Well people do often assume positions are Biblical or Quranic when they aren't. Reducing religion to a text misunderstands the actual function of religion within society.
A case in point is the Christian opposition to abortion which isn't actually rooted in a religious text, but in pagan philosophy. But because the non-Biblical teachings of Aristotle were influential among educated Christians, they still became a part of the Christian cultural tradition, and both Christians and secularists regard the Christian opposition to abortion as religious. Is it? I think it is, because they're referring to a system of standards that religious Christians themselves identify with Christianity. (I'm talking about religious pro-lifers here, not secular ones.)
Rather than pagan texts could the position against abortion not be from Biblical prohibition against killing? The Ten Commandments do state that "Thou shalt not kill". No matter where one stands on the issue, a life, or potential life, is taken when abortion is preformed. The Pro-Life stance is that a fetus is alive from the moment of conception, therefore abortion is killing and a violation of the fifth commandment. From the pro-life perspective claims that life does not begin until after the third trimester is a matter of semantics. Whatever the state of the fetus during early pregnancy at the very least it will be a living thing, and the abortion process takes that life away before it has the opportunity to begin. Killing by definition.
Please elaborate on the term "pagan". Pagan is not a religion or a culture but a pejorative for any number of ancient faiths not of the Judaic-Christian-Islamic continuum. If by chance anti-abortion sentiment came from non-Christian sources, rather than the Ten Commandments prohibition of killing, what is the source? Scottish Celtic? Gaul? Could it be from Irish Celtic, Zoroastrianism, The Cult of Ishtar, or some other source?
While I am not pro-life they do present a logical argument that should be taken far more seriously than it generally is.
What is 'funny' is that generally those against abortion are for death penalty while those for abortion are against death penalty. In both case, there is somehow a contradiction with the 'you shall not kill'...
The pope is against contraception in general. For catholic church, sex is just for reproduction purpose. So it is the relation between sex and catholic faith which should rather be a subject of discussion. The pope is coherent with the position of the church for the last 2000 years. It won't be changed that easily unfortunatly
Problem is, the Pope and Church need to keep up with current times. Sure, it wouldn't as bad forbidding condoms centuries ago when (assuming this) there wasn't as many free sex. Now though, people are more likely to have sex with different people, so even if it blocks reproduction, it's better to allow condoms.
Problem is, the Pope and Church need to keep up with current times. Sure, it wouldn't as bad forbidding condoms centuries ago when (assuming this) there wasn't as many free sex. Now though, people are more likely to have sex with different people, so even if it blocks reproduction, it's better to allow condoms.
Religion weren't made (omg yes I used that word) for modern times, modern norms, modern values. Therefore to us the Catholic way is an outdated way. If the Curia allowed condoms they would indirectly promote non-reproductive sex which would go against Catholic values so alas they don't.
Rather than pagan texts could the position against abortion not be from Biblical prohibition against killing? The Ten Commandments do state that "Thou shalt not kill". No matter where one stands on the issue, a life, or potential life, is taken when abortion is preformed.
Well it gets reinterpreted as such to place it in a Christian moral framework, and its true that abortion was illegal in Hammurabi's code. Nonetheless the traditional theological stance on abortion was informed by Aristotle, and not based upon any prohibition the Bible. As scientific knowledge of pregnancy and prenatal development increased, Christians maintained the Aristotelian stance against killing foetuses. (And of course it isn't a 'potential life', its either there and biologically alive and biologically distinct from its mother, or it's not.)
The Pro-Life stance is that a fetus is alive from the moment of conception, therefore abortion is killing and a violation of the fifth commandment.
They might say so, and it makes sense within a Christian moral framework but its a position that only made sense after the relatively recent discovery of ova in dogs and the invention of pregnancy tests. Before that all that was assumed was that life began after the first menses were blocked and before the blocking of the second menses during gestation so that abortions did not necessarily equal killing, but deliberate foeticide was never justified or socially acceptable except in extraordinary circumstances, and foeticide was never rationalised with anything like today's 'pro-choice' language.
It doesn't change that historically Christian and Jewish theologians were influenced by Aristotle. Who was in turn probably influenced by widespread folk beliefs similar to those of early 20th century Germans, who didn't understand abortion immediately after the blocking of the first menses to be killing, but the unblocking of a period. (Before modern scientific knowledge, this actually made sense.) Here's some quotes from 'Cultures of Abortion in Weimar Germany' by Cornelie Usborne.
