True Religion

@HabibUrrehman,

BTW. It is total nonsense to try to divorce 'religion' from 'its followers', or from its central role in any concept of 'culture'. The historical evidence clearly indicates that religions may be psychologically beneficial, but sociologically pernicious because they fuel differential tribal claims for ownership of 'truth'. You only need to look at the historical schisms within Christianity or Islam to understand that, as well as conflicts between them.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

BTW. It is total nonsense to try to divorce 'religion' from 'its followers',

The same can be said of Capitalism and neo Colonialism.

0 Replies

And who are WE to question Willy.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

fresco wrote:

All religions serve as a palliative to the suspicion that Shakespeare was correct when he said..."Life is a tale told by an idiot....full of sound and fury ... signifying nothing".

Leadfoot wrote:

And who are WE to question Willy.

The problem with quoting Shakespeare is that he wrote a lot, from many differing and contradictory viewpoints because he was a playwright. Just because he, (allegedly,) said it doesn't mean he believed it. The quotation in question is from Macbeth. Macbeth is on the verge of being beaten in battle, all his false charms have disappeared and he's just been told his wife is dead. He's not in what could be described as a good place, he's despairing. This play also features the goddess Hecate.

A better example is Hamlet's To be or not to be speech where he is pondering the nature of existence in a calm and reflective manner. It's more of an agnostic message although it's voiced by someone who's had a conversation with the ghost of his dead father.

Make of that what you will, but at least you've got a bit of context.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Actually,whatever you make of Shakespeare, there is biological evidence to suggest that the life of a individual is subservient to the propogation of a species. Put that point together with concepts like 'the illusion of self', or cosmological insignificance of homo sapiens on statistical grounds, and they do seem to pull the rug from under those anthropocentric constructions we call 'religion'.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Yes, much like Solomon.

"Vanity, vanity. All is vanity."

Context is everything.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I like your Derrida point !

The context here is 'religious truth' which to an atheist is a fantasy.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

BTW. It is total nonsense to try to divorce 'religion' from 'its followers', or from its central role in any concept of 'culture'. The historical evidence clearly indicates that religions may be psychologically beneficial, but sociologically pernicious because they fuel differential tribal claims for ownership of 'truth'. You only need to look at the historical schisms within Christianity or Islam to understand that, as well as conflicts between them.

You can't separate 'religion' from any other aspect of human culture. People can treat anything as religion, including science, atheism, secularism, nationalism, consumerism, brand loyalty, capitalism, communism, socialism, a political party, a movie/book/game, etc.

You are blaming something on religion that goes deeper into the dynamics of how humans relate to and interact with culture generally.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Okay, perhaps I should specifically be using the term 'theism' which believers associate with 'revealed truth'. In that case 'blame' might be attributed to ensuing sanctified tribalism. However, the OP uses the term 'true religion' and is clearly aimed at promoting one version of theism-Islam (probably the Sunni version) ...that promotion being an attempt to counter its 'bad press'.
So, I agree with your general comment that 'religion' is merely one of the factors which can rationalize human conflict, but for theistic believers it can be a major one.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Okay, perhaps I should specifically be using the term 'theism' which believers associate with 'revealed truth'. In that case 'blame' might be attributed to ensuing sanctified tribalism. However, the OP uses the term 'true religion' and is clearly aimed at promoting one version of theism-Islam (probably the Sunni version) ...that promotion being an attempt to counter its 'bad press'.
So, I agree with your general comment that 'religion' is merely one of the factors which can rationalize human conflict, but for theistic believers it can be a major one.

Islam has no special immunity from being hijacked any more than any other religion or other culture.

The basic issue here is that people can lie and ideologies can be interpreted and applied in various ways.

Because of this fact, anything can be hijacked to justify whatever people want to justify.

There is a commandment not to kill, for example, yet someone could justify killing someone as punishment for violating that commandment.

Likewise, science is built on the principle of questioning established knowledge by applying logical reason to empirical observation and experimentation; but that can't stop people from hijacking the language and even the methods of science to achieve authoritarian relations among people vis-a-vis knowledge/information.

