By monotheistic we seem to mean Abrahamic. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all believe in the same God, they come from Abraham.
When someone believes in a faith (as I do) then that is true. If not then you don’t believe it has any saving power. If I am talking to an atheist I am coming from a Christian perspective. None others are true for me. I can respect others but they are not true. The atheist knows this and we talk with that in mind.
I’m going to be tedious again, as I was on another thread or three, and say that even if you or I believe we know Christianity to be true, it’s very, very unhelpful when trying to have a discussion with people who don’t agree with that to say “I know.” If one says “I believe,” it helps discussion a lot more. If you say “I know,” even if you believe you know, it can come across as arrogant and aggressive, if you’re trying to have a conversation between equal parties who disagree.
I didn’t say the Christian should say I know. I indicated that if you are a Christian it should be accepted as the basis for the conversation. In my experience the atheist is often more closed minded than the Christian. Sometimes louder and more arrogant. A few can verge on verbal abuse. Also the atheist does not say I believe or don’t believe. They just assume they are correct. That gives them a subliminal advantage. Saying you believe means it may or not be true. Not having to say that puts each side on a more equal footing.
We have to be careful here as a person may not be an atheist for scientific or theological reasons. They may not believe in God because of a tragedy or bad event in their life. They may see the world and the injustice in it and decide there cannot be a God. We need above all to show love. Not score points.
It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
rwmklI mhlw 5 ]
raamakalee mahalaa panjavaa ||
Raamkalee, Fifth Mehla:
koeI bolY rwm rwm koeI Kudwie ]
koiee bolai raam raam koiee khudhai ||
Some call Him, 'Raam, Raam', and some call Him, 'Khudaa-i'.
koeI syvY guseIAw koeI Alwih ]1]
koiee sevai gusieeaa koiee alaeh ||1||
Some serve Him as 'Gusain', others as 'Allaah'. ||1||
kwrx krx krIm ]
kaaran karan kareem ||
He is the Cause of causes, the Generous Lord.
ikrpw Dwir rhIm ]1] rhwau ]
kirapaa dhaar raheem ||1|| rahaau ||
He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. ||1||Pause||
koeI nwvY qIriQ koeI hj jwie ]
koiee naavai teerath koiee haj jai ||
Some bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage, and some make the pilgrimage to Mecca.|
koeI krY pUjw koeI isru invwie ]2]
koiee karai poojaa koiee sir nivai ||2||
Some perform devotional worship services, and some bow their heads in prayer. ||2||
koeI pVY byd koeI kqyb ]
koiee paRai bedh koiee kateb ||
Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran.
koeI EFY nIl koeI supyd ]3]
koiee oddai neel koiee supedh ||3||
Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. ||3||
koeI khY qurku koeI khY ihMdU ]
koiee kahai turak koiee kahai hi(n)dhoo ||
Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu.
The problem i have with declaring that all monotheists with the same god (though some get things wrong about him) is that the one God of the Bible has a very definite personality, an overwhelming one, even. He doesn’t strike me as being interchangeable with, say, the god of Islam. Throw that God (the Bible one) into the mix and suddenly the static theorized one god models just don’t cut it. Like having a bunch of black and white portraits and then you get one in color.m—in video, even.
It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
rwmklI mhlw 5 ]
raamakalee mahalaa panjavaa ||
Raamkalee, Fifth Mehla:
koeI bolY rwm rwm koeI Kudwie ]
koiee bolai raam raam koiee khudhai ||
Some call Him, 'Raam, Raam', and some call Him, 'Khudaa-i'.
koeI syvY guseIAw koeI Alwih ]1]
koiee sevai gusieeaa koiee alaeh ||1||
Some serve Him as 'Gusain', others as 'Allaah'. ||1||
kwrx krx krIm ]
kaaran karan kareem ||
He is the Cause of causes, the Generous Lord.
ikrpw Dwir rhIm ]1] rhwau ]
kirapaa dhaar raheem ||1|| rahaau ||
He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. ||1||Pause||
koeI nwvY qIriQ koeI hj jwie ]
koiee naavai teerath koiee haj jai ||
Some bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage, and some make the pilgrimage to Mecca.|
koeI krY pUjw koeI isru invwie ]2]
koiee karai poojaa koiee sir nivai ||2||
Some perform devotional worship services, and some bow their heads in prayer. ||2||
koeI pVY byd koeI kqyb ]
koiee paRai bedh koiee kateb ||
Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran.
koeI EFY nIl koeI supyd ]3]
koiee oddai neel koiee supedh ||3||
Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. ||3||
koeI khY qurku koeI khY ihMdU ]
koiee kahai turak koiee kahai hi(n)dhoo ||
Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu.
