2. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 18, 1999 - 7:32 AM PT
Let's discuss Religious Homoiousia. It's ok... look it up first.
Done? If you look at enough religions, you'll see that many of the stories are shared in one form or another. What are these shared stories and where did they come from?
We can also talk about similarities in structure or hierarchy between religions. The idea is to look for common themes, rather than differences.
I'm sure things will come to mind, but if you need a starting point, why don't we begin with creation? Every religion has a creation myth. Let's look at similarities in these stories.
3. ScottLoar - Jan. 18, 1999 - 7:42 AM PT
In the beginning was nothing, a void without measure, and out of that nothingness came a single sound - Om! And the universe was born.
4. bubbaette - Jan. 18, 1999 - 7:44 AM PT
I like the story where in the beginning, a Giant ate all of his children except Zeus, and Zeus got the Giant to barf up all the other gods.
5. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 7:53 AM PT
Eid Mubarak!
6. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 7:57 AM PT
I don't know why Snirv even bothers to manage the Religion thread by introducing and suggesting topics. This thread will be whatever the regulars want it to be about.
7. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:04 AM PT
Well, it's worth a try. And several regulars have requested this topic.
8. NickVanston - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:08 AM PT
Most religions have creation myths, but they differ quite a lot from one another. Maybe they start when some intelligent child asks her father where everything comes from, and the father makes up a fairy story to satisfy her curiosity. Then the father dies before he can explain that it was just a story, and the child grows up believing it to be the gospel truth (so to speak). Pseud of Pseud's Corner will tell me that this is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
9. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:15 AM PT
Vanston (Message #8)
"Pseud of Pseud's Corner will tell me that this is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific."
Silly person, you may recall from the previous religion thread that I _criticised_ falsificationism as the necessary criterion for scientificity. After all, a lot of what must be considered science is not strictly falsifiable.
10. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:18 AM PT
Welcome to the Ba'hai thread, where all roads lead to God, and we're all brothers and sisters and silly little religious differences do nothing more than incite wars and persecutions and division. Can't we all just get along? Can't we all see the inherit wisdom in everyone believing whatever they darn well please, and not doing anything tacky like insisting that the truth can have only one version?
'
11. Jenerator - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:18 AM PT
We can all talk about "homoousia" as it relates to early church doctrine and its' formulation into religious thinking.
You first PE.
12. NickVanston - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:20 AM PT
Pseudo, Message #9, just checking your levels of vigilance and reactivity.
13. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:22 AM PT
I will not discuss anything that begins with homo.
( -erotica, -sexuality, -sapiens, and -genation are all OUT.)
14. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:23 AM PT
Message #10: Despite the underlying Thumperism of this message, I think it mildly amusing. The "Bahai" touch is particularly good.
Bahais, they're so nice they deserve to be persecuted, as they have been in Iran.
15. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:28 AM PT
Psuds -
So glad that I could mask my thumperism enough to mildly amuse you this am. For a real rib-tickler, see my contribution in News of the Day, except the humor is provided courtesy of my employer.
16. CalGal - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:34 AM PT
Marsha,
No, this one's funnier.
Congratulations! You got a Pseudo-kudo!
17. Jenerator - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:34 AM PT
I work with a nice Iranian Ba'ha'i ( I can never remember where to insert the apostrophes). She sought refuge here, from the persecution you speak of. Her name is Fareba, and she's trying to teach me Farsi.
18. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:36 AM PT
Calgal
Excellent! Especially for a Monday am! I shall save his post and yours for My Pseudo Antic-Witty file, (which I have every intention of setting up one of these days.)
19. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:37 AM PT
Jenerator: Just get yourself a copy of "Teach Yourself Modern Persian".
20. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:38 AM PT
I fired someone once who was a Ba'hai. It was during the days of the Iran hostage crisis (if 444 days can be termed a crisis). As I recall, he described himself as Persian back in those days, since no one was admitting to be Iranian.
21. Jenerator - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:40 AM PT
PE,
Is there such a book? Btw, Fareba says that Farsi is both easy and difficult to pick up. She says that it should be easy, because it is similar to French in its pronunciation, but difficult because there is no standardized spelling.
Is it just me, or is the topic of this thread boring?
22. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:14 AM PT
Message #21
Farsi sounds NOTHING like French. Your Bahai is merely regurgitating the Iranian conceit that their language is the "French of the Middle East". (Frankly, to my ears, Farsi sounds like the chanting of a eunuch hallucinating on opium.)
23. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:16 AM PT
I don't understand the title of this thread. "Homoiousion" is according to the OED the doctrine that "the Son is of like substance with the Father".
24. phillipdavid - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:40 AM PT
The only time I have encountered the word is in connection with the Nicene Creed, where it was postulated that Jesus was of the same substance as God -- that he was God.
25. rotsen - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:54 AM PT
"Homoiousian" according to Webster's Third Unabridged means "holding to the doctrine that the Son is essentially like the father but not of the same substance.." On the other hand "Homousian" is "one that accepts the homousian doctrine of the Nicean creed. Holding to the doctrine of the Nicene creed that the Son of God is of the same essence or substance with the Father —-distinguished from homiousian, Compare with Heterousian: an Arian holding that the Son was of a different substance from the Father.
