posted
In all fairness, a number of atheist leaders do this, too. The danger is in fanaticism, not necessarily theology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Unfortunately, the guy running Iran right now sounds like a fanatic.
Even more unfortunately, I can't forsee how we'll (I guess I mean the West) keep the nuclear genie in a bottle. Eventually every nation who wants one, and is willing to sacrifice for it, will have it.
I also have trouble forseeing a world where so many nations have them and don't use them.
The arguement I've heard that alarms me most concerning Islam was put forth in a book I read recently called The End of Faith. Basically the author made the case that Islam in the Middle East now is about where Christianity was during the Inquisition. It would be pretty terrifying if the Pope had tactical nukes at his disposal during the Crusades.
That book was a pretty decent read. Sort of Neo-Con, in its assessment of political realities, but coming at it from the left. It's the most stridently atheistic (thus off-putting at times) thing I've read.
Unfortunately, he makes a much better case for the likelihood of WW3 than he does proposing ways to avoid it.
posted
"Actually, while most religions claim to have more truth than any other, few (if any) claim that no other religion(s) possess any truth"
I think your missing a point that really hasn't been explained properly. It is true that this is the case, and I admit to a cringe when Geoff said anything about this knowing what kind of reactions he would get. However, it isn't about just how the community feels. It it a unique Dogma/Theology of Mormonism. It is an article of faith and not just a sympahetic platitude. Very few, if any, religions hold that view as PART of the religious doctrines.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Catholic Church has similar doctrine, Occasional. The exact, specific doctrine might be unique to Mormonism, but the idea as expressed here ("basically Mormons believe that most religions contain some measure of the truth, and that there is always value in a community coming together to worship God and do good works") is not absent from other churches.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that is because we are currently living in a more religiously open and liberal society. I have noticed that such notions are becoming more commonplace where they used to be far more unique to Mormonism when it was founded.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
There are good and bad ways to do this. I like to think that as a missionary, I presented my message in a very different way than King of Men presents his.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, in Catholic thought the idea goes back as least as far as Thomas Aquinas (early 13th century). Probably earlier, but I know at least that far. And it's not a part of the doctrine that was rejected by the Protestant reformers, to the best of my knowledge.
It's great that the LDS church embraces it as well, but it's never been unique to them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because for some obscure reason, you and not I are the one with the vote in the world's most powerful nation. I find this slightly more reassuring than a fanatical believer in the Easter Bunny being armed with an RPG. Slightly.
What exactly has my religion caused me to vote for that is any more frightening than what any atheist's political opinions might induce him to vote for?
Did you perchance vote for Bush, for example? But in any case, you are missing my point. An atheist's political opinions can be reasoned with; although not easy, it is actually possible to convince people, using only rational argument and experimental data, that a given political view is mistaken. Try that with someone who votes from religious conviction.
I'm going to have to respond to the rest of this point by point; pray bear with me.
quote:I would no longer contribute my time and energy to my ward community, which is the center of social life for most Mormons.
Right. So presumably you would have a different community, yes? Oddly enough, even non-Mormons have been known to have a social life.
quote:I would stop raising my children to share my beliefs
Nonsense. You would stop raising them to share the beliefs you have now. You could hardly avoid raising them to share your new beliefs.
quote:and would have comparatively little support in teaching them different values from those of the mainstream culture.
Again, untrue. You would have little support in teaching them the Mormon version of non-mainstream-ness. There are any number of other cultures that cannot be classified as mainstream, and that support their members.
quote:I would no longer have any part in the grander purposes of my religion, but instead, would only be following whatever purposes I invented for myself.
Yes, that is true. But this 'only', now - do you realise how condescending you sound? Coming from a man who is only following the writings of a nineteenth-century, um, religious leader, it is not precisely a compelling argument.
quote:If many Mormons did the same thing, then entire communities would dissolve, along with their means of transmitting their values socially and communally to their children.
Yes, yes, but you haven't shown that these communities are doing anything good.
quote: Individuals without a common purpose would be left to accomplish far less on their own.
Because nobody but Mormons could possibly work together. And incidentally, just what are the Mormons accomplishing?
quote:Suffice it to say that there is very much good that goes on in my life and in the lives of others because I belong to this church. You may not like it, but you can't simply decide what should work for other people, and what shouldn't.
