Lol....fully aware that Allah means God...just noting progression of religions...Jew, Christian, Muslim...
And Isis was an Egyptian goddess....
Communication is a funny thing..
Why Do We Trust Ancient Texts as Accurate?
- Thread starter Devils' Advocate
- Start date
And Isis was an Egyptian goddess....
Communication is a funny thing..
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
And further to Mormons, Bahai, Ahmadiyyas and more.
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
You are evidently correct...
I didn't forsee either of your confusions on my post...
I didn't forsee either of your confusions on my post...
One place to start would be to ask why the ancient religions were formulated the way they were? Why did Siddhartha go the direction he did with his philosophy. Why did Abrahamic thought end up like it did? Or Lao-Tzu? Etc. This asks a basic question about how religious thought is formulated in the first place. Now, one might say "revelation". But that begs the question of why there are differences. And since there are difference, did one school of thought just get the revelation wrong and the other right? Which brings us back to your question. Why trust any of them?
My thought is that the reason the ancient religious philosophies ended up as they did, is because of the key questions/issues they were addressing. If a certain question/issue is foremost and a metaphysical answer is sought, then the formulations will reflect that.
For instance, in Buddhism, suffering is a key issue. If the question of suffering is foremost, then what is the metaphysical answer? Then if you roll in the common notion of reincarnation at the time, then the problem becomes twofold. If life is suffering, and life goes on and on from one to the next, what is answer? Well for Buddhism the answer is enlightenment where the cycle of suffering lives is broken.
If you take a look at the Abrahamic traditions, what was a key feature. The Law. Apparently transgression and the law were at the forefront. So what is the metaphysical answer? Well if sin and guilt are the focal point, and justice is paramount, then some form of recompense is necessary. For the Jews it was found in repentance and change. But for the early Christians this wasn't enough. There was need for absolute justice. Hence, the sacrificial lamb in Christ. Then for those who didn't believe or failed to repent, justice was served by them being relegated to hell.
So, the point I'm trying to make is that if revelation is a sticking point, then look to the deepest questions that were being asked. These were asked in the milieu of their cultures and the charismatic leaders (Siddhartha, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.) sought to answer them. So, where did they get their answers? I think one has to look at the prevailing metaphysical thought of the time. Each leader had a rich background of thought that was rattling around during the period they lived in. So, what happened? In my view, each leader(s) took the questions asked, viewed them within the metaphysical thoughts of the time, then drew on their own religious sense and came up with their answers. By religious sense, I mean something like what Calvin called "sensus divinitatus" or Paul Tillich called "the mystical a priori". It represents some connection with the divine. A deep subject.
So the question an individual could ask is, do these ancient texts with their answers, resonate with me? Do the answers they provide fit in with my own knowledge and intellect as well as my own religious sensibilities. If they do then perhaps it is a good fit. If not, and you are so inclined, keep searching.
My thought is that the reason the ancient religious philosophies ended up as they did, is because of the key questions/issues they were addressing. If a certain question/issue is foremost and a metaphysical answer is sought, then the formulations will reflect that.
For instance, in Buddhism, suffering is a key issue. If the question of suffering is foremost, then what is the metaphysical answer? Then if you roll in the common notion of reincarnation at the time, then the problem becomes twofold. If life is suffering, and life goes on and on from one to the next, what is answer? Well for Buddhism the answer is enlightenment where the cycle of suffering lives is broken.
If you take a look at the Abrahamic traditions, what was a key feature. The Law. Apparently transgression and the law were at the forefront. So what is the metaphysical answer? Well if sin and guilt are the focal point, and justice is paramount, then some form of recompense is necessary. For the Jews it was found in repentance and change. But for the early Christians this wasn't enough. There was need for absolute justice. Hence, the sacrificial lamb in Christ. Then for those who didn't believe or failed to repent, justice was served by them being relegated to hell.
So, the point I'm trying to make is that if revelation is a sticking point, then look to the deepest questions that were being asked. These were asked in the milieu of their cultures and the charismatic leaders (Siddhartha, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.) sought to answer them. So, where did they get their answers? I think one has to look at the prevailing metaphysical thought of the time. Each leader had a rich background of thought that was rattling around during the period they lived in. So, what happened? In my view, each leader(s) took the questions asked, viewed them within the metaphysical thoughts of the time, then drew on their own religious sense and came up with their answers. By religious sense, I mean something like what Calvin called "sensus divinitatus" or Paul Tillich called "the mystical a priori". It represents some connection with the divine. A deep subject.
