The Daily Show - Reza Aslan

[A Cup Of Tea]

There is an oral tradition in families of passing down ethics, behaviour by example, grandmothers telling stories of saints or Gods to their grandchildren, a method of community exclusion for poor behaviour, living teachers (village Gurus) to consult, the intuitive understanding of karma, the wisdom of the elders, other scriptures like the Gita, Tirukkural, common sense, the law of the land, and much more.

This was what I was alluding to in my response to you, this is where you store your religious knowledge and I think it's equally susceptible to corruption as a book is.

For your point of view I probably don't understand Hinduism, and I don't understand the differences you are pointing to, and you may very well be right. But I don't feel it's hard to understand your point of view, and I didn't find anything new in the article you linked. I can't assume I don't understand when nothing is pointing to it.

 

[Senthil]

This was what I was alluding to in my response to you, this is where you store your religious knowledge and I think it's equally susceptible to corruption as a book is.

I agree, and indeed it has been corrupted. At the very heart of things (the Self, in Hinduism) it's not corruptible, but anything on the path before that final goal, or in external realms, would be.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I agree, and indeed it has been corrupted. At the very heart of things (the Self, in Hinduism) it's not corruptible, but anything on the path before that final goal, or in external realms, would be.

I think that is a very reasonable position.

 

[Thomas]

Hi BigJoeNobody –

For instance you mentioned his talk of Jesus (PBUH) being of the uneducated, poor. He was of the poor when he was born.

Poor does not necessarily mean uneducated. Or that Christ was, in his words, 'an itinerant day labourer' ...

His mother was living amongst priests (and correct me if I am wrong, but she also was training to become a Priestess...

The problem here is that in the early centuries there was a small industry in concocting narratives regarding the Holy Family and the childhood of Christ. These were all rejected by the Christian community as being spurious tales, but some of them seem to have found their way into Islam, and without knowledge of the social structures of the time, certain assumptions were made.

Mary was related to Elizabeth who was the wife of Zechariah who did serve in the temple, but that's as far as it goes. Zechariah was one of a number of families that performed priestly duties, I think he and they did a two-week rota throughout the year.

... which is somewhat baffling given Jewish law generally prohibiting women in positions of authority)

Women weren't admitted into the priesthood, so this again is an assumption.

Over the years however he (according to Biblical sources) became very well versed in Jewish teachings. I believe that is what he was referring to. Bethlehem wasn't an area the wealthy of the Jews lived, Historically speaking.

We don't know where Christ lived. His family is supposed to have lived in Nazareth, and we know He began his mission in Capaernaum.

But his argument in the interview is sound theory from a historical perspective.

Well not really. There are a number of exaggerations that owe more to his imagination rather than history. It's just not good scholarly practice.

And his analysis is pretty spot on for 1 possibility.

The possibility he has selected and the materials selected or dismissed accordingly.

This of course integrates his understanding, same as any Christian scholar.

Not quite. I, for one, don't make assertions about what I cannot evidence to be the case, that's my point. There's too many unknowns, too much imagining.

When I was studying, we had tutors say "We'd like to say this, but really we can't." Or 'this is what was taught, but evidence suggests...' I was never allowed to pass something off in an essay as de facto truth if my assessor could come up with a theory to refute it.

Good scholarship makes it's case, argues the points for, argues the points against, then argues it's conclusion.

That's why I favour traditional theology. I find modern denominational theologies as way too one-sided, too many assumptions, too thin an argument, and in the US, too much sentimentality and sensationalism. Disagree with Spong and he'll accuse you of persecution.

Their personal view will negate certain areas of analysis due to their predisposed ideas. It wouldn't make sense for someone to question something that lines up precisely with their view.

It would if he or she was an honest scholar. When I was doing my degree we had tutors who aired issues with comments like, 'we believe this, but we have to acknowledge that ...' That's what good scholarship does. All sides of the argument, not just the bits that fit.

The other issue is comparing Christianity to history. With as many diverse denominations of Christianity, you can make any claim and several groups would be able to stand up and yell "that's not how we believe."

Same with Islam. All religions have their denominations.

Reading the Bible from an Islamic standpoint puts many points that are debated amongst Christians into a different perspective.

On the other hand, many things Islam says about the infant Jesus, that He spoke from the womb, and brought clay birds to life, were known to be spurious tales from early on. So I do not accept the Islamic standpoint as authoritative, as they rest on too many ill-informed assumptions. I'm not too sure how sound Islam is on Judaism, either.

I'm not making a case for Islam, but rather the complications for anyone outside of Christianity discussing and being accepted anything about Jesus (PBUH), when Christians can't seem to agree amongst themselves.

And Moslems do? C'mon!

Re the discrepancies of Scripture - one could argue the point that the Quran is the same everywhere because early on Uthman determined the 'authentic edition' and all other copies were to be burned...