Yet oddly enough, you apparently feel at liberty to decide that gay marriage wouldn't work for other people, either.
quote:If you did manage to eliminate religion from other people's lives, what would you replace it with?
Let me rephrase your question : Supposing you managed to convince an eight-year-old child that Santa Claus didn't really exist. What would you replace his belief with?
quote:Can you provide me and my people with what our church does?
EDIT : Well, that was perhaps a little uncalled-for. Let me instead say, yes, why not? Plenty of communities are non-religious.
quote:I don't know whether to call it xenophobia or cultural imperialism or what, but the sheer hubris of a person who thinks he can swoop in, tell someone they need to stop having their silly beliefs and their silly culture because his is so much better, then fluttering off and wondering why no one is thanking him ... it's just mind-blowing.
I mean seriously, if you represent the sort of person that I would become if I abandoned my faith, then I think I've found one more reason to stay At least after seeing the contempt with which you treat people who disagree with you. You're like the worst Christian imperialists from the colonial era, thinking that your beliefs are the grand solution to everyone's problems. They're not, and were you to succeed, you would only make the world an emptier, less pleasant place.
Speaking of cultural imperialism... So what you are actually saying is, because my life does not include a church, it must be an empty, unpleasant sort of life, yes? Yet I am quite happy with it. You seem to be making precisely the same assumption that you accuse me of making : That only your kind of life can possibly give satisfaction. But that is not true; and even if it were - would you rather believe a comforting lie, or a harsh truth?
[ January 22, 2006, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what you are actually saying is, because my life does not include a church, it must be an empty, unpleasant sort of life, yes?
Not really. What you accused him of was starting from a general principle ("atheists must be unhappy") and applying it to comment on your life.
He was actually generalizing from you (specifically, the way you show contempt) to other atheists, presumably in a tongue-in-cheek manner. This operation turned the starting principle from above into a conclusion - one whose limitations he acknowledged with "At least after seeing the contempt with which you treat people who disagree with you." I inferred from that sentence that Geoff recognized the inherent limitations of such an observation and was not attempting to generalize beyond those limitations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The "non-obvious" point is this: the mere fact that practically all religions are beneficial in roughly the same ways and for roughly the same reasons, regardless of the dogmas and beliefs of those religions, suggests that their dogmas and beliefs are irrelevant
So your saying nature finds a way to keep its little children from killing eachother off? I think religion is just one way for a growing society to sustain itself. But like alot of things good for a growing society, your greatest strengths can eventually weaken you in the face of an environmental change. We fill up the Earth with people who've been rebuilding after the flood (its right there in the bible, our whole society is based on expansion), and pretty soon, alarmingly soon, your geometric expansion hobbles you, so that you produce more mouths than your environment can possibly feed.
Magically though society WILL find a way to survive this dilemma in a few centuries. When people begin to suffer from the gross effects of exceeding the sustainability of their environments without encrouching on the beauty of the natural world, we'll either stop, or we will be stopped by that world. And religions that crammed 12 child families into one room houses will never have been at fault after all.
edit: Believe it or not that's not a condemnation of religion, just an observation of its utilitarian purpose. What I mean is that religion will change to fit the paradigm of the future, or the religion will die. This is an irrevocable part of nature, we see it throughout history, in every religion. So "Dogma" is really just another way of saying "no seriously, we really mean it, this is a good idea."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I mean is that religion will change to fit the paradigm of the future, or the religion will die. This is an irrevocable part of nature, we see it throughout history, in every religion.
Hmm. I don't see Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism changing, and they've lasted, oh, a good long time.
While I can see that the blanket statement is appealing, I don't believe it's universally true. I think some religions will change, but others will remain the same as they have been for thousands of years.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"How can someone believes in a particular religion that asserts as truths things which contradict other religions?"
To pose the question back to you: how can they not? Religion, like all things resting on 'truth', is not a democracy, therefore it has no obligations towards political righteousness. People who believe 'a' to be the one and only truth will deny 'b's truthfulness. It's the same in science. (Note: I'm not saying religion and science are the same but drawing a commonality betwee one of their facets, probably the only one). Truths in science aren't established by the popular majority and 'contradiction' is a part of the game. Similarly in religion, when one posits a truth all other statements which negate it are considered 'false'.
"Actually, all the religions you just cited have changed a LOT."
