collection of Bibles, that range in translations, ranging from the KJV to the NABRE. However, there are some that stand out above the others. For translations themselves, I recommend either the NRSV (which is the standard Bible I use) or the New Jerusalem Bible. Specifically though, for the NRSV, I recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible. The notes are wonderful, and help gain a better understanding of what the verses mean. It also contains nicely written essays on a number of subjects, that allow the reader to have access to quality modern scholarship concerning the Bible. Another option for the NRSV is the Harper Collins Study Bible. In 2006 them came out with a fully revised and updated version of this Study Bible, which is an excellent resource. It also contains helpful notes, as well as essays. The previous version of the Harper Collins Study Bible also contains helpful notes and essays, and can usually be found for a decent price.
For the New Jerusalem Bible, it is important to make sure that one order the Regular Edition of 1985. The Standard or Readers editions do not contain the valuable notes and essays, and thus you loose a great resource. The notes and essays on this edition are of high quality, and very informative to those who want to learn. There is also a Study Edition available; however, it is not sold in the United States, and for the extra price it can cost to get it shipped here, is better just to get the Regular Edition.
A third Bible I would just like to mention is the Jewish Study Bible, which features the Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh (the Old Testament). The translation itself is a standard translation of the Masoretic text; however, for those wishing to study the Old Testament, the notes and essays are some of the best you will find in a Bible. They are in depth, and give the reader a scholarly perspective on the texts.
