Is sacred tradition more holy than scripture?

[hasantas]

Most of the world is no longer living in the Bronze Age.

The time is not important. They were prophets. Did they follow just lust?

 

[Kaninchen]

The time is not important. They were prophets. Did they follow just lust?

The issue I raised, hasantas, was the question of why the ‘order of life’ seems to be a legitimisation of the needs (which may or may not include lust) of old men - it was interesting that the post from which I took the phrase showed no thought at all about the interests (which may or may not include lust) of women, whether child, young, middle aged or old. Our ‘order of life’ being settled by what appears to be the needs of old men, I take it.

Now, it may seem perfectly natural to you that the lives of half the human race should be given up to being actresses in some male drama but at least be honest about it.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The issue I raised, hasantas, was the question of why the ‘order of life’ seems to be a legitimisation of the needs (which may or may not include lust) of old men - it was interesting that the post from which I took the phrase showed no thought at all about the interests (which may or may not include lust) of women, whether child, young, middle aged or old. Our ‘order of life’ being settled by what appears to be the needs of old men, I take it.

Now, it may seem perfectly natural to you that the lives of half the human race should be given up to being actresses in some male drama but at least be honest about it.

So it has been for most of the history of humanity. We are still in 2016 trying to escape from that. You can hardly expect tales written many hundreds of years ago to reflect anything different, can you, Kaninchen?

 

[Kaninchen]

So it has been for most of the history of humanity. We are still in 2016 trying to escape from that. You can hardly expect tales written many hundreds of years ago to reflect anything different, can you, Kaninchen?

It’s not the tales, it’s how we understand them that matters and that goes to the heart of the tradition/scripture dialogue.

 

[Picky_Picky]

It’s not the tales, it’s how we understand them that matters and that goes to the heart of the tradition/scripture dialogue.

Yes. How does that work out in practice in terms of old men and young second wives?

 

[clem456]

The sources of Gospels are life and words of Jesus. What is the source of holy tradition which could be supposed more than or equal holy to scripture?

Jesus did not establish a system of religion firmly so the religion could get form in accordance with potentialities. Who can ensure that everything happened correctly?

The source of Tradition is Jesus
The source of Scripture is Jesus
The source of the Magisterium is Jesus

Jesus is the word made flesh, God’s full and final revelation.
Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium are not concepts or words on a page, they are the living Christ.

Who can ensure that everything happened correctly?
God, with the cooperation of humans.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes. How does that work out in practice in terms of old men and young second wives?

You’ll have to be more specific.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I know no any valid hadith about beating woman and if you know then quote and do not be afraid. What I know is that Muhammad always advise not to beat women.

When Muslims discuss an issue they quote all kinds of accounts and then say self thought. There is a Hadith about Muhammad beating Aisha but that is not literally beating. If you read hadiths wholly you can see.

I’ve read the hadiths–different translations, many times. I think you should to. “not literally beating”? Her skin turned green from bruising. Sounds like a serious beating to me.

What is a “valid hadith”? One you like? If you think a hadith is not valid, you need to show me why–not just your personal opinion.

Wake up. You are single-handedly turning me away from Islam. Congratulations.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I am not interest in coverting any one. And you can hold your religion but not with doctrines. I do not know how old you are and my intend is not to patronize or insult but just to tell fact of Islam.

I think nobody will accept that idea “women should maryy more than one men at same time”. That is not suitable for disposition of human, society, family etc.

Marriages of Muhammad was not because of lust. I have conviction in that way: Muhammad got marriage at 25. Untill that He had never commit adultery or alcoholic beverage or such bad deeds. He was in a hot climate and people were used to commit such things because there were no any moral law or prohibiton and objection. And He got married with a woman who was at 40. While that marriage He had never commit any adultery because if people had seen such thing from Him then they would not accept anything from Him.

Muhammad got marriages after 53-55 years old. The lust of man reduce in that years. Some marriages of Muhammad were to keep widower some were to invite tribes and some were to recognize Sahabas(His friends). And most important part is that Islam establish order of life and there are many issues which concerns women. Muhmmad’s wives taught Muslim women about that orders.

And why did not Muhammad divorce wives after verse which order to reduce number of wives to 4? Because wife of prophet cannot marry other. And if Muhammad would divorce them but that would be injustice for them.

“Tell the facts of Islam”? I don’t think so. You are giving a very, very selective and personal view. You are ignoring the Qur’an and hadith. This is not Islam as I understand it.

All this stuff about Muhammad marrying Khadija. How do you know he never committed adultery? Have you talked to him? And “hot climate”–please. Is that some excuse for sex?

“Nobody would accept that women could marry more than one man.” Read some anthropology. If men can do it, women can do it.

“No moral law” in pre-Islamic Arabia? Really? There were Jewish and Christian tribes all over Arabia. They both had strict moral codes. You are showing your ignorance in a big, big way.