I don't know about the other religions but I know Islam hasn't changed a 'LOT' by any accounts.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I'm not kidding. I happen to know a fair bit about Islam - care to tell me how it has 'changed'?
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starter: (Note: I'm not saying religion and science are the same but drawing a commonality betwee one of their facets, probably the only one).
I don't know about that... Maybe science and religion have more in common than one might think. Both are methods that people use to try to understand and explain the world around them, and their place in it. And both have their share of rational minds, ardent believers, and fanatics.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starter: (Note: I'm not saying religion and science are the same but drawing a commonality betwee one of their facets, probably the only one).
I don't know about that... Maybe science and religion have more in common than one might think. Both are methods that people use to try to understand and explain the world around them, and their place in it. And both have their share of rational minds, ardent believers, and fanatics.
I understand that; however I think religion and science are fundementally contradictory practices (note again: this does not mean that one cannot be a scientist whilst being a devout Roman Catholic) when it comes to the methodologies used to uncover the truth of the universe.
Science is propelled by the negation of false theories (e.g. 'the earth is round, not flat') or by revising/adding to current theories (the turnover from classical physics to modern physics). The scientific methodology entails that you do not pre-suppose any 'truth' (assumptions/hypothesis are different) and must arrive at a conclusion that is implied 'directly' through your data.
The religious methodology more often than not pre-supposes lots of things such as the existence of god(s), the existence of a 'spiritual' aspect of the universe, etc. and all religious theories are built on these truths as a set of non-negotiable premises. As far as science goes - there are no non-negotiable premises; hence the fundemental contradiction between religious and scientific methodologies.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I happen to know a fair bit about Islam - care to tell me how it has 'changed'?
The schism following the death of the last Caliph is a pretty good start.
The differences in sects do not entail a difference in "Islam" because Islam is still the religion laid down by the Qur'an. If you said the way Islam is supposedly practiced has changed then that's fine - though that is an impossible statement to qualify with any certainty; however the tennets of Islam has always been the same. The laws laid down in the Qur'an may have been implemented differently by the varying sects using the beautiful word "interpretation" (and in turn, followed differently by different followers of each sect), but the source of Islam, that is the Qur'an, has been 'unchanged' (sans dialectal changes due to translations) throughout.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. See, I believe almost exactly the opposite -- that religions change primarily in every other way, but the scriptures themselves only rarely evolve.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, even by that definition, the scriptures of Islam have changed, because - like Judaism - they are not limited to the Koran, but also include a very large oral tradition.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, wonderful. A point-by-point-by-point argument. I learned to hate these about twelve years ago.
One common thread, though. In general, you are reading broader meanings into my comments that are not actually there. This makes for a very frustrating and pointless discussion.
quote:"I would no longer contribute my time and energy to my ward community, which is the center of social life for most Mormons."
Right. So presumably you would have a different community, yes? Oddly enough, even non-Mormons have been known to have a social life.
"I would no longer contribute my time and energy to my ward community, which is the center of social life for most Mormons."
Right. So presumably you would have a different community, yes? Oddly enough, even non-Mormons have been known to have a social life.
"I would no longer have any part in the grander purposes of my religion, but instead, would only be following whatever purposes I invented for myself."
Yes, that is true. But this 'only', now - do you realise how condescending you sound? Coming from a man who is only following the writings of a nineteenth-century, um, religious leader, it is not precisely a compelling argument.
"If many Mormons did the same thing, then entire communities would dissolve, along with their means of transmitting their values socially and communally to their children."
Yes, yes, but you haven't shown that these communities are doing anything good.
"Individuals without a common purpose would be left to accomplish far less on their own."
Because nobody but Mormons could possibly work together. And incidentally, just what are the Mormons accomplishing?
In the interest of not perpetuating the picking-apart-piece-by-piece nature of this post, let me make a few general observations.
1. Your initial question did not ask, "How would your life change if you abandoned your religion, but replaced it with something that functioned identically to your religion, with the exception of the 'religion' part." Your question was, "How would your life change if you abandoned your religion?" That was it, and I answered you.
2. Furthermore, you fail to cite any specific organization that does provide what my religion provides. Instead, you essentially assert that anything my religion provides that I cannot get elsewhere is by definition valueless because it is religious. It's a circular argument. "Prove to me that your religion has value." "I get these things from it." "Those things are part of a religion, and therefore have no value." Please.
