Are The Major World Religions More Different From Each Other Or Alike?

They're very similar to me.

 

I'm really having a hard time fathoming what you're trying to say. When I talk about Muslims, I use the same approach I use in evaluating other beliefs, such as atheism. I've heard many believers say you can't trust atheists; they're immoral people who don't believe there will be any real consequences for them if they commit immoral acts. They think existence is a fluke, that there is no ultimate meaning to it all, so eat, drink and be merry for when we die that's all there is. And just look at them: the arrogant Richard Dawkins; the self-indulgent Christopher Hitchens; the brash Sam Harri; the insane, syphilitic Friedrich Nietzsche, etc. What can I say? You and Bill seem to be analyzing Muslims the way these religious bigots size up atheists. But I know lots of atheists personally. I assess their beliefs the way I assess all other beliefs. I observe their demeanor, I see how they interact with others, especiaily their spouses and children; I listen to what they say, how they became atheists, I read lots of atheist literature; and I make my judgments, based on all of these factors. My opinion of atheists (including Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Nietzsche) is generally favorable, and when I hear Christians or other religious people spouting off about them, I let them know that I think they're off base. My judgments about Islam were formed in pretty much the same way. I know a number of Muslims in this country, both lay and clerical, and in Morocco, hear what they say about Islam, and observe how it acts in their lives. And I read the scriptures--the Qur'an, the hadith and the Sira, much as I read the Bible and great Christian writings. According to the Pew Research Center, there are about 2.18 billion Christians and 2.08 billion Muslims in the world--which is a lot of different individuals, divided into a number of different sects. Generalizing about them is difficult, if not impossible. But I listen to people like the Khans and my friends, who strike me as sincere, outstanding citizens, as are so many other Muslims I know. Then I listen to the caricatures presented by you and Bill Warner, which sound incredibly selective and shrill. And I judge that he and you are off base.

When I listen to Warner explain how he forms his opinions, I conclude that he's the one who is basing his views on out of context analysis of words, instead of how they work in the lives of real people. There are a lot of contradictory passages in the Qur'an and the hadith, just as there are contradictory passages in the New Testament. There are statements attributed to Jesus that are downright chilling, and yes, there are people calling themselves Christians who would say "If Jesus said them, it must be so". But fortunately there are many who treat them in overall context. Muhammad was a military commander, as well as a religious leader, and he was dealing with real opponents who were trying to kill him. Unlike Jesus, he didn't preach turning the other cheek, but he did preach just war, and did indeed preach violence against those who took up arms against Islam. But the passages constraining the conduct of hostilities and respecting the rights of non-believers should also not be ignored. And to say that Muhammad is "the only Muslim who's opinion matters in Islam" is both naive and fanatical. Muhammad's opinions, like those of Jesus, have been given a variety of interpretations, and to my knowledge, he didn't call for abrogating the principles of just war for an all-out attack against non-Muslims and non-aggressors. You selective summary of Muhammad's career is as skewed as Bill's.

I think I've already replied to most of what what Bill has to say in my previous post. Just scroll up and you'll find it. Islamophobia, like homophobia, is a tern coined to describe and extreme, distorted hateful view of Islam. Bill holds and presents such a view., and if he can't see that, I do question his mental stability, as I question that of any fanatic anti-Semite, anti-Catholic or anti-atheist. He is a self-styled, self-taught "expert" with zero credentials in Islamic or religious studies, and as is too often the case with such people, his views are misguided. The confidence with which he spouts his views from such a limited perspective speaks volumes about his intellectual limitations. He distorts the meaning of Sharia, jihad and kafir. His mindset and demeanor reflect a rigidity which I've often encountered in bigots. As for the alleged suppression of women's rights, I find it interesting that nine Muslim countries have elected women as heads of state, and we have yet to elect one! Those are, btw: Tansu Cillar of Turkey (1993-1996), Megawati, Sukanoputri of Indonesia (2001-2004),,Mume Madior Boye of Senegal (2001-2002), Atifete Jahjaga of Kosovo (2011-present), Roza Outunbayeva of Kyrgyzstan (2011-present), Khdeda Zia of Bangladesh(1991-1996); (2001-2006), Sheikh Hassinaof Bangladesh (1996-2001), Amenah Fakim of Mauritius (2015-present), and Benazir Butto of Pakistan (1988-10990; 1993-1996). The Qur'an 's mention of the powerful role of the Queen of Sheba, and the numerous examples given in the Hadith of women having leadership roles, including Muhammad's wives Khalida and Aisha, provide support for women in politics.

It would be wrong to deny or underestimate the darker side of Islam: the fundamentalism of Wahabi/Salafi schools that the Saudi government spreads around the world at great expense, the fundamentalism of Shiite views perpetuated by the Iranian Ayatollahs, and the fundamentalism of the Afghan Taliban, which confuses Pashtan tribal norms with Islam. These are serious threats, as is ISIS, that must be carefully countered by informed actions. But sweeping denunciations of the religion on the basis of seventh and eighth century texts is unwarranted.

 

Erratum: My population figures for Islam and Christianity from Pew sources are inaccurate. The 2010 figures are: 2.1 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims. Let's stick with those. According to Pew, the Muslim population has been growing faster than the Christian population. My earlier figures were based of Pew projections for the future. But my point is the same. Also, the dates for the late Benazir of Pakistan are, of course (1988-1990;1993-1996)..