 

[Thomas]

There is an oral tradition in families of passing down ethics, behaviour by example, grandmothers telling stories of saints or Gods to their grandchildren, a method of community exclusion for poor behaviour, living teachers (village Gurus) to consult, the intuitive understanding of karma, the wisdom of the elders, other scriptures like the Gita, Tirukkural, common sense, the law of the land, and much more.

I'm not arguing against that, but we have to acknowledge that a lot of cultural baggage gets carried in along the way. Honour killings, female genital mutilation, all manner of bad stuff in all cultures...

 

[Senthil]

I'm not arguing against that, but we have to acknowledge that a lot of cultural baggage gets carried in along the way. Honour killings, female genital mutilation, all manner of bad stuff in all cultures...

That's true, but it's also a massive generalization. I think to be fair we have to look at what degree, what type, or how much cultural baggage happens in specific cultures. There are often no hard facts on it like the tables for incarceration or capital punishment that the UN puts out.

FGM, for example is fairly restricted to one religion, and others who live in the vicinity and the practice has spread to them like osmosis.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Their personal view will negate certain areas of analysis due to their predisposed ideas. It wouldn't make sense for someone to question something that lines up precisely with their view.

I don't bring this up to dig up our debate on reason, reasons and logic, I just want to take the opportunity to point to this statement as something relating to tat discussion. This position is something I can't really understand and where much of our disagreement lies.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

So how can one know he is practicing correctly is if 1% even begin to consider the text that describes your faith and the rules/laws that regulate it?

It's not that Hindu scripture is dismissed or is not considered a guide for the faith. It's just that it is not utilized by the individual in the same way scripture is utilized in Abrahamic traditions. In my wife's Hindu tradition for instance. The Ramayana and Bhagavad Gita are a major influence in their day to day lives, but few have actually read it on their own. It's recited and listened to in groups at various ceremonies either by a dully certified Pandit or someone educated in Sanskrit interpretation. In turn it's pasted down generation to generation verbally and in song.

 

[Senthil]

There is less dogma in Hinduism. What are called rules in the west are called guidelines in the east. What is called sin in the west is called stupidity or immaturity in the east. (anava, in Sanskrit). What is considered evil in the west is considered as 'what leads you away from God' in the east. Not bad, just not smart.

What is called God in the west is an integral part of man and all the universe in the east.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

I cannot say however that without any direction that I would assume murder is wrong... and we can look at the animal kingdom for that. Chimps have been know to kill several members of it's packs because of jealousy. Lions will murder their brother at times to ensure mating priorities.

So.... animals kill each other because they have not read the scripture? If reading scripture gives us our moral compass, what of those who have killed someone because of something they read in the scripture?

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Deleted duplicate...

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Deleted another Duplicate

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Thomas, not sure if the reply will go through, but you comment on Uthman being the cause of 1 Quran, is debatable of course. I believe any student of Islam worth his salt (expression) would be able to explain the issue with

 

[Devils' Advocate]

So.... animals kill each other because they have not read the scripture? If reading scripture gives us our moral compass, what of those who have killed someone because of something they read in the scripture?

There is a profound belief amongst religious folk that morality is tied directly to religion. No religion equals no moral foundation. No moral foundation equals evil behavior. In other words one cannot have a good set of morals unless one also has religion.

This is simply not the case. And as you pointed out Aussie, as much amoral acts as moral ones have been done by religious people at one time or another thru-out recorded history. Morality can be a secular set of rules that are supportive of the individual and the culture in which they reside. Morals based on secular reasoning are no better, nor any worse than morals based on religions

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I agreed with the part about scripture being interpreted based on the pre-existing notions of the interpreter.

Wanted to get back to this as it was an important comment from the first video. Aslan stated that scripture is just words on a page. They don't have a meaning until someone reads them and interprets them. And that interpretation is molded by many factors that make up that person's personality. This is a new concept to me and it seems an intriguing one. The individual makes the religion; the religion does not make the individual. That explains in one simple statement why the Abrahamics are broken up into so many sects.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The individual makes the religion; the religion does not make the individual.

How interesting that this feels new to you, I'm so very curious how you reasoned before and what exactly this concept is to you.

For me we must first define religion in this context as information, knowledge of the divine than when it is absorbed in the individual it is merged with what the person already knows and what they feel about it. I think religion can be more than this in other circumstances but in this case it is knowledge of religion.

The information has changed the absorber but the result is just as much a result of the absorber as the absorbed. Z+X=Y not A+B=A.

 

[wil]

In my faith we say people are born with this knowledge of right and wrong..

Science says the portion of our brains that work on 'future consequences of current actions' to assist in our decision making process is not complete till we are 25...or older...and often older in men...hence the reason we send 19 year olds over the hills with guns and the average age of the suicide bomber (while we find the instigators, the teachers, the mentors and the bomb makers over 30...the average age of a suicide bomber is in or near the teens)

 

[Thomas]

Aslan stated that scripture is just words on a page. They don't have a meaning until someone reads them and interprets them.

Isn't any text just words on a page? I would have thought the more apposite comment is whether the reader has the insight or the information to distill the meaning of the words.

