Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Suppose you had to choose a religion?
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 29 (26876)
12-16-2002 7:03 PM


This may get me kicked off of this forum, since it is rather frivolous (I tend to be that way) but suppose you had to choose a religion. Obviously I am addressing the non-believers. Which would be--from an aesthetic standpoint--most palatable? I say this because I am attracted in an aesthetic sense to certain beliefs:
Roman Catholicism--has something to be said for it. I like, as Woody Allen said, its "structure." And the cathedrals are beautiful. The history of it all.
Hinduism--I don't know much about it, but from what I've read this religion in its pure form is very fine. Also I like the idea of reincarnation and the notion of the Absolute.
Quakers--this appeals to me in their concept of making a difference in other people's lives--this relates to Quetzal's meaning of life--and I also like the notion of going to a meeting and saying nothing.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 12-16-2002 9:01 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 12-18-2002 4:19 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 14 by Kolyahu, posted 01-02-2003 10:16 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 29 (26905)
12-16-2002 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
12-16-2002 7:03 PM


Islam, you get the health benefits of not drinking, the opportunity to travel (the haj), minarets look cool and theres the whole rigorous set routine of praying at set times a day and having to know which way to face when doing it....
Actually the real reasons I have a soft spot for Islam is the way it (is supposed to) give women so many legal rights, quite ahead of his time was ole' Mohammed.....
(Also I really do think that minarets and the call to prayer are quite beautiful....)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-16-2002 7:03 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 12-17-2002 7:48 PM joz has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 29 (27097)
12-17-2002 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by joz
12-16-2002 9:01 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
Actually the real reasons I have a soft spot for Islam is the way it (is supposed to) give women so many legal rights, quite ahead of his time was ole' Mohammed.....
That's news to me. You wouldn't think it--looking around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 12-16-2002 9:01 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by forgiven, posted 12-17-2002 8:44 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 29 (27105)
12-17-2002 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
12-17-2002 7:48 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by robinrohan:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
Actually the real reasons I have a soft spot for Islam is the way it (is supposed to) give women so many legal rights, quite ahead of his time was ole' Mohammed.....
That's news to me. You wouldn't think it--looking around.[/B][/QUOTE]
yes, that confuses me also

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 12-17-2002 7:48 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 12-17-2002 8:59 PM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 29 (27108)
12-17-2002 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by forgiven
12-17-2002 8:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
That's news to me. You wouldn't think it--looking around.
yes, that confuses me also[/B][/QUOTE]
I did a paper on the history of Islam for an anthropology course about ten years ago. I'm sure I could find the relevant information, but for now, I am just going on memory.
For the time period and the culture, I believe that Islam did do wonders for the position of women. If I am not mistaken, it gave them the legal right to own property and run a business. The Quran provides that divorced women be provided for by there ex. Inheritance is to be divided equally among the male and female offspring. Just for some examples. Of course, what was and what is don't have to mesh.
Maybe you can browse the papers here:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://womenshistory.about.com/cs/islamearly/
And I highly recommend getting the QuranSearch software from Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by forgiven, posted 12-17-2002 8:44 PM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2002 4:08 PM John has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 29 (27246)
12-18-2002 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
12-17-2002 8:59 PM


And what happened through the years as regards women in Islam? I guess they started interepreting the scriptures somewhat differently.
If I am not mistaken, women cannot drive a car in Saudia Arabia (correct me if I am wrong).
Islam of the conservative variety looks like gender apartheid to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 12-17-2002 8:59 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by John, posted 12-18-2002 6:19 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 11 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-19-2002 5:57 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5067 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 7 of 29 (27247)
12-18-2002 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
12-16-2002 7:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
This may get me kicked off of this forum, since it is rather frivolous (I tend to be that way) but suppose you had to choose a religion. Obviously I am addressing the non-believers. Which would be--from an aesthetic standpoint--most palatable? I say this because I am attracted in an aesthetic sense to certain beliefs:
Roman Catholicism--has something to be said for it. I like, as Woody Allen said, its "structure." And the cathedrals are beautiful. The history of it all.
Hinduism--I don't know much about it, but from what I've read this religion in its pure form is very fine. Also I like the idea of reincarnation and the notion of the Absolute.
Quakers--this appeals to me in their concept of making a difference in other people's lives--this relates to Quetzal's meaning of life--and I also like the notion of going to a meeting and saying nothing.