I find this an odd subject for a thread. However if it is taken to stimulate controversy and to bring out the fact that many of the stories in the Bible, like that of Noah are found in older Mesopotamian civilizations and writings as the subhead of the thread suggests should be the topic, then perhaps the thread will be interesting, particularly if the ;regulars are joined by some new blood.
26. jkuzmak - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT
I have no time to post now, but I am going to have a good time on this thread. And , Erasmus, don't let the "homoyousion" bother you.
27. phillipdavid - Jan. 18, 1999 - 9:59 AM PT
I was just reading in the Penguin _The Portable World Bible_ about how many similarities Zorastrianism has with the Jewish and Christian religions.
Just think, if Xerses had not been defeated at the battles of Marathon and Salamis (in about 48O B.C. - where the Persians had a three-to-one superiority) we might all be Zorastrians now instead of Christians.
If that were so, we would believe in a loving Father-Mother God who is omniscient and concerned with the welfare of his children; instead of Jesus, we would have Zarathrustra, who, while not peculiarly the son of God, was sent to earth by God to spread his doctrine and do his work; we would look forward to "the Kingdom of God"; we would have the ancient statement of a region of darkness and a region of light, of heaven and hell, of the good power in conflict with the evil; we would have Angra Mainyu, instead of Satan -- mere difference in name; we would have angels and archangels; we would have a statement about the final resurrection of the dead very similar to that in the Judeo-Christian Bible.
28. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:03 AM PT
"Just think, if Xerses had not been defeated at the battles of Marathon and Salamis (in about 48O B.C. - where the Persians had a three-to-one superiority) we might all be Zorastrians now instead of Christians."
Why? What makes you think the Greeks would have adopted Persia's state religion? What makes you think Persia would have imposed it? What makes you think even if the Greeks had adopted it the Romans would adopt Zoroasterianism? And even if the Greeks and the Romans had adopted it, why could the Middle Eastern mystery cult centring on a crazed Gailean Jew not have also managed to displace Roman Zoroastrianism?
29. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:05 AM PT
Better yet, a crazed Jewish, proto-Marxist, Galilean Houdini.
30. jkuzmak - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:06 AM PT
Sounds entirely reasonable to me , Phillipdavid. Perhaps, Socko will treat us to an exposition on his theory of Religious Sexual Attraction.
31. jkuzmak - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:09 AM PT
How do you find the time, Erasmus? For the Fray, I mean.
32. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:12 AM PT
Easy, as a student, I don't work for a living.
But I work on the computer a lot, and when I tire of Krustal-Wallis tests and the like (which is every 5 minutes), I post some brief interjection in the Fray.
33. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:14 AM PT
...KrusKal-Wallis....
34. phillipdavid - Jan. 18, 1999 - 10:21 AM PT
PE,
I just thought that those battles stopped the western march of the Persian Empire, and if that didn't happen maybe Zorastrianism would have been the prevailing religion of Europe (and then the Americas?).
But your points effectively halted my mental meanderings (for the time being).
35. pellenilsson - Jan. 18, 1999 - 11:16 AM PT
First, let's get our terminology right.
Homousious: The essence of the Son is identical to the essence of the father.
Homoiousous: The essence of the Son is like the essence of the Father in the sense that a perfect copy is like the original.
So, the choice of theme for this new thread is singularly inept. No religion is identical to, or a carbon copy of, any other. Furthermore I think there are more differences than similarities (except on a very basic level such as the belief in life after death) between religions. It would appear that the person who thought this up has recently read something about the similarities between the Bible and the Gilgamesh as concerns the Flood and became awestruck by it.
Of course, the similarities between Christianity and the several, contemporary orgiastic fertility cults in the Middle East is not entirely without interest.
36. ChristiPeters - Jan. 18, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
Each of the Religion Threads I have lurked in so far have been really Christianity Threads most of the time. Why?
It reminds me of the catalog from a small liberal arts college that I was looking at a few weeks ago. I noticed they offered a degree in "Religion". Curious, I looked up the course list for this and noticed that each and every single class dealt with Christianity. Well, they did have one freshman level class in 'comparitive religion', but that was it. So why didn't they just say they were offering a degree in 'Christianity' rather than calling it a degree in 'Religion'.
Why?
Hmmmmm....???
37. DanDillon - Jan. 18, 1999 - 11:39 AM PT
"orgiastic fertility cults in the Middle East"
Careful, penisless...um, pellenilsson. Whatever.
No need to offend hundreds of millions on the eve of one of their great feasts.
38. pellenilsson - Jan. 18, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
DanDillon
If you think that Islam is an orgiastic fertility cult you'd better have another think coming on fast. Stupidity is not appreciated on this thread
39. DanDillon - Jan. 18, 1999 - 12:15 PM PT
Must have misunderstood your kind, honorable intentions, Oh Big Mind.
40. darkviolet - Jan. 18, 1999 - 12:16 PM PT
I guess Eid celebrations in Seattle are taking place tomorrow morning in the Seattle Center Arena. I might go this time, if just to check out the beautiful clothes the women will be wearing. Muslim party dresses are gorgeous, brilliant colors and incredible fabrics.
41. pellenilsson - Jan. 18, 1999 - 12:23 PM PT
DanDillon
OK, but my intentions were neither kind, nor honourable, just not directed against the Islamic faith.
