| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! SUBSCRIBE NOW !! Online School of Politics |
||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
World Religions Compared
How different are they? by Sophia Barkat Here's what I follow on Comparative World Religions: http://www.unification.net/ws/ - Andrew Wilson's book, "World Scriptures"". Basically on any topic you get to see what all the religions of the world preach. Or rather what the Books preach. It's very fascinating to see the lack of real differences. I doubt today's clergy know much about other religions when they speak ill off them to their own congregations. Perhaps we should be requiring a lot more education and a loss let preaching on the parts of clergy. by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post Being somewhat opposed to "big pictures" I suppose it is not surprising that I consider these "big pictures" not as important as one might suspect. As Sophia has already pointed out regarding Muslims -the basic faith might be the same but the interpretation can be quite different in different cultures. This of course is equally true for Christian societies. personally, I believe that (unconscious) "aesthetic" issues are probably more important that most people realize -or may even be prepared to accept. One of the difficulties involved in discussing these issues is a taboo on cultural differences -because many people are scared that admitting the existence of different (cultural) identities automatically leads to racial prejudice, segregation and violence. Another problem is that society is not generally prepared to investigate the value and function of formal systems - and paradoxical as it may seem -aesthetic differences may possibly function in similar ways to the axioms in formal systems. In Holland, discussions concerning the formation of a new coalition government recently broke down after two and a half months of negotiation. These discussions were between the Christian Democrats and the Labour Party - two parties that have a history of problems concerning the possibility of working together. Personally, I suspect that this is because the Labour party is probably more "Protestant in nature -while the Christian Democrats are a combination of earlier Protestant and Catholic parties (and has had its own share of in-fighting) but appears to be predominantly "Catholic" in its attitude to power. By this last remark I refer to the (historical) problem of "forgiveness". Catholics, believe in the power of absolution but Protestant religion knows no confessional and no forgiveness. As a possible result of this -Catholics tend to be more "flexible" (or dishonest, if one wishes to express it negatively) when dealing with moral/political problems (like economic distribution of wealth, foreign policy, etc.) and Protestants seem more "direct" (or superficial, if one wishes to express it negatively) when dealing with moral/political problems. One is therefore tempted to wonder how much the "political" differences are in fact "aesthetic" (or arbitrary but deep-rooted psychological preferences). For example, "Right-wing" people seem to believe that humans are fundamentally "bad" and can't be trusted -and therefore need to be kept under control in some way -while "Left-wing" people seem to believe that humans are fundamentally "good" and can generally be trusted to behave well. Perhaps this reflects their own characteristic -which would be fine, except that presumably "bad" people are likely to pretend to be "good" in order to gain the undeserved trust of others..... These (fundamental) differences have little to do with religion - although perhaps the original founders of the various faiths may have belonged to one (or more) of the above mentioned types of people...... Clearly, some people like to focus on "difference" while others like to focus on "similarity" -and some are fascinated by "small patterns" while others go for the "big picture"...... by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett Re: Sophia's post I think I will have to get this book. Also could you recommend a good English version of the Koran. I know anyone can be an evangelistic preacher here. You don't have to be a college graduate or have any kind of religious schooling. Most of the churches here or evangelistic and that is what the right wing of the Republican party advocates. They even have their own bibles and they say God and Jesus are one and the same person. No where in the new testament does it say God and Jesus are the same person. It says Jesus is the son of God. It is really scary the way they are changing the Christian religion. by Sophia Barkat Re: Cherrie's post I'll ask around. I read Marmaduke Picthall's translation of the Quran but it was dry. I fell asleep every time. It was slightly better than reading the Arabic text without knowing the meaning - a common practice amongst all non-thinking Muslims, including my degreed parents who seem to question everything but religion. ;-) I was told by someone in high-school someone with the last name "Ali" had written a good translation. But, I did not feel any curiosity, seeing how it's no fun finding out how God wishes to admonish, limit and punish my freedom. In my opinion Islam, Christianity and Judaism are religions for the poor and uneducated. They served a social purpose - communist upheavals - in their times. I wouldn't waste my time studying any of them. My personal favorite for quotes are the Hindu Vedas. The Vedas were written way before the Gita and Ramayana, and represent more philosophical things. Buddhist religion, Taoism also philosophical. Some charm there. Of course, I found out the beauty of the Vedas via the Andrew Wilson online book some years back and run to it whenever I can. Incidentally, much of modern day Quantum Physics and String Theory is finding out what the Vedas contained some thousands of years ago. There are some books on Vedic Mathematics/Science which I found at Amazon.com. But having said, so, I just finished writing for Quietpoly.com an