"The refusal of many female defendants in abortion investigations to recognize nascent life in their own body is also evident in the manner in which they attempted to bring on their period and in the unsentimental way they talked about and disposed of what they had expelled."
"If the period was abnormal, containing thick substances, the contents were described as 'little clots of blood' or s 'longish pieces of flesh' and likened to animal or plant shapes: 'like a chickens egg' or a 'blood clot the size of a small apple'. Rarely did they conceive of what had been had been expelled as an embryo, let alone a child, but they thought of it rather as a normal monthly period or as 'waste' to be disposed of unceremoniously: it was put into the chamber pot, thrown into the lavatory, or buried in the ground outside."
"In contrast to the strict treatment of the abortionists the court admitted mitigating circumstances for all the aborting women by granting them the benefit of the doubt as to whether they had actually been pregnant at the time of the operation. As the judge explained, this was because all Frau Kastner's clients without exception had sought her help at a very early stage in the menstrual cycle when 'even a physician can hardly diagnose with any degree of certainty whether a conception has taken place'."
The fact that Aristotle was influenced by folk beliefs that were once widespread, doesn't change his influence upon the educated Christian theological attitudes of which religious pro-life arguments are an update.
From the pro-life perspective claims that life does not begin until after the third trimester is a matter of semantics. Whatever the state of the fetus during early pregnancy at the very least it will be a living thing, and the abortion process takes that life away before it has the opportunity to begin. Killing by definition.
Of course they're correct, it is semantics. Not only Christians deceive themselves with language lol.
The word 'life' refers to biology or the word is meaningless, same as with 'human being' (a pre-human would be an australopithecine, not a stage in prenatal development lol). Although it could also be argued that, before gastrulation, its too difficult to think of the prenatal human organism in terms of an individual whose rights can be recognised by law, even though its obviously not a part of its mother before then.
But whatever arguments might be made for unusual circumstances, or criticism might be made of religious and secular pro-lifers (especially the 'right to life' subset of them), there's no value whatsoever in pro-choice arguments, its just a series of daft arguments that are appealing to people but don't actually make sense. Either way the debate often seems to be about whether the more reasonable exceptions justify abortion in non-extraordinary cases or not (and anyone saying they do is using a fallacious non-sequitur argument, because by the same thinking someone could say the need for the death penalty justifies killing anyone).
Please elaborate on the term "pagan". Pagan is not a religion or a culture but a pejorative for any number of ancient faiths not of the Judaic-Christian-Islamic continuum.
If by chance anti-abortion sentiment came from non-Christian sources, rather than the Ten Commandments prohibition of killing, what is the source? Scottish Celtic? Gaul? Could it be from Irish Celtic, Zoroastrianism, The Cult of Ishtar, or some other source?
I've already mentioned Aristotle and his view that no life (and he meant a separate biological life) was present before 40 days and supported in The Politics the right of the state to regulate and prohibit abortion.
"If contrary to these arrangements copulation does take place and a child is conceived, abortion should be procured before the embryo has acquired life and sensation; the presence of life and sensation will be the mark of division between right and wrong here." - Aristotle
Aristotle had a huge influence upon the church but here's some more on the attitudes within the Classical civilization to which Christianity became adapted, from "Private morality in Greece and Rome: some historical aspects" by W. den Boer, to show the wider background of Classical attitudes.
---------- Post added February 05, 2012 at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was February 04, 2012 at 10:58 PM ----------
Some eugenicists do, but with human nature being what it is, that's going too far IMO. If people will have extramarital sex, its at least better that they don't spread diseases whilst they're doing it.
What is 'funny' is that generally those against abortion are for death penalty while those for abortion are against death penalty. In both case, there is somehow a contradiction with the 'you shall not kill'...
I've wondered about this, and whether it can be explained in terms of the 'five moral impulses'. A clue might exist in my observation that by the same thinking which says that abortion in general can be justified by special exceptions, anyone can be killed if society justifies the death penalty.
I wrote elsewhere here about five (now six) 'moral impulses' and about how two (now three) of them are associated with liberal political positions and the other three with conservative ones.