42. DanDillon - Jan. 18, 1999 - 12:29 PM PT
OK, grumble grumble serious grumble no sarcasm detected here grumble serious grumble.
43. pellenilsson - Jan. 18, 1999 - 12:43 PM PT
DanDillon
Cool!
44. DanDillon - Jan. 18, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
pellenilsson,
How old are you..19 or 20?
45. pellenilsson - Jan. 18, 1999 - 1:00 PM PT
DanDillon
55, and I enjoy playing games with nitwits like you. But let's cut this out. If you have something serious - as distinguished from ad hominem attacks - to contribute to this thread, please do so. Games can be so very tiresome when one's partner is not up to it.
46. DanDillon - Jan. 18, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
grumble gumble
47. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
In classical Greek, "homos" means "the same", while "homoios" means "similar". And "ousia" is "essence".
Frankly, the difference between "homo-ousia" and "homoi-ousia" is theological trivia, nothing more. Both are doctrines of consubstantiality (the sharing or identity of substance).
48. brightidea - Jan. 18, 1999 - 2:09 PM PT
Mazel tov!
49. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:04 PM PT
Well, this Ba'hai thread has certainly taken off!
Actually, you thumper bashers out there need to recognize that the only time this thread has any life to it is when a committed Christian (or at least a committed theist) dares to lay out his/her beliefs so all you atheists/secular humanists/moral relativists can pile on. There's no one out there who will defend any other religion in other than the superficial, dry and intellectual of ways.
For example, PseudoEramsus last week posted a most provocative article from the Atlantic Monthly about the Koran. Yet no one responded. Where are the ardent Muslims that will defend their faith?
Uh huh, just as I thought: silence.
So just remember the next time you complain about the Christians that at least they care enough about their faith to defend it.
50. Hanspragma - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
I dropped in here because my Israel/Palestine thread has up and disappeared on me. Let me throw out an idea that may or may not prove provocative. Some scholars have contended that one of the things the Protestant Reformation was centrally "about" was the large role that Mary had come to play in the religious life of Roman Catholics. Of course, she still does play a large part. But this theory of the Reformation holds that the "protestors" were concerned that Mariolatry verged either on polytheism or on the feminization of the One God. If this is so, then Luther et al. were saying (a) there must be only one God, (b) that one God must be a Patriarch, with no compromise or ambivalence about his masculinity, (c) Renaissance Catholicism had put the above points in doubt, so it must be purified. What I want to know is whether the fraygrants who know more about this stuff than dumb old HansPragma think that a plausible historical hypothesis, and if they do what light it sheds on the broader issue of the relation of the various branches of Christianity to non-Christian religions.
51. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:19 PM PT
Message #49
"So just remember the next time you complain about the Christians that at least they care enough about their faith to defend it."
Or that they are too stupid to make a primitive statistical inference.
The Fray has got a handful of Christian thumpers and no religious Jews or Muslims. Just statistically you'd expect such a distribution. Fraygrants are overwhelmingly American, and Americans are overwhelming Christians, nominal or otherwise. So, the Defenders of the Faith are going to be largely you people, the Thumpers.
52. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:19 PM PT
Hans
What I say is that you have posited a false dichotomy. Luther's protest had nothing to do with Mary. The catalyst was the selling of indulgences ("buying your way to heaven") but the core issues were/are that salvation is through God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. The medieval church had gotten so far afield from the Holy Scriptures as to be pushing a works based salvation (exemplified by the notion of purgatory and the selling of indulgences.) A second major doctrine is the priesthood of believers, namely that there is only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. There is no "priestly caste" as we can all boldly go to the throne of grace to find grace to help in time of need. I would say that these two issues were far more central to the protestant reformation than anything about Mary.
I'd say the interest in Mary hit its pinnacle in the 19th century, when the pope had to first declare his infalliability and then decreed that Mary was a perpetual virgin and was sinless, neither of which is supported in the Scripture (which is why the pope had to declare his infallibility: "It's true cause I said so, that's why!")
So, do you want to talk about Mariology or the protestant reformation?
Or the trinity?
53. ChristiPeters - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
marshame -
I followed PE's link to that article. Since I don't know much about the Koran, I found it very interesting. However, what was there to say but thanks for the link? Which is what I did.
As you know, I was raised Methodist, but am currently exploring my spirituality. This is not to say I have rejected Christianity. Having finally reached a position where I don't have to focus all my attention merely on survival, I took a deep breath and looked at my life. I decided I needed to go to a church for better reasons that just because it was the one my parents had taken me to as a child.
Unfortunately, being in a state of searching, means I have more questions than answers. However, I do think that Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor and our enemy. So why *can't* we just all get along? I don't mean that if you sincerely believe that Christianity is not only the best, but the only Truth, that you should stop proselytizing, but sometimes 'discussions' in the Religion thread get very nasty indeed. That makes me a bit sad and seems to be pretty counter-productive.
I wish we could get more input from people who are of other faiths than Christianity. Surely, learning about and understanding other faiths should lead to better communication. *IF* you are interested in converting someone (I don't mean you specifically) doesn't it help if you understand them and are at least polite enough that they are willing to listen to you?
54. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:23 PM PT
Christi
I agree. I was just trying to pick a fight.
