Do we really respect each other's beliefs?

[aabbcc]

I haven't heard that from anyone except for you. Where did you hear it?

The Hebrew word found in OT is almah ("young woman"), not "virgin" (that would be have been bethulah), which was translated into Septuagint as parthenos, which means both "virgin" and "young woman". However, as most other translations are based on Septuagint, they adopted the former meaning of parthenos when translating it, thus translated it as "virgin".

This is only one example, there are probably hundreds of them, where if the 'mistake' is not the cause of Septuagint translation, it is a cause of 'translation from the translation', which was widespread practice. A lot of translations, even modern ones, are actually derived from other translations rather than original (e.g. many Bibles in use are still Vulgata-based).
Another example are "prophecies"; in the original OT there are different expressions for them, yet they all end up being "prophecies"; similarly the myth of 'heaven' and 'hell' happened to be, etc.

EDIT: I forgot to answer where I heard that - I was shown and explained that controvery by somebody who studied the materia rather intensively. If you google it, however, I am sure you will find plenty of information on it, from both sides.

[Dori]

*points to her signature* No worries

Ahem. His...

[Virgil]

I've seen the same with Christianity, and by some Christians themselves.

Yeah I know. The people I was talking about claim to be Muslims too. If it wasn't for the 'no politics' rule of the forum, I'd have named some of them.

And I encounter the same ill-perceived version of judaism which would have been comic had it historically not proved to have been rather tragic.

Hey i was actually thinking about this further while I was off wandering on my lunch hour and we three who made this point need to keep something in mind with respect to others. There isn't just one Christianity, there are Christianities, plural. Obviously there are different branches and orders who disagree on things, so it's not so simple to say that someone doesn't understand a particualr point or have an incorrect notion. And even within branches/orders of Christianity there are controversies, issues that are debated and have various view points, but perhaps not enough separte and form their own order. While i'm no expert on islam, I would imagine that the same occurs. The differences between Shia (sp?) and Sunni. But i would anticipate that even within each branch there are areas of disagreement. I would imagine the same for Judaism (orthodox verses Hasidic and so on). So we should keep in mind that someone may have a subtle distinction from ourselves.

[Nossa]

Ahem. His...

I know you're a 'he' Dori. I meant at MY signature...just speaking in the third person..never mind..lol...I had Hakuna Matata in my signature...ya know what...never mind. All I wanted to tell you No worries

[Nossa]

While i'm no expert on islam, I would imagine that the same occurs. The differences between Shia (sp?) and Sunni. But i would anticipate that even within each branch there are areas of disagreement.

The areas of disagreement between Shai and Sunni is in minor things, not major or essential things. These differences cannot, by any means, justify something, that's considered a sin to the Sunnis, as an allowed thing to the Shait and vice versa. We're all Muslims, and we have the same essentials, and most of the minors, but it's only normal that even within the same religion there different views, and one can't deny or even refuse that they exist.

[aabbcc]

(...) There isn't just one Christianity, there are Christianities, plural. (...) While i'm no expert on islam, I would imagine that the same occurs. The differences between Shia (sp?) and Sunni. But i would anticipate that even within each branch there are areas of disagreement. I would imagine the same for Judaism (orthodox verses Hasidic and so on). So we should keep in mind that someone may have a subtle distinction from ourselves.

I am going to have to disagree with you this time.
I agree with the idea of multiple Christianities, given the numerous and often grave and fundamental differences between the 'variants' of Christianity you can find nowadays.

One could argue that there generally is no need to 'establish' Orthodoxy, to declare something as Orthodox [perhaps it is useful to remind ourselves of the meaning of the word, ortho-doxia, literally "the right belief"] if there are no alternative streams emerged which threat to become the 'mainstream'. Which is, in a way, what happened with Christianity before schism - not long ago after Christianity emerged there came to be two ways of practising it, the so-called "Eastern" and "Western". However, the "Western" Christianity began to significantly change dogma (and I am not referring only to filioque, or celibate, or limb, or the issue of Pope as supreme and only true authority on Christianity...), which resulted in the need of establishing of 'Orthodoxy' in Christianity. So from that point on, you had two similar, but essentially (take 'essentially' in the literal sense of the word!) different variants of the same dogma, which existed for a couple of centuries before Luther and the 'reformed church', from which pretty much all 'reform' churches, commonly called protestant, emerged with time (calvinism, lutheranism, you name it). So the variants spread in their multiple forms, some of them going rather far away from the dogma (Mormons being my first association... the concept of physical G-d, plurality of G-ds, etc). In the case of Christianity, really, you can speak of multiple practices and multiple variants of the central dogma, regardless of which practice you take as the one from which they all differ (e.g. assuming Orthodoxy is not "the" Christianity, it doesn't change anything).