I think if i HAD to pick a faith it would be Mahayana Buddhism Madhyamika tradition.
It is full of wonderful philosphies such as Nagajuna's sunyata, you do not have a god to worship and beg for forgiveness, salvation is ultimately the responsibility of th individual, it promotes equality and compassion for all beings, and best of all, you don't live for all eternity.
Best Wishes.
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-16-2002 7:03 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2002 4:23 PM Brian has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 29 (27249)
12-18-2002 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brian
12-18-2002 4:19 PM


"You don't live for all eternity"? How long do you live? Don't you join the Absolute?
Buddhism sounds good. I know nothing about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 12-18-2002 4:19 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2002 5:21 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 29 (27250)
12-18-2002 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by robinrohan
12-18-2002 4:23 PM


A little more about aesthetics: I really like Christmas. Songs, etc. The story of Christ in my opinion--when I am in a certain mood--is very moving, very artistic. It's just that in a Western culture we have heard it so much that we tend to be unmoved. It's like being forced to watch a movie over and over again.
Also, the poetry of the Bible. It is often very moving to somebody like me. But do not think I am offering some kind of argument here (the story caught on because it is good artistically).
Because the same could be said for the evolutionary story. Very moving. Powerful.
I think aesthetic appeal is underrated in determining what one believes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2002 4:23 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 29 (27255)
12-18-2002 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
12-18-2002 4:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
And what happened through the years as regards women in Islam? I guess they started interepreting the scriptures somewhat differently.

I make no attempt to justify current political climates. I only commented about Islam's beginnings.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2002 4:08 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 29 (27332)
12-19-2002 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
12-18-2002 4:08 PM


The Saudi version of Islam is th Wahhabi sect, one of the more strict ones. They demand their women to cover their faces while it was not stated implicitly or explicitly anywhere in the Qur'an. If it is among the hadits (Traditions), then not all sects practise it. I'm following the Syafi'i school, one of the great four Sunni Muslim sects. Wahhabi is not among them; it is only practised in Saudi & some groups in other Arab countries.
Anyway, there actually are some some hadits that consider woman inferior to men. One of them stated that women must be treated sternly because they are made of a crooked rib. However, the person that passes this hadits--Abu Hurairah, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)'s companion--is not considered a just and unbiased person by some scholars, so his hadits are of low value (likely to be rejected). Another hadits from Abu Hurairah stated that man was made in the image of Allah, (which IMHO is contrary to what Muslims believe, and a good reason for me to doubt Abu Hurairah), and another stated that Adam was some 40 meters tall.
Anyway, Arab men are known to be notoriously hostile to women (There are authentic cases of Indonesian maids abused or raped by their Arab employers) so maybe the Sauds were only trying to protect the women...
I think so. Gonna look into this some more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 12-18-2002 4:08 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 12-19-2002 6:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 29 (27336)
12-19-2002 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Andya Primanda
12-19-2002 5:57 AM


