Previous posts in this discussion:
PostDo the Abrahamic Religions all Worship the Same God? (Anthony J Candil, USA, 01/22/15 3:12 am)
I find fascinating the whole thesis presented by David Duggan (21 January), no doubt one of WAISdom's finest, and I subscribe to it entirely.
Still, I am also one of "the one God, different interpretations" when coming to viewing the Abrahamic religions. I do, however, think that Islam's God is not the same that the other two. Judaism and Christianity are not so far apart in the end, half of the Book is the same anyway, but Islam is really apart, and an entire different faith.
So different is Islam that in my understanding it is neither forgiving nor merciful to others but evil and aggressive. Islam certainly divides the world in two: "believers" and "unbelievers," and considers right to kill or annihilate those who don't convert and join Islam.
Certainly I agree with David and emphatically see that Islam doesn't worship the same God as Christianity and Judaism do.
My patriot's stake though doesn't allow me to view "the God in which we trust" as the same God on whose name young boys and girls are called to martyrdom, killing not only themselves but many other innocents as well.
On the other hand, as time goes by I dedicate more time to thinking on the key question of "What's next?" Once I'm 65 already, it becomes more difficult for me to understand God as a force beyond my ability to comprehend and not just as a matter of blind faith or imagination.
God as we Christians understand Him, should be just mercy, eternal love, forgiveness and compassion. Then why the world is the way it is?
It comes to my mind Frankie Valli's song, "It is just too good to be true." Certainly as David mentions, there are too many slippage points, too many mistakes or failures not to shake our faith.
However, can society go on without religion? Can humans go on without a reason to believe? John Lennon said it is easy if we try, but I don't think it will be so easy in the end.
Mankind needs to believe there is some kind of "afterlife," otherwise chaos will reign and certainly it could be much worse than actually it is.
A key issue to discuss anyway.
JE comments: Great reference to John Lennon. A question: Why is an afterlife needed to keep this life free of chaos? (Assuming, for the time being, that there isn't already chaos in this life.)
For WAISers who are tiring of these lofty theological debates, remember that comparative religion is one of the "three pillars" of WAISdly inquiry--together with history and economics. The history of God and mammon?
I would like to stress that I do not view Islam as evil, although evil has been committed in its name. I'm with Vince LIttrell on this one.
In any case, greetings to Anthony Candil. I thought of Anthony over the weekend, when we saw the film Boyhood, which is getting a great deal of Oscar buzz. Part of it is set in Austin, Texas, where Anthony lives. The premise of watching a boy grow up over twelve years is fascinating. The execution in my view was much less successful: overly long, a meandering plot, and a brooding central character who is way too philosophical for his years. But most critics do not agree with my appraisal.
More on the Abrahamic Religions
(Tor Guimaraes, USA
01/23/15 3:38 PM)
It seems as if the logical support for the position regarding "the one god, different interpretations for the Abrahamic religions" is crumbling. This is what I expected.
First, we have John Eipper commenting on my 22 January post, admitting that his position that "within the theologies of the different Abrahamic religions there is only one God shared by all" has to be moderated by the fact that "looking at religious practice from the outside certainly gives one the opposite opinion." To me talking, theorizing, and philosophizing is relatively "cheap," and what really matters is behavior. That is particularly important, since there is an awful lot of "saying one thing and doing another" among devout religions people of any persuasion.
Second, my position is also supported by other religious WAISers like Anthony Candil (22 January). While Anthony wrote, "I am also one of 'the one God, different interpretations' when coming to viewing the Abrahamic religions," he immediately contradicted himself by excluding one of the major Abrahamic religions. Anthony wrote, "Islam's God is not the same that the other two."
Anthony goes on by negatively comparing, unjustifiably in my opinion, Islam to the Judeo/Christian religions. He then asks, "can society go on without religion? Can humans go on without a reason to believe?" I can't or don't want to, but I know many atheists and agnostics who are wonderful people and certainly compare favorably against many religious people of any religious denominations. Last, Anthony writes, "mankind needs to believe there is some kind of afterlife, otherwise chaos will reign and certainly it could be much worse than actually it is." To me there seems to be no evidence of an afterlife and making that up seems only beneficial to those trying to manipulate the gullible.
JE comments: The battle lines are drawn, and I don't see how they'll budge. Shall we now take up an easier topic (!), such as whether or not there's an afterlife?
Monotheism and Polytheism in History
(Luciano Dondero, Italy
01/24/15 4:40 AM)
Based on recent WAIS postings, let me ask a couple of questions: is God white or black, or some other colour? is God a He or a She, or something else entirely?
These are real issues, insofar as contemporary theologians are concerned, and some of them do debate these topics.
From my atheistic viewpoint, however, they are simply another expression of a rather obvious fact: man creates god in his own image--and therefore He (it's always a He) is made to speak Hebrew, Latin, Arabic or English, and always has one particular "chosen people" to further His aims.
At least that's how it goes for monotheistic religions. But most religions in the world, historically speaking, have been polyhteistic (or animist) ones.
Most notably, for the influence they had (still have?) on the West, one has to take into account the Greek, Roman and Scandinavian systems of deities. The Egyptian system, while polytheistic, worked differently.