Judaism... Not really. There is one judaism, the Orthodox one (and it is so considered a 'fact' amongst the Orthodox that amongst themselves they usually do not refer to themselves as 'Orthodox', only to distinguish themselves from non-Orthodoxy), and no matter whom you ask in which 'branch' of judaism, nobody will tell you that Orthodoxy is, dogmatically or by its practices, 'wrong' (which is NOT the case in Christianity!). Or nobody who knows anything of judaism, at least.
The most 'problematic' thing about judaism - and precisely that which kept it living - is that it never went through a period of secularisation as Jews did not have their homeland and were spread in the parts of the world. Therefore, judaism remained pretty much intact, add or remove a couple of mystic movements or stuff of the kind which exist in any religion (but they never threatened to become mainstream!). Theology was not changed, nor were 'laws' being removed due to secularisation of the country, nor were practices abandoned due to 'modernisation' (which was 'made easier' by the fact Jews lived in ghettos and were generally isolated from the rest of the people from their countries)... Judaism existed in its Orthodox form. There were more and less religious Jews, there were even different views on some Biblical episodes, but despite that, the only 'judaism' in existence, dogmatically, was the Orthodox one.
From the Jewish point of view, there is no other judaism than the Orthodox one; all those fabulous modern Reform or Conservative stuff are not even recognised by the Orthodoxy, people who convert to them are not accepted by the Orthodoxy, etc. Also, usually the 'differences' are about practices, not the actual dogma. The authentic judaism cannot be much debated about, (un)fortunately, so there was never a group of people who claimed G-d not to be one, who denied shabbath, anything of the kind, and none of the different groups that appeared denied judaism in its essence - it was more about 'adapting' judaism to modern life, or quitting religious component but remaining culturally Jewish (humanist judaism or whatever it's called, I probably 'belong' to that no wait I don't if I consider myself Italian by my father, but oh well, you get my point - there are Jews who are Jews by halakha - i.e. born by Jewish mother - but who don't practice religion and are just culturally Jews), things of the kind, and a couple of eccentric/mystic streams.

Similar thing goes for islam, though I don't know enough about it to fully explain - the difference shia/sunni is a political one, not a dogmatic one, and emerged with the question of "who comes after Muhammad to guide us", and two different answers on that question. In the modern times, there have emerged some different answers on modern-life questions, naturally, but only when the streams of islam existed separately for primarily social / political reasons. Still, in islam there are no true 'variants' to speak of, there is one islam in even more 'stable' sense than that there is one judaism.

Or to make long thing short:
Plural Christianities, certainly.
Plural judaisms, not really.
Plural islams, no way.


EDIT: Again I have to add things, I'm so bad with wording my thoughts today.
The bottomline is, the 'differences' between various 'branches' of judaism and islam are mainly in 'adaptation' of religion to everyday life in our modern times, and on how conservative some 'branches' want to be.
The 'differences' between various branches of Christianity are actual, dogmatic, grave differences which cannot be overcome without changing of dogma on one side of the dialogue.
Again I cannot guarantee anything for islam, Nossa will know it better than me, but there definitely is one judaism, one 'correct' form of it, laws of whom are rather accurately derived from rather accurate sources of it, so there are no real misunderstandings, whilst Christians can't and won't agree on waay to many things in the dogma itself to start with.

[Virgil]

Ok, I yield to you two ladies. Let me say I'm incredibly impressed by both your intellects. Given that I certainly don't know enough about Islam and I can't think of any distinction between different sects of Judaism that cannot be characterized as varations of orthodoxy, I have to acknowledge you two are correct. There certainly are different philosophic distictions between Christianities, now and throughout history. And perhaps I'm projecting my knowledge of Christianity and assuming it applies your religions.

But a question for each of you:

Ana: So the distinctions between geographically different Jews has nothing to do with any philosophic distinctions, such as Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews?

Nossa: So the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims are relatively superficial? In Iraq they are fighting what may not technically be a civil war, but certainly serious enough that they are trying to kill each other. Oh and another question: the difference between people like the Taliban in Afgahistan and more mainstream Muslims is a level of orthodoxy and not philosophy/theology? It seems to me that a decision to wear a burka or not goes beyond a small difference.

[Etienne]

So the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims are relatively superficial? In Iraq they are fighting what may not technically be a civil war, but certainly serious enough that they are trying to kill each other.