Arabs and Persians, from my experience, tend to be more dogmatic in the aggregate than most other Moslems. It may have less to do with Islam and more to do with the cultures that Islam overlies. I'd like to recommend two books that, although a bit dated (both from the mid-80's), give a pretty accurate account of women's roles and life in two progressive Arab countries. Both are written by Arab women.
The first is a non-fiction cultural account, "Beyond the Veil", by Fatima Mernissi. It provides a fairly detailed description of the roles and status of women in Morocco. Although Mernissi has a bit too much of the "socialist ideologue" in her writing, and obviously has an agenda, from my personal observations of Moroccan society the book overall is pretty good.
The second is a fictional account of a young woman growing up in Algeria, Ali Ghalem's "A Wife for My Son" (out of print, but may be available in a good library). (Ali Ghalem is a pseudonym). It's a fairly sensitive and non-judgemental snapshot of life in the great Arab socialist experiment. The things that happen to the main character are, IIRC, drawn from the actual experiences of the author.
I highly recommend both books for anyone who is interested in this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-19-2002 5:57 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Eximius, posted 01-02-2003 10:29 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Eximius
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 29 (28297)
01-02-2003 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
12-19-2002 6:30 AM


Taoism for me. No god(s). Just the Tao, which is a lot more palatable to an agnostic like me (but still not very palatable).
------------------
"I'm rather less interested in what people think than in what's true"
- Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 12-19-2002 6:30 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Kolyahu
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 29 (28336)
01-02-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
12-16-2002 7:03 PM


B"H
If I had to choose a religion? It would be "none of the above". Why, do I say this? All religions are missing something. I am an
Anti-institutionalist/Activist. I've tried all kinds of religion and not one seemed to fit all of what I was searching for. They all have many things in common, but they remain exclusive social clubs for people to feel good about doing wrong. Now we all do things wrong, but should I want to feel good about it? What about making amends? Amends to: the Creative forces that work together as one, in one accord, 'Elohim' (Hebrew.); vis-a-vis 'God' (in English); To my fellow human being; and to myself.
I don't want a religion as we consider religion today. They are divisive, and fraught with many outdated traditions that have proven false, yet they are clung to with an iron grip. I do agree that many traditions are warranted however, in certain things.
When it comes to the foundations of the major three religions, Those are the traditions that should bind them, into one religion, yet the powerful, and the greedy (For money & fame, power, and control)rely on their separate identifiers (exclusive traditions), even if these things completely contradict their own scriptural cannon. Now how can that be maintained? To hold to a cannonized script and claim to represent it; yet teach, preach, and practice the opposite? This is called ,by Webster's Dictionary: "Hypocracy". So which religion would I pick, the only obvious answer to that is, actually a thought:
"If there were many trees in the forest and the one that gave life to all the animals and all the birds, and all the fish, and all the people, was twisted; and its branches were swaying in the breeze, banging each other til the leaves and fruit fell to the ground and began to rot, which part of the tree would you hold onto to remain steady, and be able to continue giving life to those branches?" For you christians I suggest reading Romans 11, and Revelation 7. To Islam, I suggest nothing (you wouldn't listen anyway, the wind is blowing too much for that to occur, I suppose)I choose Judaism, because it is closest to the root of all three religions. It also has a spiritual side that is a constant and ever-increasingly closeness with 'The ALL'. Called the art of 'kabbalah', it is at the root of mysticism. It accepts truth from no matter what source, and adds it to that which is already known.
You ask if I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and savior, I ask you, Why should I agree to that, if Jesus was not his name? Why should I agree to any religion that erases the Sacred Name of the God of Israel from all of its texts, and substitutes it with mere convections & titles such as; 'Lord', or 'God'? You don't even realize that the word for 'Lord' is also the name of a pagan deity called "Baal", and the word 'God' comes from a pagan deity also such as; Gut, Got, and El of the pagan Canaanite pantheon. The word 'Adonis' crept in to Judaism, around 180bce, and it became a law not to speak the name of the Mighty one of Israel aloud. The law of non-invocation of the sacred name YHVH, which was instituted to protect Judaism from their enemies, who were trying to destroy them and their religion. (Perhaps it is why they still refuse to speak the name openly, because of their enemies.)
Back to the question. If I HAD to choose, it would be 'Judaism', the branch called 'Chassidism'.(Which is something you must be born into (that I know of), and because I wasn't: I choose-'None of the above').
Shalom Alechem (Peacefulness be upon all of you)...B'Shem Ani Hagodal
(In the name of the Greater 'I AM')