I don’t want to discuss anything with you any more. You are being dishonest. You are giving a bad name to Islam.

 

[Picky_Picky]

You’ll have to be more specific.

We see in the scriptures of all three Abrahamic religions old men taking multiple wives, or adding a second, younger wife, taken from the servants’ quarters, perhaps, as the old man’s bed companion. Sometimes this happens it seems at God’s prompting. This is not pleasant to modern ears. I am wondering how in practice Tradition helps us understand this in a different, more acceptable, way?

 

[ffg]

Hi Picky,

Initial reaction in a general sense is that where a servant is ‘taken’, there are some details that help with understanding a purpose more than ‘bed companion’. So then from the later Christian understanding (my perspective), the event would be used to show how that purpose explains then a later event (perhaps the resulting child’s life).

So I’m thinking of a situation where wife says to husband in OT, ‘I can no longer bear fruit, but God wants another, I’m ok with you taking my servant (insert name).’

Then in putting puzzles pieces together, we learn why that kid was needed- that child was king of xxxxxx.

Take care,

Mike

 

[hasantas]

I’ve read the hadiths–different translations, many times. I think you should to. “not literally beating”? Her skin turned green from bruising. Sounds like a serious beating to me.

What is a “valid hadith”? One you like? If you think a hadith is not valid, you need to show me why–not just your personal opinion.

Wake up. You are single-handedly turning me away from Islam. Congratulations.

Yes. It is a bit childish with you.

Salam!

 

[hasantas]

The issue I raised, hasantas, was the question of why the ‘order of life’ seems to be a legitimisation of the needs (which may or may not include lust) of old men - it was interesting that the post from which I took the phrase showed no thought at all about the interests (which may or may not include lust) of women, whether child, young, middle aged or old. Our ‘order of life’ being settled by what appears to be the needs of old men, I take it.

Now, it may seem perfectly natural to you that the lives of half the human race should be given up to being actresses in some male drama but at least be honest about it.

I think I could not explain exactly because of poor English. What I mean with “order of life” is not interest in need of Muhammad. But orders which Islam involve to organise according to Islam. There is a way of marriage which is suitable for Islam. There are some issues which concern just women according to Islam. Islam has a distinct Fıqh for women and wives of Muhammad conveyed those orders which they had been taught by prophet. Otherwise there was no any reason for need of prophet but there was need for Muslim women to learn specific orders.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi Picky,

Initial reaction in a general sense is that where a servant is ‘taken’, there are some details that help with understanding a purpose more than ‘bed companion’. So then from the later Christian understanding (my perspective), the event would be used to show how that purpose explains then a later event (perhaps the resulting child’s life).

So I’m thinking of a situation where wife says to husband in OT, ‘I can no longer bear fruit, but God wants another, I’m ok with you taking my servant (insert name).’

Then in putting puzzles pieces together, we learn why that kid was needed- that child was king of xxxxxx.

Take care,

Mike

Hi Mike, good to talk to you.

I understand your point. Does it not sound a bit to you like doing evil that good may come of it, though?

Picky

 

[hasantas]

How ironic; Your faith tradition described from your book (Quran), that the Christian Trinity consists of the Father, Son and the Virgin Mary. Your book never describes the correct Trinity of persons. How can the Quran be so far off as to misunderstand the Christian Trinity? When the Christian Trinity divine revelation long existed before Muhammad was ever born.

It is understandable why you are unable to see, that Christians believe only in ONE GOD and no other.

The Catholic Sacred Tradition which is living in all ages, possesses the Paraclete whom Jesus sends to us, who helps us understand and discern divine revelation of God’s presence in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Our Sacred Tradition supported by Holy Writ maintains that God’s Essence does not come down to us. It appears that your faith Tradition is forcing such a misconception of the presence of God in Trinity of persons. It is here where our Catholic faith from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is inspired of God, who gives us understanding and discernment of the Spiritual realities described in Spiritual terms.

In essence, without the Holy Spirit we are unable to discern the spiritual realities that only God wills to reveal to our humanity.

The reason God sends His only begotten Son to us is Love. God incarnate in presence does not violate God’s creation laws. Logically, If God in true Essence eternity, were to appear to us, creation and time would cease to exist. Because Eternity would over come time and space in an instant. That is why the Word of God became flesh, incarnated in the presence of Jesus Christ humanity.

I believe if we were to charter into logical understandings, by taking baby steps towards the divine revelation of the Trinity, without resisting the Holy Spirit. God will teach us and reveal His Love to both you and me, from God’s presence in (The) Eternity = Father, Creation and time= Son, and the present = Holy Spirit.

