Scripture compatible with U.N. Human Rights Declaration?

[a better world]

As I see it, there are several major obstacles to claims of divine authorship of scripture, especially that of the "Peoples of the Book".

Old Testament:

1. Disagreement among scholars over the (human) authorship and dates concerning the text of many chapters/parts of chapters.

2. Problems surrounding the ethics of a vengeful, tribal, genocidal God given to periodic rage against His own creation (including the tribe of Israel).


New Testament:

1. Early disagreement over works to be admitted to the N.T. canon.

2. Early disagreement over the relationship of the (evolving) N.T. canon to the O.T. canon, and the significance of this relationship: eg, church father and compiler of the early N.T. canon, Marcion (c.65-160A.D.), rejected identification of Jesus with Jehovah. Meanwhile, most Jews at the time (and still do) rejected Jesus as the "Messiah", while Christians deified Jesus and saw him as the messiah purportably prophesied in the OT.

3. Christian adoption of later extra-biblical dogma such as the Holy Trinity. and opposing Christian doctrines including Arianism, during the period of consolidation of 'orthodox' dogma.

Koran:

1. Of the three traditions, the Koran's authorship is indeed miraculous(?), received by revelation to the (reportedly illiterate) Prophet over a 20 year period at the beginning of the 7th cenury AD, with many references to biblical scripture. He railed against and despised the many divisions he observed both within and between the Christians and Jews of his time (noted above).

Tragically, he failed to anoint a successor, resulting in the Shia-Sunni split, almost immediately after his death. Nevertheless the rapid advance of Islam is seemingly miraculous; an army out of the desert of Arabia, of no particular interest to previous empires, rapidly spread Islam over much of the globe. (Only 100 years after the Prophet's death, Islam claimed countries from Spain in the West to Afghanistan in the East).

Note: the Koran failed to predict that Israel would be recreated - c. 1400 years later, through the agency of a technologically superior new Christian (British) empire - resulting in outrage and confusion within the present Islamic world.

2. In many ways the Koran offers the most straightforward and simplest access to the One True God - the All-knowing , the Infinite, the Compassionate, the Merciful, the All-Wise, etc; but the Koran, like all scripture, is rooted in the culture of its time, and is harmed by the barbaric 6th century punishments prescribed for "infidels" and criminals (and being carried out to the letter in Saudi Arabia and Iran to this day!).

3. The Prophet accepted the OT prophets and Jesus as messengers of God, but like the Jews, rejected identification of Jesus with God (Jehovah/Allah).


Relationship to the UN:

The OT, with its election of a chosen people and divine authorisation of genocide, is incompatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights and modern international law (nascent as this law is, with its current acceptance of war as an arbiter of international affairs.).

Islamic terrorism is deeply rooted in a fundalmentalist belief that the Koran is the "final, perfect Word of God", a tragedy because many ISIS fighters see themselves as warriors of God, carrying out the 'Word' to the letter. Throw in the attraction that many young people feel in possessing the actual 'Word of God', plus widespread dissatisfaction with current economic circumstances around the globe, and we can explain the successes of ISIS recruitment even from Western countries.

But this terrorism is undoubtably fueled by the contending Christian belief in divine authorship of the Bible, with some strands of Christianity seeing the recreation of Greater Israel and the Jewish temple as NT prophecy related to Christ's return. Then we have Jewish terrorism, based on OT authorisation of territorial possession, which Prime Minister Rabin paid for with his life.

Conclusion: Scripture is not the Word of God, but the word of men searching for God (mostly in times long past). Failure to recognise this simple reality at the level of the UN will continue to be a major source of unrest in the world.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by a better world]

Can you, will you formulate a question for debate from your OP please? You can either edit it in, or add it to the thread.

[a better world]

[Replying to post 2 by Elijah John]

I can pose a question for debate, partly inspired by your stated theological position, which I quote here:

<<<-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.>>>

Interestingly, this position is utterly in accord with the Koran, except for point #2; I suspect the Prophet had only a broad outline of the biblical canon, so #2 is not relevant (vis a vis the Koran) because he would not have known of "bad parts" in the biblical canon. As far as the Prophet is concerned, YHVH is merely the Hebrew name for Allah, an entirely 'positive', life-affirming divinity; with the biblical prophets - messengers of God - being ignored by the Jewish people from time to time, resulting in God's harsh but righteous punishment that is visited upon all 'unbelievers'.
But the genocidal God of OT scripture is a major stumbling block in the present age, which you obviously recognise: <<<the real YHVH is not a monster>>> - as portrayed by biblical scripture.

So my question:

Should the 18th Article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, namely:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance".

be amended by adding the following words:

"provided that, where religious scripture, either in form or interpretation, conflicts with this and/or other articles in the Declaration, then the Declaration shall take precedence over the offending scripture, with such scripture to be subject to examination by a UN committee set up for the purpose of said examination".

-------

What of Jesus, one of the great teachers of mankind, and recognised as such by the Phophet of Islam?

It is a pity that Jesus' followers deified him, a position unacceptable to both Jews and Muslims; however I believe the three religions are quite capable of living peacefully with, even embracing, one-another, if the goodwill toward all mankind that is embodied both in the Declaration and in Jesus' own 'two great commandments' is embraced by all of them.

[bjs]

So my question:

Should the 18th Article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, namely:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance".

be amended by adding the following words:

"provided that, where religious scripture, either in form or interpretation, conflicts with this and/or other articles in the Declaration, then the Declaration shall take precedence over the offending scripture, with such scripture to be subject to examination by a UN committee set up for the purpose of said examination".