3. You call me condescending because I think that the things that I do as a member of my faith have unique value that I could not achieve elsewhere. Of course that doesn't mean that it is impossible for a person to find things of similar value outside my faith. That would be a pretty miserable world to live in, now, wouldn't it? If only 12 million people were allowed to be spiritually fulfilled at a time?
Here's where we seem to differ. I enjoy being a game designer. I'm good at it, and I achieve things that I'm proud of in my field. I don't want to be anything else.
There are people who think that video games are a blight on the world, and would prefer that I didn't make them. They could say to me, "There are creative professions outside the game industry that you could get, and any benefit of being a game designer that you could name, I can match with a similar benefit in another field."
Should that change the fact that I feel happier as a game designer than I can imagine being in any other line of work? Can it alter my innermost wordless dreams of creating wonderful creative works of art within this particular field that I love? Can it change the fact that in some strange way that cannot be justified or explained, I WANT to be a game designer?
No, it shouldn't and it can't. I love games, and I'm going to keep making games, and I dream of one day realizing my dreams of creating amazing games, in spite of what other people might tell me I ought to do instead.
Similarly, I love my faith, I have learned to trust my faith, and I share the purpose and goals of my faith, and long to be a part of bringing them into fruition.
And you're telling me that I should drop it for some social club? Who's being condescending, now, I'm trying to remember ... ?
4. Let me answer this one point: "And incidentally, just what are the Mormons accomplishing?"
Mormons believe in the ideal of Zion — that at other times in the distant past, societies of human beings have achieved a oneness of spirit that resulted in perfect, civilized harmony. Children were raised without needing to fear strangers, there was no crime and no poverty, and these communities could achieve great things that individuals could not achieve alone.
Each Mormon community strives for that ideal, and we hope in the long term to be able to contribute to humanity achieving it on a worldwide scale. That is the endgame of the Mormon expectations for the future.
We haven't achieved it yet, by any means But we share that ideal, and it fuels our efforts with a passion and on a scale that I honestly doubt I'll find many other places. There is passion, naturally, elsewhere, for a lot of things. But this is the one that I have grown to love, and that I believe in.
Telling me that I need to abandon this one and go find another that is just as good, but not religious, is very like telling me that I should give up my daughter for adoption and go find a child with similar physical traits, and she will be just as good.
Isn't there anything in your life that you can make an analogy to that will help you understand why this matters? You keep asserting that you, as an atheist, have everything I have, but your sheer lack of comprehension makes me wonder.
Other atheists and agnostics that I've known have understood this right off the bat. I don't think of "atheists" in general as lacking something.
quote:"I would stop raising my children to share my beliefs."
Nonsense. You would stop raising them to share the beliefs you have now.
I believe that is what I said. The phrase "my beliefs" refers to Mormonism. I'm wondering if you could be a little more picky in your selection of arguments.
quote:... only your kind of life can possibly give satisfaction. But that is not true; and even if it were - would you rather believe a comforting lie, or a harsh truth?
Harsh truth, of course. But a believer in a burning, miserable hell where atheists go might ask you the same question with all the same insinuations ... and make pretty much exactly the same amount of headway in the discussion.
quote:EDIT : Well, that was perhaps a little uncalled-for. Let me instead say, yes, why not? Plenty of communities are non-religious.
I have to say, that is probably the first time I've ever noticed you deliberately holding back from saying something mocking and contemptuous about people who are different from you. Congratulations
And on that note:
quote:Yet oddly enough, you apparently feel at liberty to decide that gay marriage wouldn't work for other people, either.
The only time I have ever entered that arena was over the issue of the laws and customs that govern all of our lives, together. I have made absolutely no opposition to the existence of homosexual communities outside my own. And you'll remember that over a century ago, when my community chafed against the marriage laws of the larger society, first we left, and then we reconciled. I don't think, given the history, that it's unreasonable for me to take the position I've taken.
(Which is WHAT? Pop quiz on Geoff's political opinions!)
[ January 24, 2006, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One last thing about my previous post (the one before the one directly above).
I specifically said that there were other values to my religion that were personal, and that I shared only the ones that I thought any normal human, of any belief, could sympathize with.