Opposition to abortion has been found to most strongly associate with one of the 'conservative' impulses, of purity/sanctity (this sounds religious, but actually has more to do with the 'my body is a temple' attitude), whilst liberals tend to base their morality upon sympathy towards and empathy with others. In order to protect the 'rights' of rape victims, for example, they feel a need to place her interests before the 'rights' of the foetus. However, the foetus is clearly innocent of any crime that created it and liberals dislike unfairness, so foetuses in general are dehumanised using language like labelling them as 'parasites' or 'a bundle of cells', whilst the selfish motivations for abortion are rationalised with language such as "Every child a wanted child". If they recognised the rights of foetuses, then they wouldn't be able to justify the exceptions. This is why the abortion debate is essentially about whether the extraordnary cases can define the general rule.
Conservatives don't feel motivated by the same moral impulses so they don't feel a need to justify killing criminals when they're human, because criminals have violated the rules of society so 'rights' don't apply. And the problem of false convictions which often horrifies the left doesn't sway the right so much, because they place lower emphasis upon upholding the 'rights' of every individual.
(It must be pointed out that the impulses determine which kinds of arguments someone is most likely to find appealing, so they affect peoples moral stances indirectly. And people have all five moral impulses to differing degrees, so I'm generalising here and I do realise that not all conservatives or liberals think alike, and that not are all people either liberal or conservative. For example libertarians score relatively low on all impulses. I'm just reflecting that most of the research took place within an American context and its relevant to the different positions people take about abortion and the death penalty.)
1) Care/harm:This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. 2) Fairness/cheating:This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. 3) Liberty/oppression:This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. 4) Loyalty/betrayal:This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one." 5) Authority/subversion:This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions. 6) Sanctity/degradation:This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
Somehow I doubt the world view of the average Christian Pro-Life American is built around dog ova and Aristotle. Rather I think the simple, logical answer is correct: teh bible says no killing things, fetus are things, therefore we don't kill teh fetus. Considering that the biblical source is considerably older than Hellenistic Greece and Aristotle we can safely assume that the bible's prohibition on killing was not particularly influenced by Aristotle.
Judaic-Christian-Islamic faith can not be separated from holy text. To do so would be a fallacy, a fundamental misunderstanding of these religions. The logos, the word, is fundamental to worship. The word is fundamental to understanding. Each religion is the book, and the book is the religion. They can not be separated in any way, shape, or form. While the bible is not the direct word of god it is the word. An understanding of god can only be reached through the word and the word can only be found in the book. Unlike the bible, the Quran is the word of Allah, dictated by the Archangel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. The Quran is a miracle unto itself. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity must be discussed in the context of the Torah, Bible, and Quran. That is how these religions define themselves and any counter-argument is invalid. The word defines these religions, the word is contained in scripture, scripture defines Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This has to be accepted as fact.
What is 'funny' is that generally those against abortion are for death penalty while those for abortion are against death penalty. In both case, there is somehow a contradiction with the 'you shall not kill'...
Let us not forget that in the same book of the Bible that prohibits killing god slaughters the first born son of every Egyptian family. There seems to have always been some acts of violence that are forbidden, others that are accepted. Murder has always been a crime but the state has long had the power to execute criminals, and before that vendetta killings were allowed. War is not treated as a sin but people are still killed. To me it seems that there is a psychological disconnect in the minds of most people, between permissible killing and criminal killing. We do need to remember that there are a large number of pacifist religious groups that are anti-war and anti-capitol punishment too.
The pope is against contraception in general. For catholic church, sex is just for reproduction purpose. So it is the relation between sex and catholic faith which should rather be a subject of discussion. The pope is coherent with the position of the church for the last 2000 years. It won't be changed that easily unfortunatly
Maybe it will not change but many, many of the churches parishioners are suffering and dying due to AIDS. The Catholic church has a very strong presence in Africa, devastated by the AIDS virus.
Somehow I doubt the world view of the average Christian Pro-Life American is built around dog ova and Aristotle. Rather I think the simple, logical answer is correct: teh bible says no killing things, fetus are things, therefore we don't kill teh fetus. Considering that the biblical source is considerably older than Hellenistic Greece and Aristotle we can safely assume that the bible's prohibition on killing was not particularly influenced by Aristotle.
No one said it was, but the Bible has very little to say about abortion. Nor did anyone suggest that all opposition to abortion is Aristotelian, but theological arguments against abortion are derived from Aristotle.