And that interpretation is molded by many factors that make up that person's personality.

That is why Scripture should be read in light of the Traditional commentaries, rather than in isolation. The mind tends to flow, like water, along the well-used channels of least resistance.

The individual makes the religion ...

That's usually where the problem starts.

That explains in one simple statement why the Abrahamics are broken up into so many sects.

Yes and no. All religions have 'sects' within their overall umbrella, not just the Abrahamics.

There's more versions of Christianity because of the situation in America, where religion is a commercial enterprise like any other.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

There is a profound belief amongst religious folk that morality is tied directly to religion. No religion equals no moral foundation. No moral foundation equals evil behavior. In other words one cannot have a good set of morals unless one also has religion.

This is simply not the case. And as you pointed out Aussie, as much amoral acts as moral ones have been done by religious people at one time or another thru-out recorded history. Morality can be a secular set of rules that are supportive of the individual and the culture in which they reside. Morals based on secular reasoning are no better, nor any worse than morals based on religions

ok finally internet seems to have calmed... I don't know how far back I will go, since that last fiasco.

This argument is not a scholarly approach either. (just to point out the issues with arguing that fact). In this case there is no control group for you to make this argument. regardless of your independent views, it is impossible to make the claim that right/wrong is not tied to religion somewhere. whether it be from society's view of right/wrong based on general acceptance of religious principles, or past teaching, noone on this planet lives in a truly areligious society. There is no basis therefore for decency, without these religious basis how do you conclude killing is wrong? Yes religious people falter and commit sin, as is the nature of man. That same nature that leads to urges of murder/rape/lieing/etc, is still there irregardless of religion. Through millennia of religiously indoctrinated societies, people learned to accept these good/bad ideas.

Science says the portion of our brains that work on 'future consequences of current actions' to assist in our decision making process is not complete till we are 25...or older...and often older in men...hence the reason we send 19 year olds over the hills with guns and the average age of the suicide bomber (while we find the instigators, the teachers, the mentors and the bomb makers over 30...the average age of a suicide bomber is in or near the teens)

but you are missing a big part of this statement. when does it start. Complete (or as complete as you/I/one could achieve) is great, but If we waited for that, many great achievements would never had existed. That is the issue with this type of argument. It is like saying you don't know consequences of any action until one day then poof you realize it all. No it is a slow process, with many milestones. My 5 year old knows that if the milk smells bad, it will probably make him sick, and therefore knows not to drink it. Is he exceptionally smart for knowing this? I doubt it, most of his friends can accomplish the same reasoning.

I don't bring this up to dig up our debate on reason, reasons and logic, I just want to take the opportunity to point to this statement as something relating to tat discussion. This position is something I can't really understand and where much of our disagreement lies.

I answered this, but it seems the internet ate it... would you say that if a Catholic and Lutheran were discussing history according to the Bible, that the existence of God would debated first. This would have a Major impact on the discussion, but both sides agree there is a God, and that the Bible contains his word. Scholars would not include the topic more than likely. If an Atheist and a Muslim were scholarly debating about the existence of Allah, would it be prudent to explore the Egyptian Theology? Or would both sides agreeing that this is not true be sufficient to come up with a reasonable assertion from each side.

To big Thomas post:

Poor does not necessarily mean uneducated. Or that Christ was, in his words, 'an itinerant day labourer'

I tried answering this before, you are correct, and nothing indicated that Jesus was necessarily "poor", but rather the area he lived in was. Same as his education. He is generally considered to be a great Jewish teacher with immense knowledge of Jewish Law and Tradition. But the people near him were generally too poor to receive education.

The possibility he has selected and the materials selected or dismissed accordingly.

I haven't read the book, but I would assume it is open to criticism, and alternatives. Hence his statement that people input their own knowledge into what they read.

Not quite. I, for one, don't make assertions about what I cannot evidence to be the case, that's my point. There's too many unknowns, too much imagining.

And therefore it is an opinion, not a documented fact. to which I don't believe he has claimed to know 100%. He is raising another opinion.

The next few lines are all regarding a full analysis. Covering all the bases. This is a very very large task in the case of just pointing out the possibilities if one were to ONLY take from the Bible. To take in all cultures of the time, and interpretations from others' understanding would make for an interesting yet unreadable book due to its size.

Same with Islam. All religions have their denominations.

True. but with Islam the core belief of 1 God, Mouhammed is his last and final messenger, That God does not split his power, nor taken a son, are all common beliefs among ALL denominations. And the fact that there are denominations shows people's inability to follow when given clear instructions.

And Moslems do? C'mon!

as stated, about core principles, yes. I can't think of 1 principal that all Christians agree on. Heck some Christians disagree that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that he was born at all... Yes these are fringe groups, but even throwing these 2 issues out, is there any more.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

There's more versions of Christianity because of the situation in America, where religion is a commercial enterprise like any other.

Isn't the Vatican the richest Church in the world? I will admit what Christians are doing on this side of the Pond is atrocious (both Catholics and protestants, with protestants being much more successful lately.