|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted September 13, 2015 06:42 AM |
|
|
Neraus said:
Besides, I don't think it's possible to have a religion that doesn't profess that it's own path is the only true one... Or at least I think..
Actually, just like anything else in the history of religion, that totally depends on your social infrastructure. When people lived as small tribes and authority was at most their local chief whom they dealt with face to face, they thought Gods were also just like that, local authority figures who didnt care much what anybody else does. They couldnt care less about some other tribe's faith who lived hundreds of miles away. When Christian missionaries brought their faith to native Americans, they welcomed the myths of Adam and Eve, Noah etc with a warm heart and in good will, they "exchanged" their own. When the priests told them this was heresy and their faith was wrong, they were surprised at this hostile, weird behavior: "But we listened to your stories?"
It is no coincidence that all major religions and the very idea of monotheism emerge around the same time when the first big empires came into existence (made available by the use of iron and militarizing the horse) and the concept of "a single ruler over everywhere" was forced into people's mind, even though most of them never met their king or emperor. Authority figures and what united groups of people was transforming into something much more abstract. So many Gods of old pagan beliefs slowly evolved into local saints, demons, guardian angels etc. The Middle Eastern mythologies that was once part of the polytheistic local lore are the origins of the most stories that make the Abrahamic package. That is very accurately documanted today.
When it comes to disregarding other faiths Christianity and Islam are extreme, their ancestor, Judaism, was from a transition period so it's semi-local. It's monotheistic but it's not missionary, it's for a tribe, not everybody. Historically, there is not a piece of evidence that Jesus claimed universality either, historians put that on Saint Paul. I think Bernard Lewis summarizes the theological stance of Christianity and Islam the best: "I am right, you are wrong. Go to hell."
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 13, 2015 12:12 PM |
|
|
Ah, well, you see, I was talking about the modern times, I don't think and don't know if today we have cases of religions not professing that they possess the only truth, I mean, if we consider atheism as a religion, which depends on personal peOmeteotl ective whether to count that as a religion or not, you could say that they think that the truth of Christianity or Islam or whatever they oppose is not actually the truth.
Then there is a misconception here, that I'll admit I didn't clarify before, there is truth and a true path, truth is how humans interpret or interpreted parts of morality and God, while the true path is how to reach God.
Effectively, from a Christian perspective all mankind received the truth, albeit not everyone knew the path, and you can find it in the similarities between certain parts of various religions.
In fact, as an example of this original truth, regarding the Aztecs, they believed that Quetzalcoatl came on the earth and would have to return after he left for the east, it was also blieved that Quetzalcoatl was born from a virgin, either from a woman called Chimalman who was impregnated by the god Ometeotl by appearing in her dreams, or from Coatlicue, who birthed him out of sadness from the abandonment of her children, either way Quetzalcoatl was born from only a mother without physical interactions.
Now this what I always found strange, many boast that the Virginal conception isn't uncommon, and yet it appears that Mithras could have been born from a rock and Horus through necrophilia, so, this is pretty strange, unless like St.Augustine said you account for enfact thatnr truth was accessible for mankind.
What other historical proof that explicitly talks about Jesus and reports his teachings exists other than the gospels? St.Paul didn't write what Jesus testually said but prepared a layman's guide to Christianity, in the gospels Jesus explicitly says He is the way, the truth and life, and that nobody can reach the Father wiout him, He also says that you're either against Him or with Him, as such sincretism cannot, or at least shouldn't be considered possible for a Christian, as it would be contradictory.
Judaism isn't explicitly a religion that excludes other true paths, but actually they do, jews are superior to the gentiles, according to them, they are the chosen ones, as such only jews know the true path.
While there are some pagan gods that became demons (the most flagrant example is Beelzebub coming from the phoenician Baal) there are no such things as pagan gods becoming official saints, I'll grant that maybe a city or two may have decided to revere pagan gods as saints, but I've seen St.Nicholas branded as being previously a pagan god, seriously? The guy that slapped Arius at the council of Nikeia was a pagan god? Come on.
As I said before parts of middle Eastern mythologies could contain part of the truth so their inclusion in the Bible could be justified, even though Hebrews have modified the Bible in time and then jews added the Talmud so...
In the past sincretism was a thing, but today I don't know, it's thought that the Romans wanted to add Jesus to the pantheon and Vikings had both the hammer of Thor and the Cross of Jesus, many deities from the middle East came to Rome through Roman soldiers and so on, Christianity abolished this because of coherency.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 13, 2015 01:15 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:11, 13 Sep 2015.
|
Atheism can not be considered a religion, no. It is simply a position of not assuming any God simply because there is no rational or scientific reason to. If you count that as a religion, then you not believing in Zeus, Odin or Manitu should all be considered separate religions also. Under normal circumstances, atheism shoudn't be a title, just like there is no such thing called a-elvesism but we live under theistic cultures, so it is traditionally labeled as a marginal stance, hence they give it a name.