So the question an individual could ask is, do these ancient texts with their answers, resonate with me? Do the answers they provide fit in with my own knowledge and intellect as well as my own religious sensibilities. If they do then perhaps it is a good fit. If not, and you are so inclined, keep searching.
Namaste and welcome to io!!
I usually tell new folks to dip a.toe in...the water is fine..but I must have been asleep as I didn't even see you climbing the ladder on the high dive...didn't even turn around till I heard the splash from the deepend!
Was that a full gainer with a twist?
I usually tell new folks to dip a.toe in...the water is fine..but I must have been asleep as I didn't even see you climbing the ladder on the high dive...didn't even turn around till I heard the splash from the deepend!
Was that a full gainer with a twist?
You jumped right in with big post....
Yes.... When you have an idea that you feel will benefit the community or world your thoughts are often met with disdain and negativity from your friends and colleagues...who the heck do you think you are anyway? You aren't a politician or priest...where do you get your authority or gall to think you knowore than us?
Well saying G!d told me, or I got this insight from divine guidance, divine mind, meditation...makes it not my idea, humble old me is just the messenger...
Like our various creation stories...folks just got tired of kids rigging their robes....why is the sky blue, why are we here, how did we get here,... Every indigenous people has their creation story to point to...
Yes, some people claim to speak for the divine. You hear this a lot from those who become cult leaders in particular. Other's may be more subtle. Claiming that what they say comes from some revealed source. And still other's may not claim their own divine inspiration but their followers claim it for them. This may be more the case with Jesus. Since the gospels were written by adherents, who really knows what he claimed about himself.
However, I think it's interesting to wonder why certain metaphysical systems caught on and even persist today. I suppose part of the reason is that the message or narrative they offer is compelling and meets people's needs. So many religious systems have faded away into the past or been relegated to very few adherents. I think a lot of that has to do with the changing times. Knowledge and understanding have marched on and so has much in religious sentiment. Some religious claims become untenable after new information comes to light and worldviews change. Take Christian theology. Except for the more conservative elements, Christian theology in academia and too some extent in the grass roots, has changed dramatically since the 19th century. In that period, there were a number of prominent theologians who took to de-mythologizing Christian theology. Rudolf Bultmann was one who pushed hard for this, then Carl Bart (a conservative) struck back saying his famous (Nein!) to the change. But at least liberal theology continued its march to "modernize" Christian theology. Then there was the Jesus Seminary where world scholars did the search for "the historical Jesus". The net effect for some liberal theologians was to strip Christianity of its supernatural elements and much of its uniqueness. In fact Marcus Borg's, "The Heart of Christianity", is in my view, a radical re-formation of Christian sentiment. This, for many, would make Christianity more palatable to the modern mind, but others saw it as stripping out all the critical dogma.
I say all that to point out that metaphysical systems may claim all they want, but just like other areas of human thought, to remain relevant, they must change with the times. What is not widely know to the general public, is how complicated and diverse religious thought has become. Most of that is lost at the grass roots level where the professionals either reject the new thinking or are hesitant to stir things up within their adherents.
Of course all this is not just limited to religion. In every human endeavor there are individuals who will make controversial claims and attempt to couch them in some putative mantle of authority. It might be "capitalism", "the Constitution in the U.S.", nationalism, science, human rights, tribal ultimates, etc. It's just that since religion often claims some ultimate grounding, it's claims would seem to trump all others and have a more authoritative force to them. This in turn, can strike at the vulnerabilities of individuals who seek to align themselves with the divine or engender favor.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Very nice post and welcome to IO.
Because they offer a viable discourse on perennial questions.
That's too broad a generalisation for me to offer comment. I can talk about changes in Catholic academia and grass roots, but that's not 'Christian theology' as such. In my case the basic dogmas and doctrines remain unchanged.