Would you honestly be surprised? But of course, religion is not the only point at hand in the conflict. Actually religions are more often used as a tool or catalyst for political (in the very broad sense of the term) purposes.

[Virgil]

Would you honestly be surprised? But of course, religion is not the only point at hand in the conflict. Actually religions are more often used as a tool or catalyst for political (in the very broad sense of the term) purposes.

Of course, but the political operatives were able to push the religious button succesfuoly because there are historical hatreds there. Whether those differences are cultural (as I think Nossa is implying) or theological (as I believed) is my question.

[islandclimber]

It's always funny how threads that start on very general topics like this one, especially in the religious forum, always progress into talking of something completely different I love it!

but the shia and sunni difference, at least to the best of my knowledge, began with the majority of islamic people at the time accepting the legitimacy of the first three caliphs, and they became the Sunnis, and the minority did not accept the legitimacy of the first three, and only believed the fourth Caliph, Ali, was the only rightful successor.. and there is a long line of political and religious leaders or infallible Imams from his progeny.. these are the Shia's... and then there are the mystics... The Sufis... Or I guess they could be said to have begun as devout islamic ascetics...

I think the only other difference between Sunni's and Shia's is the disagreement over importance and value and validity of certain collections of hadith which i believe from my religion courses in school, are oral traditions of the words and deeds of the Prophet, that were later written down as kind of supplements to the Qu'ran on how to live, and behave... The disputes are caused here, alot by the fact the sources were obscure, and many flat out contradict one another, some even appear at variance with parts of the qu'ran and are therefore thrown out, some seem to be political propaganda, so they are an issue of constant study it seems...

and lastly.. Sikhism, is a melding of the two religions Hinduism and Islam, and has huge differences from each... I don't think any religion can seriously be said to have no offshoots or offspring, or sects, etc... even the new Bahai faith takes alot from many religions, including islam, judaism, christianity, etc...

[aabbcc]

Ana: So the distinctions between geographically different Jews has nothing to do with any philosophic distinctions, such as Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews?

Right.
'Sephardic' and 'Ashkenazi' as words primarily mean geographical and cultural distinction. After 70 AD, when the Jewish diaspora started spreading around, in Europe they went in two different major directions - "west" (Spain, Portugal, ...) and "east" (Russia, Poland, ...). With time and over the centuries there emerged two cultures of European Jews, with their respective traditions and folklore, languages (Ladino in the west and Yiddish in the east), but no altering of dogma.

As I was yesterday somewhat imprecise and my mind failed to cooperate in English, I searched online for a better wording than mine of what I wanted to say about judaism; I found it here, I have no idea who is the guy that posted it, but he definitely knows what he is talking about. I'm a terrible translator so please bear with me.

Being that the "Jewish-ness" defines the phenomenology of the Jews, including all categories from culture to history, from demography to economic philosophy to religion, of course that there cannot be one form of "Jewish-ness".

In contrast to that, "judaism" is a term which defines a religious matrix, the system of ideas, values and practices that make it. Each phenomenon is defined by a couple of categories, from which the one important for us is a continuity. Tendency to 'relativise' the contents and the point of judaism, giving ad hoc definitions, emerges from the chronocentricness of the one who defines by that method being that it starts from the current historical point, neglecting historical totality, i.e. continuity. If in the other hand we take continuity as a relevant factor in defining, then we see one very simple thing, and that is that from 100% of the total time of the Jewish history, 97% of that time "Jewish-ness" was judaistically Orthodox (and the sole term - orthodoxia - entered the practice with haskala movement, to separate traditional judaism from the 'modern' one). If we take time-line from 3500 years, only 200 years ago a small part of Jews became reform/liberal to nevertheless become the majority in "Jewish-ness" today, but at the same time went through its colapse due to diffusion, which is shown by all relevant studies of Jewish demography, as well as that in addition to that there is an increasing number of more or completely secular Jews, as a reaction to the vain content [of non-Orth. judaism], but, thank G-d, the number of the Orthodox is increasing rapidly.

That is from historical and demographic position.
From the religious perspective, there are a couple of reasons why reform/liberal "Jewish-ness" is not "judaism" (...)

The guy was discussing with some girl who wanted to convert to liberal judaism why that isn't "judaism"; but you can technically apply that to anything other than Orthodox judaism.

[Virgil]

Continuity is a wonderful term and is something I very much appreciate and respect. Thanks Ana.

[Dori]

I know you're a 'he' Dori. I meant at MY signature...just speaking in the third person..never mind..lol...I had Hakuna Matata in my signature...ya know what...never mind. All I wanted to tell you No worries

Now I understand.