I would have addressed your other questions with many links and more detailed information but I'm on vacation with the lady, away from my library and computer, so at least for now, I'll go by memory. The connection isnt ideal here and I hate copy pasting links on an iPad, it takes forever.
For the historicity of what Jesus said (or haven't said), you can check a book I linked right in this thread or you can go to the Documantery thread, the Andrew Marr series also explains the position of Saint Paul with detail. Note that these are both about mainstream scholar knowledge, they are not about marginal hypothesis or anything like that, so the sources are really countless.
A very clear example of a pagan god evolving into a saint would be Brigid but there are many more examples I've read among the years that I can't recall right now. I understand how your faith subjectively teaches that the truth was universal (according to Islam, all prophets since Abraham, including Jesus, brought the message of Allah but they were distorted over time, the two religions really are similar in such theological strech outs), yet anthropologically speaking, polytheism is much older than monotheism and as I already said, we are able to analyze the reasons why it developed the way it did and when it did. Humans exist for more than 150.000 years and they have been producing culture and religion for at least 30.000 years, monotheism has a history of roughly 3000 years or so, tops. So, I think it is quite hard to assume all people recived the truth from a monotheistic perspective even if you take things in a very basic level.
I can elaborate further when I return home, see you around till then.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted September 13, 2015 02:28 PM |
|
|
I noticed I messed up while writing, since I was writing on my tablet, that's embarrassing. 
I said atheist considered as a religion in perspective, not that it is a religion, even though in regards of some individuals I think they believe in some canons of atheism, but that was merely a way to categorize and compare behaviours.
I call that phenomenon Homonymy, there have been cases of people called after gods, most blatant example are the thousands of Jesus in the hispanic population.
The problem arises when you consider that saints are more often than not miraculous, especially early saints, but as a rule of thumb, if there are relics most probably it was a man or a woman of great faith, then there are fallacious associations that sometimes peasants do, as I mentioned in the villages believing that a pagan god being a saint, but canonised saints recognized by the church don't fit that.
The main problem in assuming the cult of men when they were still tribes is that we don't have written records, we can only assume from their traces, it's a bit like language, it's assumed that European and Greek language share a common ancestor with Indian, but we don't have testimonies of languages prior to this proto Indo-European.
Now, it's assumed that men have all a common ancestor, all mitochondrial DNA we have currently can be traced from one woman and the Y chromosome from one man, so, if we consider this as proof that modern men are derived from one tribe we can assume they had at least a common language and a common religion.
As I already said, the problem is that we're forced to speculate, there have been findings that move the birth of the Homo Sapiens further in the past and the founding of the first city before the founding of Uruk, so, it can be assumed that cults may have changed in the mean time, just like languages did.
The thing is, we don't have any evidence (to my knowledge at least) regarding men's first exploit in religion.
Now, if you want to talk about the reliability of the Gospels as far as the integrity goes I'd prefer we wait until you return, if you want to wait of course, in the mean time I'll see what you're referring to...
Anyway, I hope you're enjoying yourself, have a good time. 
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
tSar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted December 06, 2016 06:13 PM |
|
|
Hey guys can I employ your help to define religion? This is an extract from Jeroen Gunning & Richard Jackson (2011) What's so ‘religious ’ about ‘religious terrorism ’?, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 4:3, 369-388: Note I'm using extracts from academic source(s) under fair use and have rightly credited the orignal author(s).
Quote:
Taking a substantivist approach – conceptualising religion as a system of beliefs (Hervieu-Léger 2000, pp. 38–39) – makes the distinction no less elusive. For instance, if one defines religion as that which concerns ultimate values or one’s sense of self, Marxism,
nationalism, liberalism and most contemporary political ideologies would fall under this definition. Alternatively, if one defines it more narrowly as that which concerns the sacred or the transcendent (terms which are themselves notoriously difficult to define), then certain forms of Buddhism and non-theistic Hinduism are excluded, while ideologies with a transcendent quality, such as Marxism and nationalism, and even social practices such as football, would be included (Hervieu-Léger 2000, pp. 53–57, Cavanaugh 2004, pp. 4–9, 14–18, 28–30). Even the notion that religion, through faith, is uniquely beyond reason, as opposed to supposedly rational secular ideologies, is problematic when one considers some of the leaps of faith demanded by Marxism, neo-liberalism and nationalism, for example.