Just so that YOU don't think that I consider MY faith to be nothing more than a social club Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I like my milk and cookies! I would share them if I weren't so ravenously forthright in chewing 'em to bits. I feel the same about cashews. Let's not talk about the pistacchios.
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I happen to know a fair bit about Islam - care to tell me how it has 'changed'?
The schism following the death of the last Caliph is a pretty good start.
Huh? The last Khalifah was in the 20th century, and what schism took place then? Wahhabism and Salafism all predate the fall of the Khalifate. The largest schism was when the Khalifate passed to the Ummayyids instead of Ali, Muhammad's son-in-law. "Shia" actually stands for "partisan for Ali." That would have been at the very, very, very beginning of the religion. Hardly recent.
All the Khalifate was, was a clearing house for Fatwas. Day-to-day, the hierarchy was exceptionally loose when compared to Christian organizations.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The last Khalifah was in the 20th century...
By "last Caliph," I was specifically referring to the Ummayyid coup. I don't consider the caliphs since then to be particularly legitimate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by joeyconrad: If a person's religious beliefs are determined in large part by their environment, and thus sort of random, doesn't this make them suspect?
It seems to me this argument applies equally well to atheism or non-religion, in that it is also greatly influenced by environment (parents' beliefs, etc.).
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, even by that definition, the scriptures of Islam have changed, because - like Judaism - they are not limited to the Koran, but also include a very large oral tradition.
No. The 'scriptures' of Islam is the Qur'an and Qur'an only. What you're referring to is the "Hadith" and they are no more the scripture of Islam than the biography of Prophet Mohammed would be a 'scripture' of Islam. Scripture, by definition, is of divine origin - not the re-tellings of someone's life. So no, no scripture of Islam has "changed".
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
starter, why don't you consider the Hadith to be relevant to the practice and beliefs of Islam? Would you consider the oral Torah to be relevant to Judaism?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: starter, why don't you consider the Hadith to be relevant to the practice and beliefs of Islam? Would you consider the oral Torah to be relevant to Judaism?
Because the Hadith has been corrupted many times over and more importantly: I don't see the need for the Hadith. Sure it's relevant to the practice of the orthodox Muslims - but orthodoxy never determined truth and I think we can both agree on that. :-)
In terms of the Torah - I wouldn't comment on it since I don't know enough about Judaism.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, even by that definition, the scriptures of Islam have changed, because - like Judaism - they are not limited to the Koran, but also include a very large oral tradition.
No. The 'scriptures' of Islam is the Qur'an and Qur'an only. What you're referring to is the "Hadith" and they are no more the scripture of Islam than the biography of Prophet Mohammed would be a 'scripture' of Islam. Scripture, by definition, is of divine origin - not the re-tellings of someone's life. So no, no scripture of Islam has "changed".
This is true for a very small minority of Muslims known as the 'Koran Only' movement (the founder was declared an apostate, and I think he was assassinated). For the various and sundry Shi'ite and Sunni sects, who represent the mainstream of Islam, the Hadith are as important as the Koran. There are five schools of interpretation: Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, and Ja'fari (which is the main Shi'ite school). All of these schools are over a thousand years old, in origin, and so hardly qualify as recent, either.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by WntrMute: This is true for a very small minority of Muslims known as the 'Koran Only' movement (the founder was declared an apostate, and I think he was assassinated). For the various and sundry Shi'ite and Sunni sects, who represent the mainstream of Islam, the Hadith are as important as the Koran. There are five schools of interpretation: Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, and Ja'fari (which is the main Shi'ite school). All of these schools are over a thousand years old, in origin, and so hardly qualify as recent, either.
Yes, I know - I don't follow any of them (including the so-called "Qur'an Only Movement"). Who or what represents the mainstream of Islam is hardly relevant when one considers what Islam actually is. However using the argument "they were declared to be an apostate" is quaintly circular don't you think? Seeing as how the people doing the declaring are also the people responsible for creating the very thing the QOM warns against? I don't know about you, but I find it ironic. :-)
Anyway, you have not disproven my words and my points still stand. The Hadith is the biography of Prophet Mohammed and a 'scripture' is always of divine origins (for those who believe in the divine, of course). You may think it's perfectly safe to amalgamate the two because thousands of years of tradition and scholarity says so, but remember that your defense of such an action is a basic appeal to authority and widespread belief. (And I quote you on this: "All of these schools are over a thousand years old, in origin, and so hardly qualify as recent, either.".).