It is a question of misinterpretation and misapplication. There is ideology that is immune from perversion, manipulation, and other forms of hijacking.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

No ...all single interpretations are a simplistic fallacies. That's the problem...one man's 'hijacker' is another man's 'enlightened one'.
You have given a believer's pov which takes 'word magic' to be more than a human construction and a vehicle for societal regulation.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

There is ideology that is immune from perversion, manipulation, and other forms of hijacking

Without offering an example? That's an easy cop-out.

As for Ideology being immune - I doubt it. Even at its simplest level (an idea) there is still interpretation, let alone at the systematic idea level (ideology). For example, there is the idea of God. But what does God entail, as an idea? If you wrote the characteristics of God side by side between Christianity and Islam - you would have to come to the conclusion that they were two different Gods. So even here, at the very base level, it can't be agreed upon.

And once you start going 'he wants' and systematise such (ie. create ideology), then you are left only with hearsay and interpretation, because he is not here to say that what was written is in fact true, nor (if it is true) that your interpretation is the case.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

For example, as an idea (and presuming that 'God' exists)

If God didn't want his creation to fight amongst each other:
- he would have given prophets to the whole world, and the world would have known of him in the same way as each other (but instead we have only have localised prophets).
- and as he didn't, the most obvious conclusion then, is that God wanted his creations to fight amongst each other (The other alternative - that he wanted them to be uncertain is nonsensical in the face of each religions search for, and claim of certainty - both within their religious beliefs, and within the context of their religion being the right religion)

If God wanted to provide a true Guide:
- he would have made certain of it by providing such guide to multiple prophets from different parts of the world, all with the same message
- but he didn't, and even at the localised level, the message in the new and old testaments differs (going from a God to be feared, to a loving God; from a chosen people, to all the peoples of the world)
- the most obvious conclusion then is that he did not want his guidance to be absolute, he wanted room for interpretation, which flies in the face of your belief that there is ideology immune from perversion etc (because even God apparently did not want concrete ideology).

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
There is ideology that is immune from perversion, manipulation, and other forms of hijacking
Without offering an example? That's an easy cop-out.

That was supposed to read, "there is no ideology that is immune . . . "
Sorry for the typo.

Quote:

As for Ideology being immune - I doubt it. Even at its simplest level (an idea) there is still interpretation, let alone at the systematic idea level (ideology).

Yes, that's what I said: no ideology is immune from perversion by misinterpretation. So you can no more blame religion as you can science or any other culture for the (mis)interpretations of the culture that lead to outcomes you wish to criticize.

Quote:

For example, there is the idea of God. But what does God entail, as an idea? If you wrote the characteristics of God side by side between Christianity and Islam - you would have to come to the conclusion that they were two different Gods. So even here, at the very base level, it can't be agreed upon.

Or you might find that there is a way of understanding both religions by which they align and appear as they are, as different depictions of the same universal divinity.

But that is a different issue. The issue I was responding to was whether religion can be blamed for violence or any other acts committed by religious people and the answer is no, just as science can't be blamed for any terrorism or other acts committed by believers in science.

Ideology and culture are simply not determinate when it comes to the actions of human beings. They may be influential insofar as human beings study and interpret ideas in various ways that help them discover their own ideas, motivations, and intent; but ultimately the actions they commit are generated by the interaction and not by the ideologies they interact with.

It is the same as the fact that guns don't kill people, though a person can kill another person with a gun. The same person could kill with a knife, blunt object, poison, a motor-vehicle, or other potential weapon; so you can't blame guns for killings even if shooting may be a popular tool for murder, war, etc.

Like guns, religion may be a popular motivation/justification for certain acts of violence/terrorism, but that doesn't mean those acts would have been less likely to occur in a world devoid of religion. Science, nationalism, populism, and/or other cultural ideologies would be cited as reasons for the same quantity of violence in the absence of religion because ultimately people who commit violence do so as an act of faith whether their faith is in science, the importance of politics/faction/nation, their personal honor/dignity, or whatever reason they have to fight.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

That was supposed to read, "there is no ideology that is immune . . .