Quote:
Daniel Masters (2008) has attempted to resolve this tension by introducing a more nuanced typology, distinguishing between right-wing-religious, right-wing-religious/ethno-national, ethno-national, left-wing/ethno-national and left-wing terrorist groups, with subdivisions for Nihilist, Fundamentalist, Social Domination, Racial and Cult. But, besides implying that beliefs determine behaviour (a theme we will return to), even this pared-down typology ends up essentialising religion (and ethno-nationalism, and so on) by creating an illusion of homogeneity within each category that is not borne out in practice. Masters, for instance, assumes that religiously motivated groups oppose the modern state and object to women working in the public sector. Yet there are religiously
motivated groups who have embraced the notion of a modern state and have actively worked to increase the number of women in the public sector, Hamas being one of them (Gunning 2007a, pp. 55–94, 168–170, Ababneh 2008).
This next one is more about attitudes than a discourse on definition:
Quote:
R. Scott Appleby, among others, concedes: ‘it is virtually impossible to disaggregate the precise roles of religion and ethnicity’ (quoted in Cavanaugh 2004, p. 24). the ‘religious wars’ of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, religion was relegated to the private sphere and conceptualised as a set of irrational beliefs in opposition to ‘rational science’ (Asad 1993, Salvatore 1997, pp. 29–32, Cavanaugh 2004).
.
Personally this is both a good thing. It means religion plays a role that isn't necessarily distinguishable from certain ideologies, but at the same time there's a lot of work and pioneering to do meaning I got work. One of the best parts of finding deficiencies in law or politics, it means someone will have to rectify those i.e work. But, I am curious to see the community's take on it and how you'd choose to define religion.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 07, 2016 05:22 PM |
|
|
The thing is, religion is usually a claim on all cosmology, morals, tradition, identity, law, (historically), philosophy... Before people had distinctive systems to categorize such things, they were usually all wrapped up together. There can be cases where a religion doesnt claim much on cosmology (some sects of Buddhism) or law (mostly secular modern communions) or tradition (scientology) but most of the common religions out there interfere with all of the above, unlike ideologies, they are in your father's funeral, your wedding, your classical art, your literature etc and what determines who picks which is usually determined on the basis of cultural heritage, which is another way of saying "blind luck." Not a reasonable way to determine so much...
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 07, 2016 06:55 PM |
|
|
tSar-Ivor said:
...how you'd choose to define religion.
First off I strongly dislike the term (like most all-encompassing words today) because from the onset when used, the very word assumes it CAN have a universal meaning. And we all know, too much good, bad and neutral has happened that is associated with the word for that to ever happen.
For me "personally" and that is the source the definition for everyone; what does something mean to you? In short; What is a value? And will I comply? to what I have deemed higher thinking or a worthier goal than from where I stood.
Going to the core of the matter and staying below all the lofty-arguments using buzz-words; "what I practice, when I first found it, threw light on "my" human nature, showed "me" the central importance of "my spirit" and through decades now has brought about and proved to me without question that this was one of the best choices I ever made.
How could "my answer" be universal? It cannot but Religion implies agreement and something buried deep inside your self should never be pushed outside and formed into a mallet. Btw, It is a word like many today that has lost its meaning in communication.
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted December 07, 2016 06:59 PM |
|
|
Does that mean we can't define religion anymore?
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted December 07, 2016 07:48 PM |
|
Edited by Gryphs at 20:01, 07 Dec 2016.
|
artu said:
they are in your father's funeral, your wedding, your classical art, your literature etc
Some secular ideologies such as communism actually did effect art, literature, cinema, and the like.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 07, 2016 10:26 PM |
|
|
Yes, of course. There is always politica/ideological art. But secular ideologies came into play, in times things chaned much faster, so, they are usually not as sunk in, they had been replaced much rapidly compared to centuries of religion. Say, 2000 years later, the difference wont be as noticeable, I guess. And religious works of art will be like Ancient Greek plays, they already are to many of us.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted December 07, 2016 10:38 PM |
|
|
Yes, but it does not mean they could not become sunk in if they were introduced at the proper time. So to say such traditions could be at your father's funeral (to use your analogy) if there had been 1000 years of said secular tradition.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2016 11:07 PM |
|
|
@Markkur,
I feel very much the same. I believe that the word religion in the western culture of nowadays has acquired cripplingly derogatory connotations to an accurate understanding of the meaning it tries to convey. It's the kind of vague that leaves people looking at you with suspicious eyes, imagining you're some sort of nutjob. Apart from that, I can't personally call Christianity a religion, no matter what conventional meaning I'd give the word. To me it's not just a set of practices or ideals or morals or whatever, but reality itself.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2016 11:41 PM |
|
|
You probably want to rename the thread into
"Questions about reality itself".