Judaic-Christian-Islamic faith can not be separated from holy text. To do so would be a fallacy, a fundamental misunderstanding of these religions.
By such a standard as you're using, the word religion could only apply to 'religions of the book'.
Whereas the real story of Christianity and Islam is the revaluation of the religion to specific times and places, often including the adoption or rationalization of practices contrary to the holy text. This is the understanding of historians of religion.
The logos, the word, is fundamental to worship. The word is fundamental to understanding. Each religion is the book, and the book is the religion. They can not be separated in any way, shape, or form. While the bible is not the direct word of god it is the word. An understanding of god can only be reached through the word and the word can only be found in the book. Unlike the bible, the Quran is the word of Allah, dictated by the Archangel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. The Quran is a miracle unto itself. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity must be discussed in the context of the Torah, Bible, and Quran. That is how these religions define themselves and any counter-argument is invalid. The word defines these religions, the word is contained in scripture, scripture defines Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This has to be accepted as fact.
And yet in practice people interpret it how they like, assume things are in there that aren't and ignore the parts which they don't like.
Let us not forget that in the same book of the Bible that prohibits killing god slaughters the first born son of every Egyptian family. There seems to have always been some acts of violence that are forbidden, others that are accepted. Murder has always been a crime but the state has long had the power to execute criminals, and before that vendetta killings were allowed. War is not treated as a sin but people are still killed. To me it seems that there is a psychological disconnect in the minds of most people, between permissible killing and criminal killing.
Well different groups operate upon different moral impulses, and people can judge differently based upon the same moral impulses, but I was explaining the two opposing, commonly held but superficially inconsistent opinions that k-dom mentioned, not trying to explain all the possible opinions people might have.
Yes, I was in catechism for years until I got confirmed. I will not badmouth religion for the good it does, that's silly, but it's entire belief system isn't one I can get behind.
I'm not exactly sure what is really learned from Job's story, because it's one of the most ridiculous and puzzling ones in the Bible. God allows his righteous follower to be punished to prove that Job wasn't only faithful to him because of his prosperity. That's all well and good, but Job does break and curses God, so what did God really prove to satan by doing so? That he was wrong? Or is this simply a case of God being infallible? I don't know, it's puzzling.
---------- Post added at 02:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 AM ----------
Of course, it's to make the Bible and faith more appealing. In a strict anthropological sense, religions are a product of their environments.
I was answering you with questions, actually. It was also late too.
What I learned is this:
Satan is a sore loser.
When it seemed like God has totally destroyed someone's life, most likely, Satan has a hand in it.
There comes a time when a believer's faith will be severely tested.
When God restores, He doubles the compensation for material lost, restore an equal amount of any lives lost and increased the beauty of any woman/female lost.
In addition, what I really pondered was how did Job developed his character in such a way that he was able to say, "should we accept only good from God and not evil?" Before saying this, Job blessed the Lord after he lost all livestock, all children and all servants except 4. That's powerful. As a believer, it should force one to reflect if one has a similar faith and walk with God.
For some people, when bad things happen, they whine, cry about it and even curse God. Job, instead, blessed the Lord. Job's reverence for God wasn't all show, but it was real. Is your faith nothing or is it something? Of course this is a self-analytical question for all believers.
What happened to Job proved his character. Now I'm sure that you are familiar with the verse that goes "[God] has refined you in the furnace of affliction/suffering." Isaiah 48:10, right? Going through hard times might build character. It might teach a person what is truly valuable in life. The book of Job is one of those books that's really good to contemplate upon I think.
It could mean nothing more that life is often cruel and there is no real rhyme or reason behind it. Job may well be an attempt to say that life is unfair and that to is god's will.
Really good point of view Kaiten. Life is cruel and unfair at times. All we could do is cope with it and keep moving forward even when friends comes to bad mouth. I guess that's also time to forgive them and find real friends.
How far back is your post? I'm thinking here I might be taking your post the wrong way.
A religion should be defined. If not, a problem might crop up. A folk religion or an informal version of a religion, where it's more superstitious, might crop up. This pertain to people only believing to reap the benefits but not the consequences of a religion. In this folk religion, aspects of other religions or beliefs might be included such as fortune telling, charms and other practices that promote good luck.
Then again, I can't say for sure what you meant by "living religion" v. "defining religions by holy text." The holy text are paramount to any well-established religion.