Insofar as religious tolerance goes, but more in general if we want to identify an ability to show tolerance toward the beliefs of other people, it's self-evident that whatever secularism stands for, it takes a leaf from the book of our polytheistic ancestors.
The Romans, in particular, started getting a lot worse only when the Empire set in, and with it the notion that the Emperor himself was a divine figure (a bit like a Pharaoh). Therefore this introduced religious persecutions for those, like the Jews and the Christians, who worshiped their own God, and were not prepared to treat the Emperor as a God. But it also paved the way for the future insertion of Christianity into the Imperial system, making it into a state-enforced religion, with all that followed (Crusades, Inquisitions, and so on and so forth).
This virulent and violent Christianity probably also played a role in crystalizing Islam, as the johnny-come-lately of monotheisms, as a particularly bloodthirsty religion. Most accounts of pre-Crusade Middle East (or of El Andaluz in Spain) paint in actual fact a rather tolerant practice by Muslim rulers, most notably in the treatment of the Jews. To the point where there is an entire branch of them, the Sephardic Jews, who used to live in Northern Africa and in the Middle East, after being expelled from Spain in 1492. They were expelled from Arab countries in the late 1940s and 1950s, after the birth of the state of Israel.
The Islamic world did even play a crucially positive role, all its "blood and sword" rhetoric notwithstanding, in passing on to the modern world some of the knowledge of the ancients--as many Greek and Latin authors only reached Western Europe by way of Arabic translations. The Humanistic revolution that put an end to the obscurantism of the Middle Ages was nurtured with all that. The big problem is that not very much moved in the opposite direction later on: and thus, no Enlightenment in the Muslim world, or its equivalent thereof (and no "bourgeois democratic revolution," in Marxist parlance).
It would be interesting to discuss why that was.
JE comments: Could we say that polytheism by nature permits greater tolerance? At least it tolerates greater ambiguity--the possibility of conflicting truths.
Why was there not "enlightenment" or "bourgeois democratic revolution" in the Muslim world? This question has come up before on WAIS, but it might be time to revisit it. Our first question should be whether we are applying too strict a definition of "Enlightenment." In the West, it equates with modernity and prosperity. And both of these things (modernity and prosperity) exist in Muslim societies, too. The third pillar of Enlightenment is a separation of the divine and the secular. This separation is precisely what Sharia law attempts to eliminate.
Monotheism and Polytheism in History; on a "Chosen People"
(Eugenio Battaglia, Italy
01/24/15 3:11 PM)
I am a fan of Luciano Dondero, whose thinking and writing always intrigued me, especially since we start from a markedly different worldview. For instance, I am a believer and Luciano is an atheist. He is also a wonderful person, which contradicts the idea that only religion can make people better.
His WAIS post of 24 January is fascinating, especially where he states that we may have inherited religious tolerance from the polytheistic religions of the Greeks and Romans.
However, I would like to add some personal perspectives. I strongly believe that God cannot have a "chosen people," because this fact is inconceivable with a God Father of all Humanity.
When history has seen a "chosen people," such as ancient (and present-day?) Israel or, for some, the US now, it is only nationalist propaganda from preachers and politicians.
About the Crusades, I have an almost Marxist (!) point of view. They were a religious movement only on the surface. In the larger sense, the Crusades were the normal expansion of an expanding mercantile society which needed to control the markets of the Eastern Mediterranean through which expensive merchandise from the Far East was arriving. It was the attempt to recover and dominate territories that were once part of the Eastern Roman Empire which had fallen under the dominance of the Arabs, who themselves were motivated by a thirst of dominance and not out of a desire to peacefully spread the Word of God.
Luciano stated: "For sure a virulent and violent Christianity probably also played a role in crystalizing Islam." I fully agree, but I will add that even worse were the colonial and the silly wars "to bring democracy."
Frankly I would not stress too much the Islamic contribution to preserving and transmitting classical works to the Europeans. The monks of Saint Benedict of Nursia (and others) as far back as 543 were saving and copying the manuscripts of the classical Greeks and Romans. By the way, in 883 the Abbey of Montecassino with all its cultural treasures was sacked and burned by the Muslim Saracens. Were they motivated by a thirst for loot or by the word of God?
Of course, there were also many episodes of killing of Christians because they did not want to change their religion, but this can be also considered a way to insure loyalty to the the ruler.
For instance, on 14 July 1480, during the conquest of Otranto (Italy) by the conqueror of Constantinople, Mehmed II, 800 men were decapitated because they refused to become Muslim. Here the ruler wanted to create a loyal town as part of his unrealized goal of conquering Italy.
In the end we need an ecumenical agreement of all religions, by which anyone should be free to worship God as he or she wishes, but always respecting all other believers and their way of worshiping. Let God be the final judge.
By the way if God exists, I may have the chance to meet Luciano and tell him I was right, but if He does not exist, how can Luciano tell me that he was right?
JE comments: Eugenio's final paragraph sums up millennia of religious debate. Of course, the WAISly ideal is to admit to the other person that s/he is right.
- Monotheism and Polytheism in History; on a "Chosen People" (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 01/24/15 3:11 PM)
- Monotheism and Polytheism in History (Luciano Dondero, Italy 01/24/15 4:40 AM)