Forgive me!
55. ChristiPeters - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:23 PM PT
Wow, a lot was said while I was slowly typing.
I was supposed to head for home 20 minutes ago, so I'll catch up with y'all tomorrow.
56. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:30 PM PT
Psuedo
Party pooper.
If we all recall, when Irving announced that his wife was on a pilgrimage to Mecca, people fell all over themselves congratulating him and her, like it was the most wonderful thing in the world. Then when another poster came in this thread and said that over the weekend he had decided to accept Jesus as his savior, the comments were derisive and full of ridicule. So to the contrary, Master Boy Wonder, the Fray is full of people with an anti-Christian bias who condemn those who have made a commitment, while cherishing their own lack of same. I particularly resent the common implication that people are only Christian because they're too ignorant to outgrow whatever was pounded into their little pea-brains as children. To the contrary, people like me and Bloodnfire came to be Christians as mature adults (and after much searching, study and prayer, I might add.)
So keep yer smarmy put-downs to yerself, you little twirp. And if you want to talk statistics, I'd LOVE to see a statistical profile of Slate subscribers and Fray posters. Hardly representative of the US population as a whole, I'd venture to guess.
The
57. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:43 PM PT
marshame (Message #56)
"If we all recall, when Irving announced that his wife was on a pilgrimage to Mecca, people fell all over themselves congratulating him and her, like it was the most wonderful thing in the world."
I think this is primarily to do with the fact that Snirv is popular in the Fray and well liked, not because people are just eager to suck on Muslim face.
"Then when another poster came in this thread and said that over the weekend he had decided to accept Jesus as his savior, the comments were derisive and full of ridicule."
That was Norwoodr. You may recall that when he acknowledged that he could not believe that a loving God would send non-believers to hell sheerly on account of non-belief, all questionings subsided and even Elliot said: "Norwoodr, you're OK." Imagine that.
Thumpers are disliked for their views, Marshame. Of course there's prejudice against you people.
"I'd LOVE to see a statistical profile of Slate subscribers and Fray posters. Hardly representative of the US population as a whole, I'd venture to guess."
I didn't say the Fray was representative of the U.S. population as a whole. But you would still expect there to be more Thumpers than religious Jews or Muslims.
58. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:53 PM PT
That's the trouble with you, Pseudo, you're so rational.
59. marshame - Jan. 18, 1999 - 4:54 PM PT
Except for the "you people" part. If you will recall, that phrase contributed to Ross Perot's downfall (among about 40 things.)
60. Hanspragma - Jan. 18, 1999 - 5:04 PM PT
Marshame. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As to your question what I want to talk about, I think I'll focus on the issue of the origins of the Reformation for a little while -- I'm working on the assumption that this sub-subject is within the broad parameters intended for this thread. I'm not satisfied that Mariolatry was as irrelevant in the 16th century as you assert, but I don't have my references available just now, so I'll get back to you on it when I have a chance. In the meantime, thanks again. I thrive on attention.
61. darkviolet - Jan. 18, 1999 - 5:20 PM PT
Re: Message #53
The ancient texts described in the Atlantic article PE linked to showed the evolution of the Koran in a historical context and refuted the idea that the text of the Koran was provided intact in its present form directly from God to Muhammed. The ancient texts refute the idea that the Koran is the immutable word of God. My thought on reading about the discoveries was that Muslims are very fortunate compared to Christians and Jews in having physical evidence of the history of their religion in hand. Using that physical evidence, Muslims may be able to rid themselves in time of a lot of dangerous superstition that Christians and Jews may never be able to, having destroyed their early history.
62. jkuzmak - Jan. 18, 1999 - 7:15 PM PT
I just attempted to post a message foaming with religious fervor, but it was lost in the cybervoid. I expect the hand of God was at work, for the message would have made many tear their hair and nash their teeth.
So, back to homoiousia. If all religions are of the same substance or essence, regardless of their specific beliefs, what is the substance or essence? It would be nice to draw Thumpers into a productive discussion on this topic but, alas,................
63. resonance - Jan. 18, 1999 - 7:38 PM PT
Yes. We like Irv. And I have yet to see a real Muslim or Jew enter the Fray and proceed to vandalize it with hate-speech.
It's a tired argument that ought to have been retired long ago, this complaint of yours -- that only the people who have made a religious commitment are ever taken to task here, and the task-takers are usually uncommitted and unrepentant, agnostic sorts.
One might look, for example, at Snood's wife -- whom you even brought up -- and counter your point. Or one might look at the example of norwoodr, whom even I embraced. And I don't suppose that we should overlook Fraygrants such as the Diva, who seems to have a personal relationship with her God and doesn't have much of a problem saying so. And let's not overlook Felipe, who is so heterodox that magpies regularly try to seize his beliefs out of envy, but is clearly nonetheless possessed by mystical belief. I don't see anyone lining up to bash Phillipdavid, who on his absolute nastiest day is still one of the top ten nicest people I've ever known.
Hm. The only one who's ever taken Bloodnfire to task, I think, was myself. (Well, Elliot did, but c'est la Elliot). And I still told him that I though his brand of Christianity was much preferable to the norm, and had much going for it. (At least, the brand he professes to have). Who else? There was a Rasta here once, who had some undeniably intriguing things to say about the spoken words Jah Love. No one attacked or derided him. (Tom something?) There's been a few Hindus, I think, and I'm trying to remember the name of the guy who'd rap Buddhist talk with me.