I've done those typos plenty of times Smile

Quote:

Or you might find that there is a way of understanding both religions by which they align and appear as they are, as different depictions of the same universal divinity.

Yet you believe there is only one God - so that God must have consistent character traits. I'd suggest you go and write their characteristics side by side before jumping to your above conclusion. Judgements shouldn't be made in ignorance.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Or you might find that there is a way of understanding both religions by which they align and appear as they are, as different depictions of the same universal divinity.
Yet you believe there is only one God - so that God must have consistent character traits. I'd suggest you go and write their characteristics side by side before jumping to your conclusion. Judgements shouldn't be made in ignorance of the beliefs.

Islam is submission to God. Christianity is submission to God by acceptance of salvation from sin through Jesus Christ. I have communicated with Muslims who don't understand salvation through Christ, the Holy Trinity, etc. but they nevertheless believe in the one true God.

In short, Muslims are not polytheists and neither are Christians; therefore they all believe that there is only one true God. They are not worshiping different 'Gods.'

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Given your response it is obvious that you still haven't gone and written the character traits side by side.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Given your response it is obvious that you still haven't gone and written the character traits side by side.

It wouldn't matter if I did. Don't you know the story of the elephant getting described by three different blind men? Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant so each describes the elephant differently, even though they're all describing the same elephant.

You have to realize that God is more than the attempts humans make to understanding and describing Him.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Given the opportunity to explore the whole elephant it would be certainly worrying if they came up with vastly different desriptions (in which case they probably were touching different animals)...just as it would be worrying if they came up with vastly different descriptions while each touching a tusk (ie a character trait in your comparative analogy).

So it would be be very worrying if:
- they were all feeling the tusk one describing a long smooth curved horn and another describing razor sharp horn.
- they were all feeling the skin of the belly and one described smooth skin while others described wrinkled skin
- they were all feeling the ears and describing it differently
- they were all feeling the toes and one described claws, another described blunt toes
- they were all feeling the nose and one described a trunk, one described a blunt nose and one described a pointed nose
- etc

...you'd then have to come to the conclusion that they were in fact, feeling different animals.

Islam and Chrisitianity make judgements on similar character traits, but they are different. The number of differences on each character trait should tell you something...but you aren't aware of the number of differences.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Given the opportunity to explore the whole elephant it would be certainly worrying if they came up with vastly different desriptions (in which case they probably were touching different animals)...just as it would be worrying if they came up with vastly different descriptions while each touching a tusk (ie a character trait in your comparative analogy).

So it would be be very worrying if:
- they were all feeling the tusk one describing a long smooth curved horn and another describing razor sharp horn.
- they were all feeling the skin of the belly and one described smooth skin while others described wrinkled skin
- they were all feeling the ears and describing it differently
- they were all feeling the toes and one described claws, another described blunt toes
- they were all feeling the nose and one described a trunk, one described a blunt nose and one described a pointed nose
- etc

...you'd then have to come to the conclusion that they were in fact, feeling different animals.

Islam and Chrisitianity make judgements on similar character traits, but they are different. The number of differences on each character trait should tell you something...but you aren't aware of the number of differences.

All theology is an exploration of omniscience and omnipotence, just as your attempts at asserting truth are.

We are all seeking and preaching truth to the best of our ability, or at least some of us are.

Ultimately there is only one Truth and thus only one God.

If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be arguing that it is the truth that Islam and Christianity are describing incompatible representations of God.

If we all accept that there is only one truth, then we also are in agreement that there is only one God. As such, what you are interpreting as proof that Islam and Christianity don't have the same God isn't proof of that at all. It is only proof that the human mind can study and represent God in vastly different ways.

I think your problem is that you are unable to reconcile superficial differences with deeper unity. Appearances can hide deeper truths. You are searching for the appearance of superficial differences instead of looking for the deeper commonalities. That is your choice, but you're not going to find the truth that way; only the illusions of superficial difference.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know