Academic metaphysical discussion tends to stay within the bounds of academia. Theology books making the best seller lists is rather an American phenomenon, and follows a particular agenda. On the one hand you have conservative 'rapture' books which regularly top the lists (so much so that the NYT no longer factors them), and on the other you have liberal 'sensational discoveries' that claim to turn the status quo on its head ... they're the two extremes and both speak with a popular voice and address the sentiments rather than the intellect, and are aimed at a non-academic readership.
Meanwhile 'scholarly' theology, that follows what is considered proper scientific methodology, is necessarily long, dry, pains-takingly argued ad nauseam over every point in great detail, and makes for a tough and a bit of an endurance read, and is often beyond the comprehension of the grass roots. so no best-sellers there. They're also bloomin expensive! Try reading Analogia Entis by Przywara!
Books by Paul Ricouer, one of the greatest minds of the last century, or Bernard Lonnergan, still exploring the territory laid out by minds like Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas...
Yes, he was for a while massively influential on that thesis, but since the logic of his argument has been shown to be flawed, that position has largely evaporated. It's still popular in some circles, but then the grass roots are always behind the theological curve.
Again it depends what you mean by 'liberal theology'. That typified in the US is actually on the decline.
I wouldn't set too much store by the JS. Its methods were dismissed as flakey and its finding have been largely dismissed by scholarship. It was never quite as big, important or influential as it claimed to be. Like it's predecessors. the JS was driven more by a sociopolitical agenda than any real theological insight.
Well the quest is dogged by the fact that in trying to locate 'the historical Jesus' – something impossible because there is no Jesus outside of Scripture – what you actually get is a Jesus that reflects the contemporary historical moment, not His actual place and time in history.
Only if they prove inadequate in the face of new knowledge. The great metaphysical systems, be they Christian, Hindu, Taoist, transcend the relative and the contingent, so in that aspect there is no change nor need to ...rather it's a case of them opening vistas that still have yet to be explored ...
I think it was always 'complicated' and 'diverse' – Aristotle v Plato, Arius v Athanasius ... but then that's the same for any field of scientific inquiry. When I talk theology with my mum, I can see the point where her eyes begin to glaze over ...
Or maybe they don't buy the new thinking? Grass roots doesn't do 'complicated'. I don't think it's a case of rejection necessarily, rather it's pastoral concern. One doesn't have to be a theologian to be a believer. Nor is new thought right, just because it's new?
Well, something appears to be is going on, at least in Christianity. According to the Pew research, participation in Christianity in the United States has declined 7.8% from 2007 to 2014. The percentage of evangelicals has decreased the least. Reasons for that decline are probably complex. However, it appears that younger adults are significantly contributing to this decline.
So, what's happening with the young folks? I think part of it is new information. One source is the growth of science and technology literacy. Another important one, I believe is religious pluralism especially in urban areas. I live in a suburb of a big city. Just in my half of the block the ethic origins include Pakistan, Belarus, India, China, Sierra Leone, Mexico, and Korea. What this means, at least in my area, is that young kids will probably know and maybe have friends who are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, etc. In isolation, the authority of a religious system need not be challenged. But when people are exposed to religious folks from other traditions, who they like and maybe even admire, this may call into question the absolute authority of their birth faith. I suspect that the diversity I see in my area, is similar in other urban areas.
Theologian Langdon Gilkey wrote:
Another factor I suspect, is that it's not so "hip" to be religious today for young people. The militant non-believers through the media and in print have, in my view, successfully portrayed religious folk as ignorant, stupid, irrational, anti-science, etc. Then there is a rise in education level. When kids go to university they also see a diverse set of individuals and academics, some who are anti-religious or think it's dumb to be religious. If they venture into the sciences, they may find that some of the supernatural claims of Christianity, just don't sit well with them anymore.
I think this trend towards being a "none" not only with the youth but also some adults, has been noticed by some Christian theologians. At least the protestant liberals have tried to reshape the message to speak to this new worldview, but in my opinion not very successfully. Only time will tell if this trend away from religious affiliation continues. I suspect it will. It's hard to say, in the long run, if this is a bad or good thing for the individual and/or society.
According to Psychology Today the significant factor is the continuing emergence of egocentrism as the defining cause of the decline of religion.