But then, I didn't sign up here for a religious argument - I simply wanted to point out to Mr. TomDivision that Islam hasn't really changed that much, at least not what I consider Islam to be anyway. So really, I have no intentions of debating with you over the validity of the QOM vs various-sects-of-Islam cause.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I simply wanted to point out to Mr. TomDivision that Islam hasn't really changed that much, at least not what I consider Islam to be anyway.
But you don't actually get a vote, I'm afraid. Many Fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews will also insist that their religion is practiced the way it's always been practiced since the dawn of time; they're equally wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I simply wanted to point out to Mr. TomDivision that Islam hasn't really changed that much, at least not what I consider Islam to be anyway.
But you don't actually get a vote, I'm afraid. Many Fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews will also insist that their religion is practiced the way it's always been practiced since the dawn of time; they're equally wrong.
You'd be correct - if I, like you, operated under the assumption that "majority is right". I don't. You may consider religion to be whatever the current trend entails it is, but I personally find that viewpoint to be too naive to be of any real use/research.
But who cares right, since my "vote" doesn't count. :-)
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that you don't speak for the entire faith. No matter how strongly you hold an opinion, that doesn't make you RIGHT.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Hadith is the biography of Prophet Mohammed and a 'scripture' is always of divine origins (for those who believe in the divine, of course). You may think it's perfectly safe to amalgamate the two because thousands of years of tradition and scholarity says so, but remember that your defense of such an action is a basic appeal to authority and widespread belief.
What constitutes "scripture" is defined by the believer. Some consider the Qur'an scripture, some the Torah, some the Bible, some the Book of Mormon, etc. Some of those are exactly what you said wasn't scripture - the biographical account of a prophet's life and dealings with God. But just because they're not entirely in the format of "Thus saith the Lord," doesn't mean they're not scripture to those who believe in them.
Now, whether or not they're all true is debatable, but whether or not they're considered "scripture" is up to the believer.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Hadith is the biography of Prophet Mohammed and a 'scripture' is always of divine origins (for those who believe in the divine, of course). You may think it's perfectly safe to amalgamate the two because thousands of years of tradition and scholarity says so, but remember that your defense of such an action is a basic appeal to authority and widespread belief.
What constitutes "scripture" is defined by the believer. Some consider the Qur'an scripture, some the Torah, some the Bible, some the Book of Mormon, etc. Some of those are exactly what you said wasn't scripture - the biographical account of a prophet's life and dealings with God. But just because they're not entirely in the format of "Thus saith the Lord," doesn't mean they're not scripture to those who believe in them.
Now, whether or not they're all true is debatable, but whether or not they're considered "scripture" is up to the believer.
I'm not talking about The Bible/Torah/et al, I'm talking about the Qur'an/Islam. In Islam's case the Qur'an is the only divine revelation and the Hadiths were written/compiled almost 200 years after the revelation of the Qur'an as a biography of Prophet Mohammed. Sure it's up to the believer's disccretion to assign definitions, just as it's up to me to believe whether gravity exists or not.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starter: I'd have to be muslim first.
(BTW, I don't hold opinions strongly - disprove me and I'll let go faster than a post-natal woman.)
Since we are speaking of how you define scripture, it is not possible to 'disprove' it : This is certainly the way you define it. I believe that it is an extremely useless definition, because it gives us exactly zero information about how the practice of religions changes over time; but that does not disprove anything.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starter: Yes, I know - I don't follow any of them (including the so-called "Qur'an Only Movement"). Who or what represents the mainstream of Islam is hardly relevant when one considers what Islam actually is. However using the argument "they were declared to be an apostate" is quaintly circular don't you think? Seeing as how the people doing the declaring are also the people responsible for creating the very thing the QOM warns against? I don't know about you, but I find it ironic. :-)
Actually, the whole issue as to what determines what is actually Islam is especially important, since failing to meet the criteria can lead to a grossly unpleasant death. Orthodoxy is defined by those who can make the definition stick. By force or intimidation. Dislike it however much you want, it will not change the essential fact that what is orthodox is defined by power and those who hold it. Whether it is the power of the community or the power of a small elite, power define what is orthodox. This is true for all faiths.
quote:Originally posted by starter:Anyway, you have not disproven my words and my points still stand. The Hadith is the biography of Prophet Mohammed and a 'scripture' is always of divine origins (for those who believe in the divine, of course).