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 07, 2016 11:44 PM |
|
|
Any religion claims it is the gateway to the truth, that's why they are also called "faith". If someone believes there is a God, that God had a son, and that son holds the key to the meaning of life and all of that is literally reality, it's as conventional as a religion can get. Christianity is not Budhism, its lore is not irrelevant to its philosophy.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
tSar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted December 08, 2016 02:14 PM |
|
|
Initially I found the definition extremely difficult to work with outright ignoring it or switching it up to suit my definition. But then I had an epithany while trying to fall asleep, looking at the definitions from a postmodern perspective (with the idea that if the 'data is unfavorable, then it's not a matter of collecting more data, but asking different questions'). I realised that the connection between religion and say nationalism and football aren't a sign of something gone catastrophically wrong in our attempt to define the concept, but it means that there's a point of contact between all of them.
We have to let go of the notion that religion is somehow reserved for the private sphere and its application is only spiritual. Religion is crucial for our ontological security and wellbeing (who am I, what am I here for). The fact that this isn't exclusive to faith is of little consequence. I believe the definition is now solid. Religions aren't to be defined by belief or whether they're monotheistic (such things have little empirical value), but by what they offer in quantifiable terms.
It is also one of the greatest sins of the Enlightenment, relegating faith exclusively to the private sphere and branding it as fantasy with no place in realism and empiricism. From a security+ perspective, security being provisions to ensure survival (I don't wholly endorse this application but that's not relevant now) and security plus to go beyond that, so security becomes not only a matter of survival but building a future. Only problem is moderate (political spectrum) atheists have no future, it's a horrifying prospect that there is no happy ending to life, cold dirt for you no matter what. Then to be confronted by modern religious terrorism, where people are happy to blow themselves up for a Jihad, this is why terrorism is such a huge issue when the reality impact of it equates to less than a flea-bite.
As you can die for your principles or ideals (your identity and beliefs if you will), I will hold that security isn't just about the survival of your material material being but also that of your metaphysical self, that might be damaged or destroyed by doing something against your own values.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 08, 2016 03:26 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:27, 08 Dec 2016.
|
Well, even Harari who has a very broad definition of religion which includes communism with it historical determinism as a super-human order directly counts football out and very justifiably, to quote him word by word:
Religions hold that there is a superhuman order, which is not the product of human whims or agreements. Professional football is not a religion, because despite its many laws, rites and often bizarre rituals, everyone knows that human beings invented football themselves, and FIFA may at any moment enlarge the size of the goal or cancel the offside rule.
Even if you take out spirituality, it takes more than rituals to make something a religion.
Btw, atheism doesn't claim there is no happy ending to life but that there is no after-life (unless you have some very exceptional belief that there are no gods but still an after-life.) This does not mean that you can not live a fulfilling life and die happy, it just means that life does not have to be endless to be meaningful. Yours is quite a jump to make. Especially considering, in practicality, people who believe or claim they believe in an after-life do not really act different towards death, they still fear it, they moan the death of their loved ones just the same. A notion of an after-life is becoming more implausible each passing century and I think it's quite inevitable that our species will make its peace with this fact. The numbers are growing already.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 08, 2016 04:06 PM |
|
|
Btw, I just watched the season finale of Westworld, yesterday and this moment was so good, there's kind of a little spoiler in there if you're following the show, so you've been warned.
It took 500 years for someone to notice something hidden in plain sight:Michelangelo's Divine Touch
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
tSar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted December 08, 2016 04:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
not mean that you can not live a fulfilling life and die happy, it just means that life does not have to be endless to be meaningful
I agree, religon plays a large part in people's ontological security but it is by no means exclusive to religion.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 08, 2016 04:41 PM |
|
|
AlHazin said:
Does that mean we can't define religion anymore?
And who would I have to think I am to say yes or no?
<imo> Isn't it better to be specific when communicating?
"Markkur is Religious." Says nothing - except at best I may have a habit.,,,one way or another. 
"Markkur is Christian"? Well, it is closer but <imo> Christian as a term today is nearly as damaged as Religion.
To pinpoint who I am (on this point only)it is best said "Markkur follows "The Way". But even then, if a person does not know Christ was called that by his followers and the word Christians came from outsiders, then the most accurate description of my Faith would still mean zero or if it did mean something to someone, it would be nothing concrete - whether good or bad meaning when imagined or received.
The intense propaganda & distortion for every human purpose used during the last century has not fostered nor bettered understanding on many subjects.
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted December 08, 2016 05:05 PM |
|
|
markkur said:
"Markkur is...
KKK!
Now it makes more sense lol
Just to add a brick to the problematic of defining religion, in Islam is used the word Deen to say "religion" yet it doesn't really mean "religion"... So islam is a "deen" and not a "religion", something that I'll be explaining to you in detail as soon as I have time.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
