DİNSEL ŞİDDET KAPSAMINDA METİN, BAĞLAM VE YORUM İLİŞKİSİ

Introduction and Purpose of the Study A heated discussion about whether sacred texts support and guides starts immediately after all acts of violence that appears likely to be religious origin in contemporary secular world. Whenever there are images or commandments of violence in sacred texts, it is witnessed that some religious people who accept these sacred texts as an authority tends to use violence or justify their violent action depending on them. However, it is a fact that sacred texts contain principles about violence; on the contrary, they also include messages about compassion, reconciliation, peace and love. So, here arises the crucial question that we must think about deeply and answer honestly: How does an individual decide / will decide which of these messages is determinant? Purpose of this study is to find an answer to this question. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework of the Study While shaping the conceptual and theoretical framework of our study, we address the differences between text and scripture in the first place. In this manner, in our opinion, the text are written sacred texts that we have now. Scripture is the context of the text, which formed throughout in a certain historical, geographical, cultural, traditional and linguistic environment. Interpreting a sacred text is shaped by the ideas imposed by a particular group (community / sect) or group leader. Sacred texts have an central importance in every religious tradition, especially those called Western Religions which are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There might be different factors that lead to abuse of sacred text which means abuse of religion itself. These factors are: Absolute claim of the truth, blind obedience, conceive of building an ‘ideal’ future, belief in ‘it is over’ and declaration of holy war. Some of these factors are mentioned briefly in our study. Method Our study is a descriptive study. Adherence to the principles of objectivity, it is tried to explain whether religious texts constitute a source for violence or not. We also did share views of some scientist and philosophers about this subject. Results and Discussion Although there are many different factors in the formation of religious feeling from sacred text and their interpretation, four basic understanding that we have reached can be discussed as a result of this study. First understanding is about individual relationships, emotions and mysterydimensional. People with this understanding are not interested in rationality, institutions and views of religious authorities. One and only authority for these people is scripture itself and there can be only one true and valid interpretation. Second understanding is about religious pluralism. Individual preferences are shaped in relation with holy and other individual. Sacred texts may have different meanings for different communities and needs. Interpreting is not very important and its purpose is to be a useful guidance for individuals even though it isn’t accepted universally. Third understanding is about rationality and institutions. Emotions and relationships have less importance for people with this understanding. These people either rejects or skeptical about mystery and irrational phenomena. According to this understanding, authority of the sacred text comes from a group, an institution or their limitations. Text may be subject to abstract and analytical reading and a result is induced accordingly. Fourth understanding is considered a harmony between other three which centers the human experience. Decisions are taken considering rational and wisdom, individual and institution at the same time. All of these understandings are about the relationship between the individual and text. However, the individuals who read the text are subjects dependent on the text, but also they live in a society, have certain historical and cultural background, have their own unique languages, and equipped with a certain interpretation power. Sacred texts in todays’ world are like Adam’s corpse without soul. Human who is cognizant that he’s equipped with a divine spirit and has a sense of responsibility must grant that ‘soul’. Conclusions and Recommendations Sacred texts have perfected in a long historical process and in interaction with certain historical conditions. As a natural consequence of that, sacred texts contains messages for peace and violence at the same time. It is essential for religions, or better say religious people, to interpret these texts in a way to solve people’s problems. As a requirement, verses about violence in these texts should be bracketed (epoché). By doing so, it is expected to reach the ‘essence’ of religion, which is Creator’s real goal: ultimate peace. God, man and scriptures are opposed to stability. Because God, human and scriptures are within life, alive and thus, they are in motion. For example, once Bible justified monarchy of the divine law, and today same Bible adapts to democracy. It is easy to find verses glorifying peace and promoting love but ten verses apart there are also verses glorifying and justifying violence. It is evident that, Bible, Gospels and Quran could have been read in different ways throughout history. Only fanatics can claim that there is one and unique interpretation for sacred texts only. But if all other interpretations are thought to be true at the same rate, the adoption of a particular interpretation of a text poses some difficulties. So, Holy as a whole, sacred texts, humans and contemporary era should be kept in mind while interpreting. In addition, against the terrorism, a modern virus, a peaceful bridge should be established. Which connects the text with human, and human with the text by union of fair and wise religious people. In terms of purpose‐vehicle relationship, scriptures are for humans, not the other way. Religious commentaries that will be made in our contemporary world should be within these understandings and should be based on tolerance and good faith and should be rescued from pragmatic approaches of policy. Maybe then,