Read The Book
As we get older many of us (or is that only me?) tend to become somewhat "peevish" about certain matters. I am sure that most of you, dear readers, would not fall into this category ... perhaps not as old, nor anywhere near as inclined to peevishness.
Nonetheless, one of my "pet peeves" is the way that people make pronouncements relating to subjects about which they have no real understanding.
One example, since I have spent a great deal of my life (informally) studying various philosophies, is people commenting about Christianity or Islam or Buddhism ... or, for that matter, global warming ... without ever having read the background information about those matters.
I am not a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, or .... you get the idea), although my relationship to God is central to my existence - on the Australian Census I describe my religion as 'A Monothiest following a Buddhist philosophy ... with other influences'!
When I was studying a number of Spiritual Paths, in order to choose my own Path, I read, first of all, the Christian Bible. It was the King James Version, which I still like (I came from a Methodist background), but I also read information relating to different versions of the Christian Bible, and looked at the nature of those differences.
This included the Greek New Testament, the aforementioned King James version, the New International version and bits and pieces of other versions.
The differences between these versions can, at times, be quite dramatic - changing a single word, or the way in which a sentence is structured, can lead to a markedly different overall meaning.
Whilst I was reading through the Bible I also had a (very large!) Concordance beside me, and I would read the relevant section of that first. It provided social and time-specific background information about the Book of the Bible I was going to read - the context. The times in which they were written, authors, social conditions and the audience to whom they were directed. This meant that a specific statement I would read in the Bible, when placed in the broader context, could mean something very different to the "accepted" interpretation.
I also followed this process when I studied Islam, reading the Koran together with works on the life of the Prophet and the social conditions at that time.
I should hasten to add that I am not a formal scholar, and that all of my reading was in English.
This meant that, in reading the King James version of the Bible, I knew that I was actually reading a translation of an interpretation of a translation - which had been edited by any number of people, with any number of motivations, any number of times.
The same situation applied to the Koran. It was an English translation, which the author at least had the honesty to describe as "The Koran Interpreted".
Having worked for a time as an editor, I understand that this process can result in a very different outcome to what the original author may have intended.
I found very dramatic examples of this when I studied Buddhism, and read verses from the Pali Canon. I would read a particular Sutra, first one version and then another, and at times I could not tell that I was reading what was, ostensibly, the same Sutra.
[I then tried to learn the Pali language so that I would have some chance of reading the Sutras in a less "bastardised" form. However, life intervened, and I had other tasks to perform. I might add that learning Pali is still on the list of things I would like to do .... if I live to be 150 years old or thereabouts - and, doubtless, become even more crotchety and peevish!!]
The problem is that most people don't even make an effort to understand beliefs and concepts which they are very ready to criticise.
I find it incredible, in talking to many Christians who consider themselves to be quite devout, that they have never read the Bible from cover to cover.
I know, when you are young there are far more interesting things to do in life, and it is much easier to just listen to a priest or other "expert"(???) tell you what is in the Bible. [Well, I started my readings when I was fourteen years old ... but I am a rather peculiar person, and have grown ever more so over all the years since then!]
However, as you move through life, particularly as you claim devotion to a particular religion and, from that point of view, criticise the world view of others from a different religion, I would have thought that you would take the time to find out, first, just what are the teachings of your own religion; and then, even more importantly, what are the actual teachings of the religion you are criticising.
But (most) people simply do not bother.
There are people I know who have a strongly spiritual focus in their lives and who also have very definite, and generally negative, views of a religion such as Islam, based mainly on the behaviour of a number of fanatics; fanatics who don't, to a large extent, represent the actual teachings of Islam. Nonetheless, these people make pronouncements about what it is to be a Muslim. If you have not read the Koran, how can you make pronouncements about the actual teachings of Islam?
Of course, this point applies equally well to Muslims who criticise Christians, and Christians and Muslims who criticise Buddhists. [And, come to think of it, just about everyone has something bad to say about Paganism and Wicca!]