Among these people we certainly find no shortage of conviction of belief. Or, for that matter, commitment. So you cannot claim that there's a bias against the, ah, 'committed'.
64. resonance - Jan. 18, 1999 - 7:41 PM PT
No, it's only in the Fray reaction to fundamentalist Christians that we see fervent belief attracting scorn. Not any christians, but Thumpers in particular attract derision here. Marshame, Hooligan, and Jenerator in particular, with some backing vocals by tckrulak, beyond, and a few others who come and go, mostly going. Not the others. So you can't claim Anti-Christian bias, either. No, it has to be something specific to the way fundamentalists interact in the Fray that engenders such a noticeable reaction.
It's not commitment that we seem to dislike. It's not even stupid commitment. It's vocal people possessed of stupid and contradictory commitment, the kind that interminably preach what they only rarely practice. That's what draws the logical attacks and the deserved sneering. But fundamentalists don't want to accept that -- both because they'd like to paint a broader picture of intolerance, and because they're usually congenitally incapable of looking within themselves to see the contradictions between their creed and their actions.
65. jkuzmak - Jan. 18, 1999 - 7:43 PM PT
Hanspragma:
Who are the scholars you refer to in message #50? The theory sounds very reasonable to me. One thing that true believers tend to be very weak in is history. As a matter of fact, believers often have a vested interest in tweaking history when not performing downright deceptions in order to preserve their faith.
66. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:23 PM PT
"...because they're usually congenitally incapable of looking within themselves to see the contradictions between their creed and their actions."
Human beings aren't born introspective.
67. CalGal - Jan. 18, 1999 - 8:33 PM PT
TC is a very mild thumper, as is JoeZan. But I don't see why we shouldn't have loud and occasionally obnoxious Thumpers to counterbalance the loud and occasionally obnoxious true believers of the non-religious variety.
It's only fair.
Besides, all the preachy condemnation that occurs in the name of tolerance around here would get tedious without some preachy condemning intolerant sorts.
And where the hell has JoeZan and Norwoodr been, lately?
68. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:12 AM PT
Marsha:
"If we all recall, when Irving announced that his wife was on a pilgrimage to Mecca, people fell all over themselves congratulating him and her, like it was the most wonderful thing in the world."
As I recall, the only reason the subject came up in the Fray was because of the tragedy in Mina during last year's pilgrimage (when several hundred people were killed in a stampede), and I was worried sick about my wife, since I didn't know at that point that she had avoided the ceremony because things looked dangerous. (Here is a photo of my wife (in white) with friends at the scene of the tragedy the following day.) I received a tremendous amount of support from people in the Fray, but I really don't think it was because my wife is a Muslim who performed the pilgrimage. If anything, I think there is more distrust of devout Muslims in the USA than of devout Christians. And I have a feeling that a devout Muslim in these threads who told others that they were infidels who would never see the gates of paradise unless they accepted the teachings of Muhammad would be soundly drubbed. I don't think it is an individual's religious views which people object to as much as perceived intolerance. But I may be wrong.
69. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:24 AM PT
I've noticed a bit of confusion about the title of this thread. It was suggested by a fraygrant (I was unfamiliar with the term) because of the dictionary definition of "homoiousia": "similarity but not identity in essence or substance." Perhaps it was not the ideal word.
As the thread was proposed to me, it was to explore the shared stories among various religions and to look at the origins of these stories. Except for a few posts (such as Message #27), few participants have posted along these lines. I don't know if the topic is too obscure or uninteresting or if it is poorly defined. Would a change of title help?
The thread was not proposed to denigrate any religion, or to suggest that all religions are the same. There are many shared themes among various religions, and the thread was proposed to look at these themes. To anyone who has studied comparative religion (or comparative mythology), these recurring stories are quite evident, and looking at them is (at least theoretically) an interesting exercise. I supported this idea because it allowed for the frequently-requested opportunity to explore religions other than Christianity in the Fray.
70. bloodnfire - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:48 AM PT
Resonance. Good morning! Your Message #63
"Yes. We like Irv. And I have yet to see a real Muslim or Jew enter the Fray and proceed to vandalize it with hate-speech".
May I once again suggest, as I have in the past, that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the 'Hidden Man [or Woman] of the Heart' of a 'Real' Muslim or Jew or Christian ?
Your comments relate to jkuzmak's in the preceding post #62...
"So, back to homoiousia. If all religions are of the same substance or essence, regardless of their specific beliefs, what is the substance or essence? It would be nice to draw Thumpers into a productive discussion on this topic but, alas,..."
Well, I guess I'm a 'Thumper', inasmuch as I do quote our 'Book', which I have learned to trust over the past 32 years. I would love to be a part of a 'productive discussion' on the topic jkuzmak. Is it helpful [or pathetically naive] to suggest that the 'Substance or Essence' of the Major Religions of the world is a
Person ? That the same Person who 'circumcizes the heart' of the 'true' Jew, [Deuteronomy 30:6], does exactly the same thing with the 'true' Muslim, and the 'true' Christian ? Probably with the 'true' everyone else as well.