Peace be with you

Qur’an does not tell Trinity is consist of Mary, Jesus and God. Qur’an says do not take Maryam and Jesus as lords beside God. Some Christian had ascribed divine attributions for Maryam. And also Qur’an(God) say same thing for another situation which is interest in our topic:

31- They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.
At-Tawbah(9)

Yes Qur’an tell very true. Some people took their scholars as lords beside God and their scholars establish a new faith for them. But only God can establish faith! And their scholars(whom were taken as lords beside God) can add and revoke from religion! But only God can establish religion!

Qur’an did not misunderstand Trinity but Qur’an correct all paganist thoughts.

Muslims think Paraclete(Faraclit original) was Muhammad. Faraclit means who distinct between right and wrong. Muhammad did.

Holy Spirit is not always on the world to lead people. Holy Spirit came to Muhammad. Holy Spirit is not supporter of sacred tradition neither of crusades and inquisition.

Eternal essence of God is always out and beyond of time. Eternal essence create time and matter and can effect and manifest. Eternity never incarnate into mortal! That is so simple.

 

[Kaninchen]

We see in the scriptures of all three Abrahamic religions old men taking multiple wives, or adding a second, younger wife, taken from the servants’ quarters, perhaps, as the old man’s bed companion. Sometimes this happens it seems at God’s prompting. This is not pleasant to modern ears. I am wondering how in practice Tradition helps us understand this in a different, more acceptable, way?

Well, this is how the question of tradition impacts.

Looking at Judaism and reading the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) is a bit like looking at a country, reading its constitution and thinking that’s everything you need to know about its government and how people live their lives. For example, you’d think that people were being stoned all over the place in Biblical times when, in fact, it was rather difficult to get yourself executed.

In the case of countries, they develop legislation, case law precedent, law libraries, legal experts, legal studies . . . . and much the same happened in Judaism, it was/is called Oral Torah and a similar process of understanding ethical monotheism, how to live a ‘good’ life, continues to this day (it’s where the “two Jews, three opinions” comes from).

Now, the Torah has prescriptions about polygamy that applied at the ‘Bronze Age tribes stage’ of Judaism but that’s not the original ‘marriage’ model, the original precedent is it?

 

[Kaninchen]

I think I could not explain exactly because of poor English. What I mean with “order of life” is not interest in need of Muhammad. But orders which Islam involve to organise according to Islam. There is a way of marriage which is suitable for Islam. There are some issues which concern just women according to Islam. Islam has a distinct Fıqh for women and wives of Muhammad conveyed those orders which they had been taught by prophet. Otherwise there was no any reason for need of prophet but there was need for Muslim women to learn specific orders.

It’s the ‘orders’ part that’s problematical though - while there are principles about how one should live one’s life that might be described as eternal, I doubt that walking around with a sack over your head (probably sensible for desert tribes) and being married off as a child to an old man are really what God would prescribe for modern urban Muslims.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, this is how the question of tradition impacts.

Looking at Judaism and reading the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) is a bit like looking at a country, reading its constitution and thinking that’s everything you need to know about its government and how people live their lives. For example, you’d think that people were being stoned all over the place in Biblical times when, in fact, it was rather difficult to get yourself executed.

In the case of countries, they develop legislation, case law precedent, law libraries, legal experts, legal studies . . . . and much the same happened in Judaism, it was/is called Oral Torah and a similar process of understanding ethical monotheism, how to live a ‘good’ life, continues to this day (it’s where the “two Jews, three opinions” comes from).

Now, the Torah has prescriptions about polygamy that applied at the ‘Bronze Age tribes stage’ of Judaism but that’s not the original ‘marriage’ model, the original precedent is it?

No. OK that’s interesting. Thanks.

Picky

 

[Erikaspirit16]

We see in the scriptures of all three Abrahamic religions old men taking multiple wives, or adding a second, younger wife, taken from the servants’ quarters, perhaps, as the old man’s bed companion. Sometimes this happens it seems at God’s prompting. This is not pleasant to modern ears. I am wondering how in practice Tradition helps us understand this in a different, more acceptable, way?

I’m going to quote Dei Verbum, Vatican II: “…the books of scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

Think about that for a second. Now answer this question: Are stories in the Old Testament that talk about men taking 2nd wives or 1,000 concubines “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writing for the sake of salvation”? Can you tell me how taking multiple wives is “for the sake of salvation”? I don’t think you can. So, although this stuff–and much more–is part of a revealed book, I think you need to look beyond the literal meaning for “truth.” You’d have to look at specific cases for specific answers, but I would suggest that the “truth” might be something like this: God wants you to have children. God is going to look after you. God’s motives/actions are sometimes beyond your understanding. Certainly I would look with great suspicion on anyone who suggested that the “truth” was that you should have more than one wife or that you should cheat on your wife.

 

[Michael68]

Sacred Scripture is Sacred Tradition