Perhaps I have misunderstood your position. However, it appears that you are saying that there should be a UN committee set up for purpose of examining what people believe and declaring if they are allowed to believe it or not. It seems that you want a UN committee to determine what scriptures people can follow and what interpretation of a scripture they are allowed to accept.

If I am incorrect in my understanding, please describe what your position is and how it differs from my assessment of it.

If I am correct in my understanding, then what happens if people don’t believe what the UN tells them to believe? To do they face sanctions? Military force? Do we execute people for disagreeing with our beliefs?

If I am correcting in my understanding of your position, then it appears that you want to turn the UN into a new ISIS. The proposed amendment would make UN into the new terrorist group declaring, “Believe what we believe or die!�

[a better world]

bjs wrote:

<<<If I am incorrect in my understanding, please describe what your position is and how it differs from my assessment of it>>>.

You are incorrect. My position is that claims of divine authorship of inerrant (but conflicting) scripture, by followers of any particular faith, is a significant factor in fueling global 'terrorism'. I have demonstrated how Islamic, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism, by definition based on belief in 'inerrant' God-ordained (but conflicting) scripture, feeds the fires of terrorism.

The UN is the correct agency to deal with this - international - issue; examination of the claim of inerrant God-ordained scripture, by followers of any particular religious tradition, is a necessary part of the process needed to come to an effective understanding of the causes of terrorism. The simplistic explanation that " they hate us for who we are ....for our way of life...for our freedoms..." is woefully inadequate as the basis for a strategy to deal with terrorism.

There are indeed currently plenty of shouting matches in the UN that skirt around the issues I have raised. I think it's time for a more structured examination along the lines I have suggested; and while the shouting matches will no doubt continue, the wider world may eventually gain a greater understanding of terrorism and how to deal with it.

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe". H.G.Wells.

[bjs]

bjs wrote:

<<<If I am incorrect in my understanding, please describe what your position is and how it differs from my assessment of it>>>.

You are incorrect. My position is that claims of divine authorship of inerrant (but conflicting) scripture, by followers of any particular faith, is a significant factor in fueling global 'terrorism'. I have demonstrated how Islamic, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism, by definition based on belief in 'inerrant' God-ordained (but conflicting) scripture, feeds the fires of terrorism.

The UN is the correct agency to deal with this - international - issue; examination of the claim of inerrant God-ordained scripture, by followers of any particular religious tradition, is a necessary part of the process needed to come to an effective understanding of the causes of terrorism. The simplistic explanation that " they hate us for who we are ....for our way of life...for our freedoms..." is woefully inadequate as the basis for a strategy to deal with terrorism.

There are indeed currently plenty of shouting matches in the UN that skirt around the issues I have raised. I think it's time for a more structured examination along the lines I have suggested; and while the shouting matches will no doubt continue, the wider world may eventually gain a greater understanding of terrorism and how to deal with it.

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe". H.G.Wells.

You stated that I was incorrect in my description of your position. However, what you then stated is exactly how I described your position.

You have stated that the UN should examine if people are allowed to believe that there is inerrant God-ordained scripture. You are suggesting that the UN should have the right to decided what people can and cannot believe. This turns the UN into the Thought Police; into a new ISIS

The members of ISIS are happy to live in peace as long as everyone in the world believes what they believe. While you have proposed a different set of beliefs, it would still be the UN requiring that everyone in the world believe what they believe.

Is someone wants to reject the inerrancy of a certain scripture that is fine. For the UN to decide if people can or cannot believe in the inerrancy of a certain scripture would turn the UN into a new version of ISIS.

Certain beliefs about certain scriptures may lead to terrorism. However, for the UN to decided what people can or cannot believe would replace an existing form of terrorism with fascism, which is itself a more powerful form of terrorism.

[Danmark]

If I understand correctly, ABW's position is that the UN should not accept violations of human rights for any reason, including the excuse that the abuse is sanctioned or demanded by religious beliefs.

[bjs]

If I understand correctly, ABW's position is that the UN should not accept violations of human rights for any reason, including the excuse that the abuse is sanctioned or demanded by religious beliefs.

If that is so then all well and good. The amendment mentioned in post 3 is unnecessary as it is already the official position of the UN. (At least in theory. In practice human right are violated for a variety of reasons.)

However, the amendment in post 3 goes well beyond this, moving from preventing violations of human rights to itself violating human rights.

[Danmark]

If I understand correctly, ABW's position is that the UN should not accept violations of human rights for any reason, including the excuse that the abuse is sanctioned or demanded by religious beliefs.

If that is so then all well and good. The amendment mentioned in post 3 is unnecessary as it is already the official position of the UN. (At least in theory. In practice human right are violated for a variety of reasons.)

However, the amendment in post 3 goes well beyond this, moving from preventing violations of human rights to itself violating human rights.

I agree that I am not sure specifically what is added by amending to:
be amended by adding the following words:

"provided that, where religious scripture, either in form or interpretation, conflicts with this and/or other articles in the Declaration, then the Declaration shall take precedence over the offending scripture, with such scripture to be subject to examination by a UN committee set up for the purpose of said examination".

The UN should have no ability to address beliefs, only practices that violate basic human rights. For example, religious practice, no matter how derived, that denies full rights to people because of their gender, or that result in the mutilation of the genitals should be allowed.

[bluethread]

The UN should have no ability to address beliefs, only practices that violate basic human rights. For example, religious practice, no matter how derived, that denies full rights to people because of their gender, or that result in the mutilation of the genitals should be allowed.

There are few loaded terms here, i.e. full rights, gender, and mutilation. Who determines what are "full rights"? By gender, are you referring to psychology, physiology or both? Also, does "mutilation" include the transgendered?