The reasons I 'like Irv', [in addition to his patience with this 'Motly Crew' of which I am probably the 'motliest' :-)], is that he unfailingly demonstrates the same qualities, ['Substance, or Essence'] that I read about in the Book which 'thumps' me on embarrassingly regular occasions.
So, incidently, do you jkuzmak, Res, Elliott, Harper, and the rest of the 'Courteously Skeptical', though perhaps not quite so unfailingly !! :-)
Forgive me, but I am convinced that it is this same 'Substance or Essence' Who draws us all to this thread in the first place !!
71. jkuzmak - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:21 AM PT
My Dear Blood'n:
We agree on quite a bit.. I myself read the Gospel's through every now and again. No doubt about it, I can't get away from the Bible. I attempt to practice an essentially Christian ethics. I wish no man harm. But I view Christ as a great teacher, not the son of God. Didn't Christ deny divinity? Perhaps, he had "knowledge" of the Divine. Didn't the early Church stamp out ideas like this in the formation of their doctrine? A doctrine clearly devised by the hand of man. But once again, you always go back to your God, your Christ, the Christ that you believe in, the Christ of your Book, God as a man.. I much prefer to consider the Divine as a mysterious force that is nearly impossible for me to understand, but of which I may catch a glimpse or obtain a slight understanding if I am vigilant and do my homework. Christianity in some form seems a very good way to live ones life. I think it very likely that I have asked myself the same questions that you have asked yourself, but my answers are different. And I do find it difficult to believe that a man is God. Quite a stretch for me. Can live my life happily without that belief. On what do you base your belief? The stories that men have written?
There is a fellow advertising a book in the back of the New Republic which I intend to order. YOU WILL NOT TASTE DEATH -- JESUS AND EPICURIANISM. Christ is clearly on my mind, but I cannot bring myself to Thumperism.
72. jkuzmak - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:28 AM PT
Bloodn:
You believe that it is your specific interpretation of the essence that brings us to this thread? I think part of the reason that Jesus spoke so cryptically was that the truth doesn't come out and wap you in the face. It also doesn't appear in the books of men.
73. RyckNelson - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:37 AM PT
Irv,
Imo the use of homoiousia as you've described it fits very well. It should be similarities only and not the essence and substance. It is corrct, to me, that Budhism's, Buddha and his essence will be different form Chrisitanities, Jesus. But, their similarities are in lifestyle and teaching imo.
Resonance has given an excellent observation post to sum up, which I agree with.
So, what's a topic of similarity in here?
74. RyckNelson - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:41 AM PT
I would like to hear from Muslims about what the Koran says wrt prophets. It's been of interest to me for years and I've no clear comparisons to the bible. I've read the New Testament and most of the old. But, I've not read any of the Koran. Therefore it would be an exchange with no assumption of what the Koran says. I want to hear what different Muslims have learned about the status of Jesus in their learning. What is his status?
75. DanDillon - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:56 AM PT
Ryck,
Jesus is a prophet in Islam, just like Mohammed, but he's a *lesser* prophet. (After all, it was Mohammed who led the adherents out of Mecca and into Medinah in 622.)
76. elliot803 - Jan. 19, 1999 - 7:14 AM PT
marshame's fantasy world:
Attacking other people because they're gay, Jewish, etc. = loving, deeply held Christian belief.
Attacking other people because they attack people who are gay, Jewish, etc. = anti-Christian bias.
77. SeaSailor - Jan. 19, 1999 - 7:52 AM PT
Hanspragma Message #50
Mary's role was not a major issue in the beginning of Protestenism. In fact, aside from Luther, there were few religious issues in the beginng of Protestanism.
The division of Christianity was spurred primarily by the political power of the Church in feudal times. Feudalism has local rulers subject to a higher lord and he is subject to a yet higher lord and on-and-on. The pope had become the highest lord and the kings of Europe could not rule without his consent. Only the church was allowed to tax the peasants and the church then gave the king some of money with which to rule.
Luther was sincere in his efforts to reform the church and had no intention of starting another Christian religion. But the political times were ripe, and the political church had lost much of whatever made it holy or spiritual. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The kings saw a way of breaking the pope's hold on the people. They had to find someome with a new idea of Christianity that stayed out of the king's way. There were quite a few takers. The kings first move was to sack the monasteries where the money and gold were being safeguarded.
78. SeaSailor - Jan. 19, 1999 - 7:59 AM PT
Hasparanga
More recent splits in belief have occured because a new preacher needed monetary support of locals to start his church. He had no central sponsor, like the pope, to give him money or pay his salary. The crisis is some holy people do not to be associated with those poorer, less holy people, so they start their own church and shop for a preacher more in line with the backers. There are over 26,000 Christian religions today and more coming all the time.
79. NickVanston - Jan. 19, 1999 - 8:09 AM PT
I recollect one posting by a Muslim in the Religion thread last year. He gave a long and well-written account of the Muslim faith, and implied that Islam had spread and was becoming the world's largest religion because people were impressed by its peaceful message and the harmonious lives of its adherents. He was challenged on this, including by me, and exited shortly thereafter in a hail of invective against infidels. So maybe the thread is dominated by Christians, agnostics and atheists be cause they have more staying-power (or more time to waste).
