Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : History's effect on Religion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (120)	5/12/2003 1:07:21 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 520

This is a thread about objective study of religion, philosophies, or the relevant science. More to the point, religion's effect on history has been widely studied; "God said so...and I took it upon myself to spread His word" (clearly subject to the understanding of the person). Alternatively, some have argued that such and such monarch used religion as a tool to achieve his goals. But very few people have chosen to study the relationship in the opposite direction. The general perception is that religions do not change in time. That somehow they are words true for eternity and that any changes we see are simply our improved understanding of what the religion had been all along in the first place. I consider this a marketing ploy and devoid of any objectivity. All religions start out to address some social, political, or deep psychological issues. A society that is fully content, is a society that does not need a new religion. Elemental religions were there to explain the nature. Sufism was a response to chaotic life under Mongol warlords who arbitrarily killed people. Judaism and Christianity both had their roots in providing hope and better lives for the slaves. In time they became tools of statecraft (or in case of Judaism a means to prevent loss of identity). In doing so they had to change to meet this new requirement. Whatever the immediate critical need that the religion wanted to alleviate, it could not do so by ignoring other aspects of the culture. A religion that cannot mesh well with the social structures and cultural backgrounds of its society is a religion that will die off fast. Yet this aspect of religion is hardly studied. Few people point out that alcohol was not banned in Islam until Mohammed's uncle and one of his strongest supporters showed up in a mosque praying in a drunken state and spewing out sacrilege. How convenient that he could not do such blasphemy there after. Hamza's drunkenness cost Islam dearly. At some point in time Russia was looking at Islam as the official religion for the state. But the Czar had to concede that "Vodka is the comfort of the Rus and we cannot accept a religion that prevents us from it". Here you have an example of a religion that was in too much contrast with the people and failed to penetrate. History's effect on religion is not studied often because it can be used to claim everything in religious texts is just made up. Imagine the opposition in the Islamic world if you go on claiming that alcohol is not banned in Islam because God said so, but because Hamza was embarrassing Mohammed at a time he could not afford it. As another example, consider that here we are arguing over if the High Priest of Mithra Wannabe who decided to use religion as a tool of statecraft and had to keep his Legionnaires and aristocrats happy would have actually forced the slaves' religion upon the upper class. We would not be discussing this at all if we were talking about two pagan African tribes. Such discussions however do not disprove the existence of God or prove that all religions are just made up. I find it likely that some people (say the very few very "talented" ones) who spend a lot of time away from distractions can find a connection to a greater truth. Zarathustra, Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, etc were perhaps among them. There is even a similar pattern among many of the founders of great religions. They in turn publicized their understanding of this greater truth to the public. Therefore, it is possible that Mohammed was not making it up when he banned alcohol after Hamza's drunken episode. Perhaps he tried to tap into his connection with the universe and articulated the best answer he could have. But at the same time, this does not mean the answer he provided is beyond reproach for every occasion in history. During the times of normalcy, most religions do not allow such discussions because it leads to fragmentation. Yet somehow at times of great crisis a new revelation of the old scriptures manifests itself. And when the followers of this new interpretation survive (and others don't), it becomes "proven" that this is what God had meant in the first place...such is the effect of history on religion. Sun Tzu