Get your facts straight please. Mass was in Latin so that parishioners were dependent on the priesthood for interpretation. A medieval church goer would be told how to feel about religion, differing opinion was suppressed, often violently. Much deviation was a result of the conversion process, the Catholic Church bending interpretation to appeal to local taste. The Catholic Church was often competing with the Arian heresy when converting Germanic tribes. Some were Arian Christians first and converted to Catholicism hundreds of years later. The Franks are a very good example of this. In other cases, such as the Angles and Saxons, the church was competing with Arianism for converts. And never forget: nobody cared what the peasants thought. They were told to believe in whatever their rulers believed in. And that would be the way of things right up until the 19th century. Freedom of religion is a modern concept.Quote:
Aspects of theology will always be debated. Defining how to interpret the trinity was a nightmare for the early church. The Roman government felt the need to intervene, in order to establish an Orthodoxy, in the extra-biblical Nicene Creed. Even defining what was Orthodox scripture took considerable time. The bible makes no mention of how to establish a Christian priesthood. The bible is not the end of all things, but the beginning. Theological debate begins with the bible and ends with how one interprets it and how ritual is established. Scripture comes from a place in time, can be interpreted in historical context, and interpretation changes over time. But scripture plays such a key role that it can not be removed from the discussion, they are to important. Abrahamic religions can not be defined without the religious texts.
For the record I am Jewish, not Christian. I do not believe in the New Testament. Revelations is bad ass though. I approve
Last edited by Kaiten; February 05, 2012 at 02:10 PM.
I'm not sure what's exactly the point of debate here(checked back 3 pages and still couldn't find faint's original post on this topic), but from what i got i think you two are talking about 2 different things. I don't think faint is actually saying that books of abrahamic religion are not of any concern when it comes to researching them, what he's probably saying is that books are not what can define those religions. What kaiten's saying about books being the context here is also correct. However saying that books are the context in which the religions have to be discussed sort of sound like saying "what's written in the book(or derived from it) is the religion, and what's not from there is not part of that religion". This can't be true from a pov of a historian/social scientist...he'd have to count in the rituals/acts-done-in-the-name-of-the-religion which are arguably not supported by the book, when he's trying to discuss the religion. However even from that angle, books are a context...since how those rituals got internalized with those that came from the book, and how the book itself was influenced are crucial factors. So if kaiten is not insisting that acts-outside-of-books can't be included in defining a religion, and if faint is not insisting that books can't be ignored to understand the context(despite other factors)...then i think you guys are talking about pretty much the same thing.
Being a Muslim, I can understand why the believers would insist on the point that any act which is not supported by the book is not to be taken as part of the religion. A few pages earlier, whether honor killing is islamic or not was being discussed. As a muslim, i'd say its not...since it has not come from the Quran. In fact if anyone cites this as a criticism against Islam, it'd be a theological criticism and it must be answered as such, that is the Quran (and Hadith) will have to be taken as the sole determinants of whether its really a part of Islam or not. Same is true for the other religions of book. However, if a historian/anthropologist/social scientist bring in honor killing as a part of his discussion on Islam, i can't fault him (Same for other religions). What i'd oppose to is if anyone says that it's come from the Quran, or that its what Islam approves...cause these are, as i've said before, theological points(and are not correct). But the existance of honor killing in some sects of Muslims is a fact, which is why a anthropological/historical discussion of Islam would include them(something out of the books). But even then the books will be a context, since the anthropological explanation will have to probe in the point about how it came into practice in a Muslim society.
Alright i guess i am mostly talking to ppl who havent read QUran or the hadith so i was a bit appalled.(aprt from dark lord, asher and kaiten )
In Islam if you are innovating a habbit and making it as a religious liturgy is a sin
its called BIDAH or innovation of religious acts.
any acts that claims to be pertaining to religion needs to be from the 1)QUran main primary source of Islam
2)Hadith/Sunnah second primary source of Islam
3)Ijmah the scholarly concensus comming from QUran or sunnah if the prior 2 wasnt used then that is not a source of Islam
4)Qias analogy ie analogies between a currect problem to the problems in hte Quran and sunnah and deriving a proper solution of it, it coes hand in had with Ijmah
NO other sources are there in Islam
IF a muslim is doing an act that s not islamic that doesnt make Islam to be what its not rather that makes the guy to be a lesser of a Muslim
culture and ethics plays a big part in our day to day life but in Islam it has nothing to do with religious duties
whether you are an Arab or bangladeshi like me or an african or american you need to pray salah; give certain amount of your wealth to poor ,zakah ; fast in the month of ramadan,sawm; nd perform Hajj if you can afford it
culture has barely any role to play in the religious affairs
if it does its considered as a bidah
Last edited by shaheer; February 07, 2012 at 01:13 PM.
A bit off topic here, being the first person who open this discussion topic 6 years ago, it was a nostalgic experience for me to visit this forum again..
Hope everyone here benefited from this discussion..
I am Christian Orthodox. It is a religion that has been made with influence primarily from St. Paul and his journey to the Balkans and the spreading of Christianity here. The Orthodox tradition also involves the splitting of the Roman Empire, the creation of the Byzantine Empire, the migration of the Slavic people from the north to the Balkans and the creation of the first University in Europe in the city of Ohrid by the lake, it was started by St. Clement with influence from the Holy Cyril and Methodius who created and spread the Cyrillic script from the Balkans to the rest of the Slavic people. The traditions mainly involve a non-violent religion based on family values and patriotism(tradition, history of the country). Not many people convert to it due to the religion being not that mainstream or keen on getting new followers, it is usually only present in the areas of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.