Is that why he put one of his followers through torture just to prove the faith his follower had in him? No benevolent person would subject others to cruel life just to prove a point, evne if he does reward them at the end.
If he still loved us, then he wouldn't send us to hell, he'd forgive us for any mistakes and send us to heaven.
By causing the flood, he basically took away free will, something he allowed, even if for few decades or so. He never gave us free will or whatever like he claims, as we go to hell for not believing in him or him being able to kill us if we don't do what he likes.
Simply design and purpose. Basically, Job's purpose was to suffer because of Satan and Job's life being record for future generations. Cold, I know, but vital in understanding the walk with God. Job didn't just lived for himself, but Job lived so that some of us might gain understanding from his account. The important thing was that Job overcame, but even that in itself segues into another topic that might be too Biblically difficult for some here. I'm refraining from going there.
But I still don't understand how you drew your conclusion that God took freewill away when the world was flooded? Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that God took away freewill. Of course, God had to intervene during the time of Noah because man would've destroyed himself. What God did with the Flood was basically hit the reset button.
There seems to be another misunderstanding concerning the Biblical concept of freewill and repentance in relation to Heaven and Hell. Relationship determines destination. Therefore, by a person's relation to God, he/she has already determines where he/she is going.
Repentance goes further than simply asking for forgiveness. Repentance, as defined in a dictionary, is to turn away from or go in the opposite direction.
For some people, it's not so much about the destination that they care about, but it's how God can positively impact their life? By asking this question, a person might be able to determine God's worth and answer why should a person believe in God. One could also say, it's part of a person's search for absolute truth/being/reality.
Going to Heaven isn't as easy as what people thought. Just like other countries, Heaven has an immigration policy. There are immigration qualifications to meet before a person could successfully immigrate to Heaven.
A little bit about Biblical salvation and the concept of sin and death. One of the aspect of God is life. Sin caused a separate between man and God. Separation from God or life means death. Therefore Biblically speaking, any man and woman, will wound up in Hell.
About salvation and faith: Jesus Christ was that bridge that reconciled man and God, but it required faith. A person has to believe it to be true. It's easy for children but not so with adults. The issue is credibility as to did Jesus Christ really rose from the dead? The significance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ displayed the act of death being swallowed up in victory. If a person does not believe that Jesus Christ rose back from the dead, a person doubts God's ability to swallow up death in victory. Without faith, God can't do anything for a person. God might want to help but he's being prevent by lack of faith.
So yes, a person will go to hell for not believing because that person didn't give God room to work in that person's life. Even, I wouldn't want to work for someone that don't have faith in my abilities.
Lastly, it is Biblical for God to do whatever he well please. So if you were created to be an instrument of wrath, God will pour His wrath on you like that Pharaoh in Egypt. (And you thought Job had it bad as a believer. Ouch.) But, technically by freewill, you could also change that outcome if you humbled yourself before God. I suppose the opposite could also be true.
---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 PM ----------
Problem is, the Pope and Church need to keep up with current times. Sure, it wouldn't as bad forbidding condoms centuries ago when (assuming this) there wasn't as many free sex. Now though, people are more likely to have sex with different people, so even if it blocks reproduction, it's better to allow condoms.
Religion was a way to confer values that had more importance than others. These values are not out of date. It's that their values are no longer important to people. Now for people i.e. clergy, I think many of them has failed in regards to make the Biblical values relevant in today's society. They say don't do this but fail to elaborate why or what the consequences might be?
My thoughts on condoms: in a high rape location, I think at least women should be allowed to wear an anti-rape condom.
---------- Post added at 11:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------
No one said it was, but the Bible has very little to say about abortion. Nor did anyone suggest that all opposition to abortion is Aristotelian, but theological arguments against abortion are derived from Aristotle.
Is it?
By such a standard as you're using, the word religion could only apply to 'religions of the book'.
Whereas the real story of Christianity and Islam is the revaluation of the religion to specific times and places, often including the adoption or rationalization of practices contrary to the holy text. This is the understanding of historians of religion.
And yet in practice people interpret it how they like, assume things are in there that aren't and ignore the parts which they don't like.
"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception" - Carl Schmitt
Well different groups operate upon different moral impulses, and people can judge differently based upon the same moral impulses, but I was explaining the two opposing, commonly held but superficially inconsistent opinions that k-dom mentioned, not trying to explain all the possible opinions people might have.