[Nossa]

Of course, but the political operatives were able to push the religious button succesfuoly because there are historical hatreds there. Whether those differences are cultural (as I think Nossa is implying) or theological (as I believed) is my question.

I think I need to state here a historical fact, that the Shia to begin with was essentially a political philosophy, that turned religious through ages. For starters, the idea of being a Shia started by a certain political election (in the year 657), that was between two main figures back then in the Islamic world. One of these two main figures, Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, was the one who lost back then, and the ones who believed that he deserved it more than his opponent, were the founder of the Shia cult, which is basically about staying true and loyal to Ali who was wronged in those elections of choosing a Muslim Imam, and through time Ali became a holy figure to them, alomost as holy as Prophet Muhammed. And as usual, some people took it a bit too far . The thing is, the Shia themselves are divided to many cults already, some of them do disagree with Sunnis on principles (like how some of them put Ali Ibn Abi Taleb in the status of a God, and that he had the same revelations of Prophet Muhammed. But these cults do not represent the majority of the Shias) but most of them are more like Sunnis if it wasn't for the 'minor' things they disagree with us about.

I disagree, highly disagree, that our differences are that of theology, but they're rather cultural or out of certain historical contexts. What's happening in Iraq now, for me , is mere politics. The main reason why the Sunnis and Shais disagree is the elections that took place 2005, and that it was mainly about the persentage of each party's representatives in the government. I don't wanna go into politics, but even the conflicts now between them in Iraq are out of the circumstances they're in. If you remember, in 2006, the war of Lebanon and Israel (whether you're pro Hizbullah or not) the ones who fought there were Shias, yet the people who celebrated the victory were both Sunnis and Shias. The differences between both parties are being exaggerated for political causes, that is all.

[islandclimber]

I think I need to state here a historical fact, that the Shia to begin with was essentially a political philosophy, that turned religious through ages. For starters, the idea of being a Shia started by a certain political election (in the year 657), that was between two main figures back then in the Islamic world. One of these two main figures, Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, was the one who lost back then, and the ones who believed that he deserved it more than his opponent, were the founder of the Shia cult, which is basically about staying true and loyal to Ali who was wronged in those elections of choosing a Muslim Imam, and through time Ali became a holy figure to them, alomost as holy as Prophet Muhammed. And as usual, some people took it a bit too far . The thing is, the Shia themselves are divided to many cults already, some of them do disagree with Sunnis on principles (like how some of them put Ali Ibn Abi Taleb in the status of a God, and that he had the same revelations of Prophet Muhammed. But these cults do not represent the majority of the Shias) but most of them are more like Sunnis if it wasn't for the 'minor' things they disagree with us about.

I disagree, highly disagree, that our differences are that of theology, but they're rather cultural or out of certain historical contexts. What's happening in Iraq now, for me , is mere politics. The main reason why the Sunnis and Shais disagree is the elections that took place 2005, and that it was mainly about the persentage of each party's representatives in the government. I don't wanna go into politics, but even the conflicts now between them in Iraq are out of the circumstances they're in. If you remember, in 2006, the war of Lebanon and Israel (whether you're pro Hizbullah or not) the ones who fought there were Shias, yet the people who celebrated the victory were both Sunnis and Shias. The differences between both parties are being exaggerated for political causes, that is all.

Nossa, I don't know if you directed this at me and my post about the differences between Shias and Sunnis, but I was only trying to say what you just said, you just put it more succinctly, made it clearer... I was trying to say it was a political difference as well, with minor differences over the hadith, which are just as common within the branches of both it seems from what I learned in school...

Sorry if I came across as implying something totally different, that was not at all my intention, my post was meant to agree completely with you.... the only place I would have any contention is in the fact that all religion is invariably linked to others... I mean the Sikhs, are almost a denomination of Islam and Hinduism combined... which I guess makes something completely new, but all religion is a progression... Not to go too far back, but Judaism came out of Sumerian and Assyrian tradition and even slight Zoroastrian, Christianity developed out of Judaism, Islam was the further revelations of truth and took the Abrahamic religions, or is supposed to take them, to the pinnacle of truth... and on the other side Hinduism came out of early vedic and zoroastrian religion, buddhism developed out of Siddhartha's attempt to free the people Brahmin rule and the caste system... and Jainism developed as a side avenue of both in a sense.. and Sikhism brought Hinduism and Islam together.. and the new Bahai faith attempts to reconcile a plethora of religions... all I was trying to say is that classifying religions as totally separate from others and external influence and differences is, I don't know, silly in a sense..