80. SeaSailor - Jan. 19, 1999 - 8:12 AM PT
Fraymaster
This is a poor topic because most Christian churches believe in the Trinity. It is one of the few things most Christians can agree on. The title "God-of-Abraham" is common to Jews, Christians, and Muslims who all trace their roots to this one God, the Creator whose name is "I AM".
The Mormons are probably the largest group that does not believe in three-persons-in-one-God. Joseph Smith came up with the idea that God always sends humanity new prophets with His latest words. Jesus was a prophet who became another god when he died, same as Joe and the other prophets.
81. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 19, 1999 - 8:21 AM PT
SeaSailor:
Interesting that you should bring up the concept of the trinity. It is found in several other religions I have looked at, and is an excellent starting point for discussion of the sort I envisioned for this thread.
82. BunEBear - Jan. 19, 1999 - 8:36 AM PT
Message #79 Wasn't that one of PE's fake ID's? I'm not sure we've seen a real Muslim here in the Fray (other than Irv, I guess, though he has kept his religious beliefs pretty much private on the Fray).
83. BunEBear - Jan. 19, 1999 - 9:46 AM PT
Irving, I assume one of the religions you are referring to here Message #81 is Hinduism. What are some of the others? Would somebody knowledgeable in non-Christian religions (Irv or PD maybe?) care to elaborate?
If a religion is a an established set of stories that people use to help them understand their place in the world and to give meaning to the their world, then it is not too surprising that in some cases (if not most) the individual stories would predate the established religion and that several systems of religion belief might share some stories. Perhaps some of these stories might have even had some historic event as their origin. Some of you have probably seen this article in the NY Times about the theory that the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea might have been the origin of the (much later) Gilgamesh and Genesis flood stories. It sounds pretty farfetched, but it would be interesting if the cultural memory of such an event could be so long lasting.
84. pellenilsson - Jan. 19, 1999 - 1:02 PM PT
Irving
"Interesting that you should bring up the concept of the trinity. It is found in several other religions I have looked at, and is an excellent starting point for discussion of the sort I envisioned for this thread."
Would you care to name some of them?
85. pellenilsson - Jan. 19, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
SeaSailor
"There are over 26,000 Christian religions today and more coming all the time."
Strength or weakness?
86. phillipdavid - Jan. 19, 1999 - 1:40 PM PT
re Trinity
Aside from certain natural couplets, such as past and present, day and night, hot and cold, and male and female, man generally tends to think in triads: yesterday, today, and tomorrow; sunrise, noon, and sunset; father, mother, and child. Three cheers are given the victor. The dead are buried on the third day, and the ghost is placated by three ablutions of water. Also, the ideas of triads naturally arise from many suggestive relationships, e.g., the three joints of the fingers, because three legs are the fewest which can stabilize a stool,
because three support points can keep up a tent. So it seems only natural that a trinity concept should find its way into religions, imo.
I believe at one time or another the the Persians, Hindus, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, and Scandinavians all had triad gods. The earliest I know of is the Indian conception among the Hindus -- Being, Intelligence, and Joy. (A later Indian conception wasBrahma, Siva, and Vishnu.) The Buddhist faith developed two doctrines of a trinitarian nature: The earlier was Teacher, Law, and Brotherhood; that was the presentation made by Gautama Siddhartha. The later idea, developing among the northern branch of the followers of Buddha, embraced Supreme Lord, Holy Spirit, and Incarnate Savior. These ideas of the Hindus and Buddhists were real trinitarian postulates, that is, the idea of a threefold manifestation of a monotheistic God. A true trinity conception is not just a grouping together of three separate gods.
It is interesting to note that the greatest montheists, the Hebrew and Islamic faiths, had a difficult time accepting the concept of trinity. The Hebrew mind could not reconcile the trinitarian concept with the monotheistic belief in the One Lord, the God of Israel. The followers of the Islamic faith likewise failed to grasp the idea of the Trinity (I am unsure about this point, but remember reading it somewhere - I am fairly ignorant of things Islam
87. phillipdavid - Jan. 19, 1999 - 1:41 PM PT
Islamic). I suspect it was just plain difficult for an emerging monotheism to tolerate trinitarianism when confronted by polytheism. The trinity idea seems to take best hold of those religions which have a firm monotheistic tradition coupled with doctrinal elasticity. The great monotheists, the Hebrews and Mohammedans, found it difficult to distinguish between worshiping three gods, polytheism, and trinitarianism, the worship of one Deity existing in a triune manifestation of divinity and personality.
I believe the the first Trinity of Christianity was proclaimed at Antioch and consisted of God, his Word, and his Wisdom. Paul knew of the Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, but he seldom preached about it and made mention of it in only a few of his letters to the newly forming churches. The word Trinity itself is not even used in the Bible.
88. pellenilsson - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:02 PM PT
phillipdavid
You seem to have difficulties with your time scale. The Hebrew monotheism preceeds Christianty by a thousand years or so. Islam emerges about 600 AC. Obviously, trinatarianism was not an issue for the Hebrews but was, and is, one for the Muslims. And, I think, for good reasons. It is not easy to explain, or understand, how something or someone can be one and three at the same time.
Can you substantiate what you write about the proclamation of Antioch?
When you write that "Paul knew of the trinity ... " you imply that this knowledge resided somewhere outside Paul. Where?
89. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
How is Trinitarianism an issue for Muslims?
90. pellenilsson - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
PE (as you seem to be known these days, my dear ExAlex)
It is an issue because Christians claim to believe in one God but he mysteriously manifests himself in three different beings, which Muslims tend to see as polytheism.
91. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:39 PM PT
Message #90
I've been known as Pseudoerasmus for several hundred Fray-centuries now.
Educated Muslims do think Christianity is a kind of polytheism, but the Trinity is not an "issue" for them.
92. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:42 PM PT
Message #82
Yes, I once posed as "Haroun-al-Rumi", a putative fundamentalist theology student from Al-Azhar University in Cairo, who was in the states teaching Arabic and Koran to black Muslims in the inner city. Despite his fundamentalism, he was peace-loving and patentialy fielded many questions from PD, Darkviolet, et al.
But since I have no recollection that Vanston was ever in the Fray before the last few months, I sincerely doubt "Haroun al-Rumi" is the one he's talking about.
93. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
Message #91
That is, the Trinity is no more pondered or discussed or puzzled over by Muslims than by Jews. So I really see no point in your questioning PD about his "time scale".
94. brightidea - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:45 PM PT
pseudo--shalom. who's the best communicator in the fray?
95. pellenilsson - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:59 PM PT
PE Message #91
"Educated Muslims do think Christianity is a kind ofpolytheism, but the Trinity is not an "issue" for them."
As good an oxymoron as I ever saw. Thanks, will be savoured.
96. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 19, 1999 - 3:05 PM PT
pellenilsson (Message #95)
I know English is not your native language, so perhaps you should look up "issue" in the dictionary.
In order for something to be an issue, it must be on people's minds, it must be discussed, perhaps debated. Muslims generally don't do that with the Trinity. That doesn't mean there aren't Muslims who have looked into Christianity and puzzled over the father, the son and the holy hymen business.
But if you were to ask a Muslim what he thinks of the Trinity, and if he knew something about it, the invariable response would be that it verges on polytheism.
That hardly makes it an "issue" -- certainly not more of an issue than among Jews.
97. pellenilsson - Jan. 19, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
Good night, everybody
98. bloodnfire - Jan. 19, 1999 - 4:03 PM PT
Jkuzmak. Your Message #71 and 72. The premise that God, if indeed there were such a Being, would select this tiny planet, around our fairly insignificant star in our relatively small galaxy [an estimated mere 100 Billions of stars] to create a garden. In that garden to create Men and Women in His Likeness [whatever THAT means], and then, in order to satisfy Holy Righteousness, become a man in order to die a death that He couldn't bear to see His own die, IS OUTRAGEOUS TO A REASONABLE INTELLECT!!
To learn [to one's stunned amazement] that it's the Truth, takes revelation. If one could explain 'revelation', it would no longer be necessary. God has chosen to reveal Himself to His Own by personal 'revelation'. I can't explain it. I proclaim it.
99. Hanspragma - Jan. 19, 1999 - 6:35 PM PT
Marshame -- in my message 60 I promised to get back to you on the subject of the Reformation once I could get to my reference materials. As a general proposition, the fact that the 19th century saw the codification as DOGMA of the "immaculate conception" hardly means that that was the beginning of Mariolatry more broadly conceived, which is a "variety of religious experience" for Catholics, (I steal W. James' phrase of course), not in essence a dogma at all.
At the end of the 13th century, Dante Alighieri wrote his Divine Comedy, and near the end of that great poem (Paradise, Canto 33) he portrays Beatrice praying in these words, "O Virgin Mother, Daughter of thy Son,/ Lowliest and loftiest of created stature,/ Fixed goal to which the eternal counsels run,/ Thou art that She by whom out human nature/ Was so ennobled that it might become/ The Creator to create Himself His creature....Lady, so great thou art and such thy might,/ The seeker after grace who shuns thy knee/ May aim his prayer, but fails to wing the flight." There is more like that, both in the ellipsis I've provided and in the lines following my close quote.
The figure of Beatrice is another issue here -- she was Dante's own personal Mary, so to speak, his feminine God-bearing image. So the personal Mary, in order to complete the process of Dante's salvation, has to pray to the cosmic Mary, for prayer that does not go through the proper channels fails. The above language clearly tells us as much.
As for what Luther thought of this sort of thing, look up the American edition of his collected works (edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann, vol. 21, p. 323.) Luther is there writing specifically not of Dante but of Catholic painters and they way they have portrayed the Virgin. He says what a shame it is that in such paintings "there is found in her nothing to be despised, but only great and lofty things." Continued.
100. Hanspragma - Jan. 19, 1999 - 6:40 PM PT
Marshame, and those other fraygrants who have expressed interest in the matter. I think the above material makes a case -- on a necessarily superficial level, for a point in the history of western Christianity that has very general implications. Each of the three great monotheisms has a faction which takes a sternly patriarchal view of God. But each has a counter-tradition, which in one way or another would introduce a feminine principle there. As for the names of the scholars from whom I derived this conception -- I'll have to beg off a second time. I've done enough homework for just now. I'm sure I didn't make it up, not being capable of that! The Jungian tradition comes to mind off hand, as does some of Harold Bloom's work.