The notion that a person can interpret the Bible or another Holy Text as one please is fallacy and leads to heresies. Careful understanding is needed through the utilization of hermeneutics and exegesis. Without these tools, people would err due to taking things out of context.
If a person did not adhere to the entirety would only affirm that the person was never a true adherer to the, say Bible. That's kind of saying I believe in one all powerful God, but I don't believe in the supernatural. Self-delusion.
By such a standard as you're using, the word religion could only apply to 'religions of the book'.
Whereas the real story of Christianity and Islam is the revaluation of the religion to specific times and places, often including the adoption or rationalization of practices contrary to the holy text. This is the understanding of historians of religion.
'People of the Book' is the correct phrase. And they are religions of the book. The books are integral parts of the religion. Changes in religious view must be discussed in terms of scripture. This is not a matter of debate. If you wish to discuss how western religion has evolved you must reference how interpretation of scripture has evolved over time. If you wish to discuss how pagan sources influenced the theology of western religion you must site scripture. If you wish to discuss the histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam you must reference how the history effected the writing of these texts. Scripture is so fundamental to what these religions are and what they were that any discussion must end immediately if they are ignored or marginalized. Much of the history of these religions is only known through scripture. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are inseperable from the word, the wisdom of god, the logos is contained in scripture, passed down from generation to generation for millenia.
You do not get to choose the terms on which a topic is discussed. If you wish to discuss a novel you must discuss the content of the novel. You can not make up your own story and discuss that instead, no matter how badly you want to. If you wish to discuss religion you must discuss the content of that religion. Scripture is as fundamental to western religion as plot is to a novel. To ignore scripture is the same as making up your own story. And that has no place in an intelligent conversation.
If you have any further questions please google "religions of the book" before posting.
Its not always easy to define a particular religion beyond people's social identities. Which was the most important in the lives of Anglo-Saxon Christians? Latin mass people didn't understand, or the animism they were also practicing whilst identifying as Christians and going to church? But they did go to church and they were certainly Christian.
The holy text are paramount to any well-established religion.
I was answering you with questions, actually. It was also late too.
What I learned is this:
Satan is a sore loser.
When it seemed like God has totally destroyed someone's life, most likely, Satan has a hand in it.
There comes a time when a believer's faith will be severely tested.
When God restores, He doubles the compensation for material lost, restore an equal amount of any lives lost and increased the beauty of any woman/female lost.
The satan in the story is not Lucifer, he's simply "the adversary". The foil to God's word. He's not who we generally accept Satan to be in modern times.
And yes, a lot of what is done to Job is not done by God himself, but he still allows it to happen, the verse says so itself. He humors the satan. Why would God do this? Toy with his most righteous follower to prove a point? That is the nonsensical part of the Book of Job.
'People of the Book' is the correct phrase. And they are religions of the book. The books are integral parts of the religion. Changes in religious view must be discussed in terms of scripture. This is not a matter of debate. If you wish to discuss how western religion has evolved you must reference how interpretation of scripture has evolved over time. If you wish to discuss how pagan sources influenced the theology of western religion you must site scripture. If you wish to discuss the histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam you must reference how the history effected the writing of these texts. Scripture is so fundamental to what these religions are and what they were that any discussion must end immediately if they are ignored or marginalized. Much of the history of these religions is only known through scripture. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are inseperable from the word, the wisdom of god, the logos is contained in scripture, passed down from generation to generation for millenia.
You do not get to choose the terms on which a topic is discussed. If you wish to discuss a novel you must discuss the content of the novel. You can not make up your own story and discuss that instead, no matter how badly you want to. If you wish to discuss religion you must discuss the content of that religion. Scripture is as fundamental to western religion as plot is to a novel. To ignore scripture is the same as making up your own story. And that has no place in an intelligent conversation.
If you have any further questions please google "religions of the book" before posting.
That's all true, but oftentimes you'll find things done or accepted by a religious order to be different or even contrary to what is said in scripture. In fact, sometimes you'll find contradictions in the scripture itself. You cited the slaughter of Egyptian firstborns yourself, does that not break the fifth commandment?
There are a ton of issues that religious orders have stances on, yet they aren't addressed in the Bible. Abortion is one. Yes, having one might be exactly the same as breaking the fifth commandment to the most fervent believers, but the majority of people in Western civilization don't equate it with murder.