Certainly you can criticise those people who claim to be Muslim, but whose actions are totally at odds with the teachings of Islam. Just as you can criticise Christians who preach division and hatred (or building a dirty great wall between the USA and Mexico!), which totally denies Christ's teachings on love - "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" [Matthew 22:35-40].
So it means that many of the criticisms of another religion (as distinct from a "faith", which I view very differently to religions; but that is a matter for another Comment!) or Path of any sort, are often based on the actions of the fanatical few and a total lack of understanding of the original teachings of that Path.
There is no doubt that the original teachings contain inconsistencies and are often at odds with our current views on "human rights". I have never been able to reconcile the Old and New Testaments as a single, coherent, Bible; some of the basic teachings and punishments propounded by Islam are barbaric by modern standards; there are parts of the Pali Canon which contradict the core teachings given by Buddha. Of course, with sophistry and circular logic it is possible to reconcile anything, and this certainly happens.
Obviously I am not suggesting that you need to go out and read the Christian Bible from cover to cover, or as many versions as you choose to read, or the Koran or the Pali Canon or Torah or the Agam Sutras (Jainism) or the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu) or the Guru Granth Sahib (Sikhism) or Pagan teachings.
But at the very least, if you are a (frequently loudly professed) Christian or Muslim or Buddhist, go and read the core teachings of your own faith!
Hmmmmmm. That was doubtless a rather arrogant directive, one of my many failings. Also, in this age, when it would seem that at least most (Western?) people have a two-minute attention span and almost no formal command of the language they speak (actually, butcher, particularly in the case of Americans?), suggesting they read texts which were first written hundreds, or even thousands, of years ago, is pointless!
You can, of course, simply take the matter on faith that what you have heard (down at the pub, or from some politician or other person/group with a very definite agenda) is "gospel".
Apart from the obvious issues with this idea (trusting a politician?!?), the problem here is one which came into sharp perspective when I was doing some reading on the Dead Sea Scrolls. This indicated (unless the scholarship about this has changed since my research many years ago!!) that there were different versions of the same Biblical books amongst the scrolls, perhaps written (edited) by different scribes for different communities.
I have no problem with this idea, since we all "interpret" everything around us, not just written words, in the context of our own world views.
However, which of these versions became the "true" version?
How can anyone seriously claim, as a number of people I know do, that what they read in "their" version of the Bible (or any historical religious text) is the unexpurgated, perfectly rendered, straight from God's mouth, "Truth". Particularly so when what is viewed as God's word today has been translated ... and interpreted ... and edited ... and so on and so on. One word, which could have several shades of meaning; the scribe or editor (or king) chooses which "flavour" is used; and the meaning changes.
[My personal inclination, always, if I have a doubt or a question, is to look within, to that still place where God dwells in all of us, and ask.]
Still, my original point and "peeve" is still there - sorry, I do tend to wander all over the place! [And no, that image has nothing to do with this Comment .... my mind was wandering!!.]
People make claims about all manner of things, without ever taking the time to understand the most basic facts about the subject at hand; in this case, what does a religion actually teach, what are the words in its' holy book - not what some demagogue (politician or other rabble-rouser) claims they are.
If they took that time I suspect that many people would then find that their claims about a particular Path are largely, or totally, invalid.
There are Christians today who believe that it is quite acceptable to ostracise or even murder people, because they are not "our sort", or reflect "our values". There are Muslims who believe the same. Buddhists, where one of the core teachings is "ahimsa", or respect for all living things and avoidance of violence towards others, who hurt and even kill non-Buddhists.
None of these things are part of the teachings of those Paths, of the great teachers; Christ, Muhammad, Buddha and others.
But most people need a justification for what they do. Demonise those who oppose you, quote a single verse from a Holy Book to justify any action, even though that action is itself a total contradiction to the teachings of that Path.
There is also the fact that the original teachings were given long ago, within a particular cultural and historical framework, and they must therefore be interpreted from a modern perspective.
And the only way you can do that is by reading the book, at least some version thereof, before shooting off your mouth!!!