No. Biographies of Muhammad are called 'sira.' Hadith are collections of the sayings and actions of Muhammad as recounted in specific 'lines of transmission.' The Hadith are considered vital in Sunni Islam, because they regard Mohammad as the 'seal of prophecy,' the last prophet (Koran 33:40). While the Koran does contain rules of conduct, it does not cover every eventuality or circumstance. The ritual for prayer, for instance, is not fully laid out in the Koran. The Hadith fill that void. Because Muhammad was a holy man, blessed by God, he was an example for all other men. The Shi'a adopted the belief that the Imam (in their view the Khalifa, or successor) was 'rightly guided' and could fill the void that the Sunni used the Hadith for, so they aren't quite as important in Shi'a Islam, but the Ja'fari school still does reference many of them.
You are literally correct, the Koran is the only scripture. However, you are too greatly minimizing the role and importance of the Hadith and other long-fixed traditions in both the Sunni and Shi'ite movements.
In any case, your larger point about the fixed nature of Islam relative to other faiths is actually strengthened by this fact. The hadith, the interpretations of both the Koran and hadith, and even the interpretations of the interpretations have largely been fixed in Sunni Islam (and in most respects in Shi'ite Islam, seeing as how for most Shi'a there hasn't been an Imam) for around 1000 years.
quote:Originally posted by starter: You may think it's perfectly safe to amalgamate the two because thousands of years of tradition and scholarity says so, but remember that your defense of such an action is a basic appeal to authority and widespread belief. (And I quote you on this: "All of these schools are over a thousand years old, in origin, and so hardly qualify as recent, either.".).
My only support for describing the actions of gravity and light are, ultimately, due to "a basic appeal to authority and widespread belief." Unless, of course, we both meet in person and replicate all of the past several centuries' experiments regarding those things 'authority' would be about all we would have to go on, wouldn't it?
quote:Originally posted by starter: I simply wanted to point out to Mr. TomDivision that Islam hasn't really changed that much, at least not what I consider Islam to be anyway. So really, I have no intentions of debating with you over the validity of the QOM vs various-sects-of-Islam cause.
While I agree in the main with part of your premise (ie. the unchanging aspect of Islam, on the whole), the problem is where you start defining things according to your own interpretation. Unless you are the Twelfth Imam (in one tradition), or the rightly guided descendant of the seventh (in another), or the Khalifa, or the Mahdi, then frankly what you decide is rather pointless in any conversation about Islam as a world-wide movement. If I start calling religions "fripnoodles," just because that is my own conviction, in a conversation I am going to be ridiculed. I have to abide by the rules of the larger community and refer to things how they are commonly accepted as being defined. I can buy a Donkey and call him Alsan, but it would just get me into trouble with the Lewis literary estate in the end. (And it would likely annoy my neighbors.) This goes back to the whole issue of orthodoxy.
And I doubt if you know where my opinion with regards to that may actually lie.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starter: I'd have to be muslim first.
(BTW, I don't hold opinions strongly - disprove me and I'll let go faster than a post-natal woman.)
Since we are speaking of how you define scripture, it is not possible to 'disprove' it : This is certainly the way you define it. I believe that it is an extremely useless definition, because it gives us exactly zero information about how the practice of religions changes over time; but that does not disprove anything.
I think my definition of "scripture" is pretty fair - if you believe that *anything* is scripture then there's not much point to a logical discourse is there? Also, my 'definition' is useless for your cause - that is trying to find patterns of change in the practice of a religion; these anthropological studies don't really interest me as much as the text/moral/teachings of a religion. As TomDivision said, he considers 'religion' to be of the practiced form while I consider it to be of the 'idealistic' form.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
So your saying nature finds a way to keep its little children from killing eachother off? I think religion is just one way for a growing society to sustain itself. But like alot of things good for a growing society, your greatest strengths can eventually weaken you in the face of an environmental change. We fill up the Earth with people who've been rebuilding after the flood (its right there in the bible, our whole society is based on expansion), and pretty soon, alarmingly soon, your geometric expansion hobbles you, so that you produce more mouths than your environment can possibly feed. 