Orthodox was always a mystery to me. I never really understood clearly what exactly the schism was about compared to catholics and protestants. Beside the rituals, which are clearly different what exactly are the divergences.
For one, do you believe that apostates should be killed, as per the quran commands?
As it says here:
Qur'an 4:089: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper
And what about this quote, how do you feel about it?
Qur'an 2:191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
And what do you think about the blatant demonization of Jews in particular in the quran and other highly-regarded muslim texts?
Ishaq:240 "The Jews are a nation of liars.... The Jews are a treacherous, lying, and evil people
Qur'an 17:7 "We shall rouse Our (Muslim) slaves to shame and ravage you (Jews), disfiguring your faces. They will enter the Temple as before and destroy, laying to waste all that they conquer."
Qur'an 59:17 "Both [Jews and Satan] will go into the Fire of Hell, dwelling therein forever. Such is the reward of the Zalimun (disbelievers and polytheists)."
Last edited by 外国人; March 30, 2012 at 07:35 PM.
this verse is not talking abt apostasy rather its talking about the non believers, i am not particularly clear abt this verse if i find the exegesis i ll post it.Quote:
but as far as i know its not talking abt apostates
I feel that you should stop visiting Hate sites when you want to learn about a particular religion instead try the source.Quote:
try the verse before it to get an answer
the hadith subsequent to the verse of fight is Never kill elderly or children or women.Quote:
and the verse was revealed IN THE BATTLEFIELD, when the fight was ON the Muslims, Thats when the verse was revealed to slay the ones who fights you not every passerby who is a non muslim in the street. The verse is talking abt war, nd thats not self orchestrated ratehr when defensive measures are necessary
what else do you propose when say a foreign country comes to invade yours and rape your sisters and mothers?
give hamburger pizza and sodas to them or fight back?
where did you get this rubbish translation?Quote:
Quote:primarily you are misunderstanding the scripture, the verse says Both not JewsQuote:
secondarily both the Jews and the christians consider US muslims as non belivers who will dwell in hell fire. Christian Dogma asserts that the sacrifice of the lamb is the article of faith on which one can reach paradise so we the Musilm who believe otherwise are going to hell
same with the Jewish tradition even though there is a big similariy between the commandments to the 10 given to Moses in the Torah Yet we are considerred as non believers by the Jews as we are from Ishmaelites where as the covenant according to the TaNaKh is to the Issac, ergo we are not the chosen people
so another reason for us to go to Hell in Jewish tradition
Y then should Our traditions consider both christian an Jewish followers as people who will go to heaven ?
the key to heaven is primarily the belief in One god as the first commandment says in deutronomy(if i remember my bible) lord God is one
and along with it the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammed (saw) is to be affirmed
as Jews dont so they are non belivers
same with the christians and hindus
if we are not given the leasure of walking n the kingdom of God if we dont believe in the dogmas of OT and NT Y is it that we are expected to give the others that accolade?
firther more Even the christians and Jews are not compatible with each others belief, the OT NEVER claism that God is triune
in Gospel of John in the Logos of Philo we see the Word is given tremendous importance, the Johanine in 1 John 5:7 which is not presen in the present day Bible (NIV) claims that there are 3 that bears record in Heaven
if you dont believe me check the King james ver
this belief is strictly non Jewish as neither the Torah nor the Talmud affirms such, so to each others they are non believers
Jews dont believe in the sacrifice of the divine so from christian belief too Jews are condemned
and according to Judiac traditions so are the christian and Muslims
so whats all problematic with Quran?
it would be helpful if you give me the exact quotationQuote:
i couldnt find it, may be i am mistaken but i ask you to double check given that you have made some serious mistake with the translation concerning chapter 17
Last edited by shaheer; March 31, 2012 at 12:23 PM.
religion just damages people! look at how many deads it has been making. is it really so important to die? were those who invented it so smart to be right? I won't believe that,as Martin luther said,I refuse to agree with people who have changed sides so many times!
well this is nt an argument, the second world war possibly the bloodiest in the history has NOTING to do with any religious issue it was a secular war (had no religious ulterior motives) the cold war following it is another example of peoples oppression which has nothing to do with religion.Quote:
The purge of Communism where religious minded people were killed right and left was done by people who didnt believe in God
The nationalistic chaos and war one of which MY own country suffered and left behind thousands and thousands of dead had nothing to do with religion
if you want to point at the death and then say religion is bad then its not possible. Because lately most of the war comes from secular reasons like nationalism or war plays by powerful nations etc.
its the disposition of man to wage war,
yes religion is used as a tool sometimes but that doesnt mean that the religion is bad, you need to look into the religion to see whether this is being sanctioned by the religion or is it being done by the ppl who has their own act to grind
In the light of current festivities, I'd like to know what meaning Jesus and especially his crucifixion has for the non christians, especially on the personal/feeling part, not as much what is written in the books - that is if you want to talk about it
Well as a Muslim i submit to the view that Jesus was not crucified, the Quran is perfectly clear when it proclaims that Jesus was not crucified hence no resurrection.
and i feel the need to add that Jesus is claimed to be as a prophet in Islam not as a God
Jesus Moses Muhammed Abraham Noah Jeremiah John the baptist ect are all prophet in Islamic views
God becoming ManGod to redeem sins is absent in Islam.
Quran speaks almost in similar language as the Old testament says in Ezekiel that if a wicked man turns away from the sins he will be forgiven (paraphrasing)
nd hence repentance is from ones own self not from a vicarious atonement(in Islam)
Last edited by shaheer; April 11, 2012 at 04:08 AM.