 

I actually agree with much of what you say here with some quibbles. Christians do follow the Sabbath Commandment, although on a different day and not nearly as strictly as the Jews. Catholics, Protestants and Jews basically agree on the Ten Commandments, but group and number them differently. Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 contain fourteen or fifteen commandments which various denominations divide into ten in different ways, and sometimes slightly different translations. And Islam's "dualism" when it comes to the Golden Rule is exaggerated (See An-Nawamai, Hadith 13).

At the broadest level, I think all religions have in common that they serve the same basic functions: for individuals,expressing a basic sense of the sacred, providing meaning and purpose to human existence, and the hope of some control over it, and offering a basis for morality; for societies, providing a means for social control and legitimacy for institutions. And there are families of religions that offer a basis for commonality that could possibly be used to bridge differences. The Abrahamic religions, for example, share a tradition of the same God, common spiritual ancestry (Abraham and the other Old Testament prophets), and overlapping scriptures as "People of the Book" in Muslim terminology, The bulk of practitioners of Yoruba religions are tied to this through syncretic features of their own religion and often dual membership in Christian churches. Buddhism is an outgrowth of Hinduism, and modern Daoism and Confucianism borrow heavily from Buddhism, as well as from each other--and are often co-practiced by the same people. But unfortunately, the particulars are extremely important to most believers and differences tend to outweigh similarities in the minds of practitioners. That's why fundamentalist (literalist) expressions of these traditions cause such division and harm. The Abrahamic religions seem to have the most problems here, although Hindu and Buddhist fundamentalist sects also have a recent history of religious violence, not against each other but against other religions in Burma and Sri Lanka. Feuds within families are often the most intense. All Abrahamic religions share the same God, but Jewish fundamentalists still believe they are His chosen people, Christian fundamentalists believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and Muslim fundamentalists believe that Trinitarianism is idolatry. Etc.

 

That's interesting... Let me try that:


MountainValleyWolphobia 899,328,999,999 results


WHAT THE F?????!!!!!!

 

however much some people might wish to use one belief as an excuse to oppose another, it is clear, none who do, understand either very well.

they all come from the same god or gods, if they come from any, or conversely and at the very least, humans motivated by the same wish,

which is again, to encourage each other to want to avoid screwing everything up.

-

where the dominant religions all make the same error, and yes that means christianity AND islam, is by promoting the hatred of logic,
and by promoting their use as a substitute for it. which, just as a btw, isn't what either of them started out to do either.

 

You sure about that? Real quick in the holy texts is tells you that you're gonna have to just believe what you read or you're immoral.

 

Mr. Writer....sarcasm......?...as that is not pure love......

 

and how is this not your "holy text" contradicting itself?
the land is sacred, the air is sacred, the universe is sacred, but the text, any text, is the work of mortal minds.

there is a rational, observable basis, for morality, it does not, nor in any way require, a book of well meaning fairy tales.

 

^

Science, religion and natural philosophy have their roots in the same substrate.. i.e. existence.

They grew in different directions but that's pretty natural.. but to hone in on religion, I'd like to believe(and am pretty certain) that they all started with similar shamanic principles i.e. integrating the organism into its environment. The reason they all seem so different is because each religion is a product of it's own microhabitat so each have distinct patterns and relatively logical guidelines for those home environments.
As cultures developed into habitats of their own and the relationship with primal awareness slipped out of place, these ways of living mutated into what we recognise now as a load of cock and balls(that were only really framed in a way that isn't immediately relevant to our modern circumstances anyway). However, the patriarchal dominance mindset is so deeply ingrained within the subconscious that anything that doesn't meet a previously determined constitution is disregarded as evil or anomalous.

So on the one hand we have religious puritans and on the other a bunch of militant atheists all squabbling over whose jail cell is superior. Oh, and Hillary Clinton.

 

The sports analogy makes sense to me in regards to the topic but it probably depends on the parameters we are discussing.

 

When we don't make sweeping platitudes about how they are all "trying to get closer to god" or something, and we look at the actual content of major religions, we find a large variety of value systems, creation myths, end time myths, etc.

Even when religions are heavily plagiarised from prior ones, like in the case of Islam, we find Islam having very little to do in fact with the religions from which it was based.

 

ALL religions or spiritual practices are very similar when it comes down to the subjective mystical experience for one very simple and inescapable reason, we are all human and all share the same brain/nervous systems.
So any and all experience is going to follow the same biological/physical pathways with very similar results whether is be via spontaneous ecstasy, meditation, ritual practice, drugs, etc. etc. we all will share very similar experiences.
It is how we interpret such experiences that gives rise to the seemingly different and disparate religious/philosophical viewpoints.

 

Maybe. Or maybe they're having different experiences.

 

Not saying you're wrong about this - but I think too that pre-existing beliefs tend to shape our experiences, not only the ways in which they get interpreted afterwards.

 

Ok so read my post.

You picked Islam.

2 things that immediately spring to mind about the content and value systems.

1. No alcohol. Why? Dehydration perhaps, Islam having been born out of a desert.

2. No pork, Why? Worms. Why? Lack of food, maximise nutritional intake.

Catch the drift?


Edit: And most creation myths as far as I know echo remarkably similar concepts. What else do you do when all you've got is a loincloth and a sharp stick? Observe the nature of mind I guess.