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-16-2002 7:03 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by shilohproject, posted 01-04-2003 4:35 AM Kolyahu has not replied

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 29 (28399)
01-04-2003 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Kolyahu
01-02-2003 10:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Kolyahu:
B"H
If I had to choose a religion? It would be "none of the above". Why, do I say this? All religions are missing something. I am an
Anti-institutionalist/Activist. I've tried all kinds of religion and not one seemed to fit all of what I was searching for. They all have many things in common, but they remain exclusive social clubs for people to feel good about doing wrong. Now we all do things wrong, but should I want to feel good about it? What about making amends? Amends to: the Creative forces that work together as one, in one accord, 'Elohim' (Hebrew.); vis-a-vis 'God' (in English); To my fellow human being; and to myself.
I don't want a religion as we consider religion today. They are divisive, and fraught with many outdated traditions that have proven false, yet they are clung to with an iron grip. I do agree that many traditions are warranted however, in certain things.
When it comes to the foundations of the major three religions, Those are the traditions that should bind them, into one religion, yet the powerful, and the greedy (For money & fame, power, and control)rely on their separate identifiers (exclusive traditions), even if these things completely contradict their own scriptural cannon. Now how can that be maintained? To hold to a cannonized script and claim to represent it; yet teach, preach, and practice the opposite? This is called ,by Webster's Dictionary: "Hypocracy". So which religion would I pick, the only obvious answer to that is, actually a thought:
"If there were many trees in the forest and the one that gave life to all the animals and all the birds, and all the fish, and all the people, was twisted; and its branches were swaying in the breeze, banging each other til the leaves and fruit fell to the ground and began to rot, which part of the tree would you hold onto to remain steady, and be able to continue giving life to those branches?" For you christians I suggest reading Romans 11, and Revelation 7. To Islam, I suggest nothing (you wouldn't listen anyway, the wind is blowing too much for that to occur, I suppose)I choose Judaism, because it is closest to the root of all three religions. It also has a spiritual side that is a constant and ever-increasingly closeness with 'The ALL'. Called the art of 'kabbalah', it is at the root of mysticism. It accepts truth from no matter what source, and adds it to that which is already known.
You ask if I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and savior, I ask you, Why should I agree to that, if Jesus was not his name? Why should I agree to any religion that erases the Sacred Name of the God of Israel from all of its texts, and substitutes it with mere convections & titles such as; 'Lord', or 'God'? You don't even realize that the word for 'Lord' is also the name of a pagan deity called "Baal", and the word 'God' comes from a pagan deity also such as; Gut, Got, and El of the pagan Canaanite pantheon. The word 'Adonis' crept in to Judaism, around 180bce, and it became a law not to speak the name of the Mighty one of Israel aloud. The law of non-invocation of the sacred name YHVH, which was instituted to protect Judaism from their enemies, who were trying to destroy them and their religion. (Perhaps it is why they still refuse to speak the name openly, because of their enemies.)
Back to the question. If I HAD to choose, it would be 'Judaism', the branch called 'Chassidism'.(Which is something you must be born into (that I know of), and because I wasn't: I choose-'None of the above').
Shalom Alechem (Peacefulness be upon all of you)...B'Shem Ani Hagodal
(In the name of the Greater 'I AM')

Wow, I appreciated the somewhat misty, hypothetical nature of this thread up until that last one, the big "What If" which invites us to stop for a moment and consider possibilities...
But, man oh man, that last one! On Sports Talk radio they would call that a "Homer," you know: the Home Team all the way!
For a moment I thought I was being pitched a 12 Step program, but then came that root thing. Anyway, I'm up very late working, so perhaps I'm a little goofy right now.
-Shiloh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Kolyahu, posted 01-02-2003 10:16 PM Kolyahu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024