Judaic-Christian-Islamic faith can not be separated from holy text. To do so would be a fallacy, a fundamental misunderstanding of these religions. The logos, the word, is fundamental to worship. The word is fundamental to understanding. Each religion is the book, and the book is the religion. They can not be separated in any way, shape, or form. While the bible is not the direct word of god it is the word
That may be one of the first time I agree with faint over you :-)
Your definition of religion and book really resemble a mathematical bijection which is really wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't be that many type of christian churchs based on the same book.
The catholic church was highly influenced by the former 'pagan' religions. The cult of the saint and the reliques in particular. Those are very fundamental for worshippers and have few to do with the text rather than folklore and superstition. And here I'm not speaking of the 'book religion' in africa. I should reread Amadou Kourouma, the interaction between Coran and animism were really well telled
'People of the Book' is the correct phrase. And they are religions of the book. The books are integral parts of the religion. Changes in religious view must be discussed in terms of scripture. This is not a matter of debate.
Only if you want to reduce the study of such religions to studying the history of theology alone, which would mean ignoring the broader study of religious life.
If you wish to discuss how western religion has evolved you must reference how interpretation of scripture has evolved over time. If you wish to discuss how pagan sources influenced the theology of western religion you must site scripture.
Any Catholic theologian will tell you that the Catholic position on abortion is not Biblical, but its still considered to be a matter for Catholic theologians.
If you wish to discuss the histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam you must reference how the history effected the writing of these texts. Scripture is so fundamental to what these religions are and what they were that any discussion must end immediately if they are ignored or marginalized. Much of the history of these religions is only known through scripture. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are inseperable from the word, the wisdom of god, the logos is contained in scripture, passed down from generation to generation for millenia.
The problem is this has nothing to do with a devout, churchgoing medieval peasant who couldn't understand Latin mass or scripture and believes in an animistic view of the natural world, like his polytheistic ancestors. Would he be a Christian or not in you're view? Because he was a Christian in his own opinion, and to the church itself.
Only if you want to reduce the study of such religions to studying the history of theology alone, which would mean ignoring the broader study of religious life.
Do not ever put words in my mouth again. I was merely responding to "Hence what I wrote earlier about living religion, as opposed to defining religions by holy text."You said that Abrahamic Religion can be defined without scripture, it is you who wish to remove theology from a theological discussion. Never once did I say that culture, history, time, and interpretation do not play a role in religion. Never once did I say that the Abrahamic Religions do not draw on non-Abrahamic sources. I simply said that scripture is so fundamental to Judaic-Christian-Islamic theology that the history, development, and interpretation of Western religion can not be done outside of the context of scripture. And they are not.
The problem is this has nothing to do with a devout, churchgoing medieval peasant who couldn't understand Latin mass or scripture and believes in an animistic view of the natural world, like his polytheistic ancestors. Would he be a Christian or not in you're view? Because he was a Christian in his own opinion, and to the church itself.
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.
That may be one of the first time I agree with faint over you :-)
Your definition of religion and book really resemble a mathematical bijection which is really wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't be that many type of christian churchs based on the same book.
The catholic church was highly influenced by the former 'pagan' religions. The cult of the saint and the reliques in particular. Those are very fundamental for worshippers and have few to do with the text rather than folklore and superstition. And here I'm not speaking of the 'book religion' in africa. I should reread Amadou Kourouma, the interaction between Coran and animism were really well telled
The Jewish religion developed three great innovations that guide it and it's successors. The first is monotheism of course. The second is linear time: there is a beginning, a middle, and an end of days. Cyclic time was rejected, time has a beginning in the creation and an end in revelations. The third is scripture. The ten commandments were a miracle , passed directly from god to Moses. Never before had a religion claimed that the wisdom of god could be found in the word, that god could be understood by study as well as ritual. This is a radical change, that spirituality could be reached by understanding, through intellect. As with any intellectual pursuit, understanding and interpretation are left to the individual (in theory) or individual culture. Religion can change to meet cultural needs, religion can meet the needs of the people. The Catholic Church can venerate the Saints, the Orthodox Church can retain their icons, and be equally Christian as both believe in the word, that the wisdom of god can be found in the bible and that salvation can be found in the Son, in believing that Jesus died for the salvation of humanity.
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
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.
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.
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
Why don't Christian Europeans have a taboo against eating pork like the Jews?