Anti-authoritarianism continues to be another motivating factor, as any institutions are seen as curbs on individual freedom of expression, and religions lead the way in this because they set a standard of moral and ethical behaviour that's demanding on the individual.
Whilst freedom and autonomy are seen as good things, what is missed is that the undisciplined mind is, in the words of the Buddhist Matthieu Ricard, something like a monkey or a restless child, that the freedom so cherished in reality is a faux freedom of the undisciplined mind prey to any fad or whim that happens to take one's fancy. True freedom is self-determined and to be self-determined requires self-discipline, but self-discipline seen in a negative light.
The transition from a religious to an egocentric and non-religious culture was the meme "I am spiritual but not religious" which was heralded as a kind of superior way of being over those who follow a religious tradition. Data from the above surveys show that this meme has a shelf-life and is on the decline. The next generation coming up is neither 'religious' nor 'spiritual' (in fact there is no authentic distinction between the two terms, the separation was entirely artificial and motivated by self-interest. For a more insightful understanding one needs to be aware of, to use Christian terms, the difference between 'psyche' and 'pneuma'.)
The upcoming generations show a continuing rise in self-interest, and whilst a greater tolerance on questions of race, gender and sexual orientation for example, is a good thing, the underlying statement is 'I don't care, as long as it doesn't effect me' – so it's not an increase of 'inherent spirituality' and not an embrace of the Christian virtue of love or the Buddhist virtue of compassion. In fact empathy is on the decline.
Possibly, but then the discord between religion and science is a nonsense. The idea that science undermines religion is somewhat illiterate in that sense. Again, it's a bit of PR from the secularist, and a bit of ignorance from the scientist. Prof Brian Cox in the UK, a physicist, has gone on record as saying science answers the questiuons religion addresses, which is nonsense, but that's what he believes. Stephen Hawking said much the same thing, but then he's a canny self-promoter.
This is a more complex situation, I agree. But it really needn't be.
I agree.
Yes they have. In the same way that in the English-speaking world (US and USA) the post-Reformation denominations successfully portrayed Catholicism as the source of all religious ills.
Quite. And these people will tell you they're educating kids 'to think for themselves', which is a nonsense, as what they're actually doing is impressing their own beliefs on a susceptible generation.
It will not succeed because you're always chasing what's fashionable, and fashions always change. It's like the older generation trying to be 'down with the kids', they're tolerated, but that's about it.
That's the problem for liberals v traditionalists – the liberals are always chasing the wheel, the trads stay where they are, and in time the wheel comes to them.
In a survey in America, it turns out that more people claim to have seen a ghost than have seen a trans-gender person. The survey cited above cites TG as the next big civil rights issue, and at some point some hip theologian will publish a book suggesting the Disciple John was Trans (he's the only male person in Christian iconography who doesn't have a beard. It was suggested he was homosexual, in the past, when that was cool), or maybe Mary Magdalene, who took a very 'masculine' role as 'the apostle to the apostles' as we Catholics call her ... Or maybe Our Lord Himself is in some way androgynous ...
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
The article defines empathy as "less social support", which I think is sloppy. Are there other indications of lowered empathy?
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,248
- Reaction score
- 550
- Points
- 108
I see your point about the way the media portrays being religious.
But it ignores other facts. For example, keep in mind Lecrae was the first Christian hip-hop artist to reach the no. 1 spot on iTunes. For a Christian artist to be so big in hip-hop is huge. Hip-hop is huge. For many young people hip-hop is the media.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 392
- Points
- 83
I am still unclear if 'the religious none' indicates nonreligious or nonaffiliated. Big difference. My perception is the religious none are more the latter. They maintain the bulk of Christian values, they just do not associate with one brand (as it were).
LOL, good question! But then you'd have to go into the details of their findings.
The former was my sense, with the decline of non-affiliated spirituality.
Well quite, because they're probably the universal ones, the humanist morals and ethics rather than a profession of the precepts of the Creed, for example, which really defines traditional Christianity. Put another way, they believe 'Christian values' but don't believe in Christ or necessarily God?
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 392
- Points
- 83
I do wonder. Don't have a lot of personal experience with this group so I am not sure. My 'sense' is that they do believe in Christ & God. Being nonaffiliated means they get to have their religion without any of the work. Religious nons, are in a sense, being lazy?