article on Cubism and Riemann's Model of N-Dimensional Space, and it occurred to me that Moses's and the whole deal could have been true. If God is some higher dimension being then Picasso's Cubism show us that God's image would be too hot to handle. Moses did ask to see the face of God to which Gabriel did say, "You can't. You'd be frightened, and wouldn't last the experience," or something. Perhaps then you should read the Quran. by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post Sophia Barkat wrote: "But having said, so, I just finished writing for Quietpoly.com an article on Cubism and Riemann's Model of N-Dimensional Space, and it occurred to me that Moses's and the whole deal could have been true. If God is some higher dimension being then Picasso's Cubism show us that God's image would be too hot to handle." Guess I'll have to read this. I suspect that neither subject have been correctly understood. Certainly, it is a cultural disaster that Cubism has been interpreted as a visual style -and not as a serious approach to relativity theory via visual art. There is also much confusion about multi-dimensional space. In fact the dimensions are arbitrary, merely a function of the description strategy used. The myth of the impossibility of higher dimensions than three in the physical world is also garbage. I have already described "colour" as a three-dimensional space on this list (but I guess everybody choose to ignore it). Another interesting characteristic of space -which tends to demystify the concept of "higher" dimensions -is the fact that any dimensional system can be converted into any other dimensional system. Your TV, for example -converts the TV signal (which could be considered as one or four dimensional, depending on ones inclination) into a two dimensional image (if one only considers the gray levels - a color TV has of course a higher dimensional image). What most people don't realize, is that "counting" is in fact the enumeration of the positions found in a multi-dimensional space -with the dimensions being formed by the number of digits -and the "size" of the space being determined by the numerical base used. Most people are only used to count in base 10 -but, in principle, any other unit can be used. With computers 2, 8, 16, and 32 were popular bases -however, those who have not gone metric may use 12 (inches in a foot), 3 (feet in a yard), etc. Earlier in Europe, 12 (pennies in a shilling) 20 (shillings in a pound) were common. England was of course the last to give up this system. I guess the link to religion is that the "words" (big or small letters) don't really matter -it is the "interpretation" that is important. If this "interpretation" is preserved within a living tradition -then one can discover what the "words" mean within that tradition -but once the tradition is gone then it is almost impossible to know what it really meant. In this latter sense, "communication" is impossible -because one either "knows" how to interpret the "words" -or one does not. In my own experience, there is very little chance of people reading the 'words" and understanding the "meaning". Although people like to believe they are creative and intelligent - in fact their minds are like ancient steam trains, once on the rails and travelling at speed, changing direction becomes difficult and if attempted is likely to cause derailment. Perhaps the philosophical effects of "changing perspective" is what Cubism could have been about. However, it seems that western culture (with its belief in "objectivity") has problems with such a pluralistic approach. The division between science and art prevents non-scientists from understanding how science has learned to divine meaning by mapping between the different "subjective" spaces. The result is the social confusion produced by Post-modernism -a confusion which is apparently gladly exploited by unscrupulous politicians. A confusion for which the public must also take its share of the blame -because it refuses to move outside its own intellectual straightjacket. Telling stories is one of mankind's favorite ways of passing time. I have heard tell that the new testament is an allegory presenting Essene mythology in terms of the life of a fictive individual. Other rumours state that sections of the dead sea scrolls contain texts similar to those found in the new testament -although written many, many, years before the supposed birth of Christ. Some people see the Essenes as a large "mystical" sect -perhaps similar to the Muslim "Sufi" sect -or Zen practitioners within Buddhism. Some other people believe that the bible can only be interpreted through cabalistic (numerological) interpretation. It seems that "mystics" are people (found in almost all religions) who reject the "big picture". Interestingly, both Judaism and Islam forbid the use of the name of their god (and visual representations thereof). In Christianity, it seems that the generic term for the "unknown" (and Unknowable) has become the name of the deity. Even the simple phrase "In the beginning there was the word" is open to ambiguity. Perhaps Cubism has always been with us -only we refuse to see it. by Trevor Batten Re: Cherrie's post Cherrie Lynn Lipsett wrote: "No where in the new testament does it say God and Jesus are the same person. It says Jesus is the son of God. It is really scary the way they are changing the Christian religion." And still people believe in the "big picture"! Historically (and now) there have been times of tension between different religions -and yet I bet almost nobody could point their finger to the doctrinal differences that cause these problems. How many years have Protestants and Catholics opposed each other. But who knows why? Who knows why the Roman church split off from the Greek church? |
Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Archives Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Advertise with Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations (pending member) MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org |