So you are now saying that all the Hindu gods are the same as the deity you believe in?
Here’s an analogue:
There’s been a change in the monarch of a country. Some say the new monarch is a short chap with crooked teeth and a liking for croquet. That he is a cheerful soul but dim. Others say that it is an elegant woman who spends 3 hours every morning having her hair done, that she is incredibly sharp and intelligent.
One could conceive of a way that these were the same person, but it is a convoluted explanation that in the absence of other information may or may not be true. The simplest solution is that they are talking about different people.
I can respect others but they are not true. The atheist knows this and we talk with that in mind.
The atheist also knows there's no way you can know this to be true in an objective sense. It's your chosen belief without evidence. Right?
It was this exchange I was responding to—I do stand corrected that @Hugal didn’t use the word “know” himself. My apologies!
As for saying the “know” thing, since I’ve mainly said it in response to one other poster who has claimed to “know” there is no supernatural/God/etc., I thought I should be fair and use it in response to a poster who shares my own Christian faith, rather than risk being one-sided. (I was imagining, “Hey, I see you complain when atheists do it, but you’re quiet when Christians do it…”) Again, though, I got the exchange mixed up from the material quoted above.
The problem i have with declaring that all monotheists with the same god (though some get things wrong about him) is that the one God of the Bible has a very definite personality, an overwhelming one, even. He doesn’t strike me as being interchangeable with, say, the god of Islam. Throw that God (the Bible one) into the mix and suddenly the static theorized one god models just don’t cut it. Like having a bunch of black and white portraits and then you get one in color.m—in video, even.
Right. For me when there is significant divergence about ideas, particularly of a deity, then they’re different ideas.
Pretty much every idea about a deity has come from somewhere, even if it is true that Christianity, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism can be said to have originated with a historical figure, clearly they’ve diverged.
It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
rwmklI mhlw 5 ]
raamakalee mahalaa panjavaa ||
Raamkalee, Fifth Mehla:
koeI bolY rwm rwm koeI Kudwie ]
koiee bolai raam raam koiee khudhai ||
Some call Him, 'Raam, Raam', and some call Him, 'Khudaa-i'.
koeI syvY guseIAw koeI Alwih ]1]
koiee sevai gusieeaa koiee alaeh ||1||
Some serve Him as 'Gusain', others as 'Allaah'. ||1||
kwrx krx krIm ]
kaaran karan kareem ||
He is the Cause of causes, the Generous Lord.
ikrpw Dwir rhIm ]1] rhwau ]
kirapaa dhaar raheem ||1|| rahaau ||
He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. ||1||Pause||
koeI nwvY qIriQ koeI hj jwie ]
koiee naavai teerath koiee haj jai ||
Some bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage, and some make the pilgrimage to Mecca.|
koeI krY pUjw koeI isru invwie ]2]
koiee karai poojaa koiee sir nivai ||2||
Some perform devotional worship services, and some bow their heads in prayer. ||2||
koeI pVY byd koeI kqyb ]
koiee paRai bedh koiee kateb ||
Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran.
koeI EFY nIl koeI supyd ]3]
koiee oddai neel koiee supedh ||3||
Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. ||3||
koeI khY qurku koeI khY ihMdU ]
koiee kahai turak koiee kahai hi(n)dhoo ||
Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu.
So you are now saying that all the Hindu gods are the same as the deity you believe in?
Here’s an analogue:
There’s been a change in the monarch of a country. Some say the new monarch is a short chap with crooked teeth and a liking for croquet. That he is a cheerful soul but dim. Others say that it is an elegant woman who spends 3 hours every morning having her hair done, that she is incredibly sharp and intelligent.
One could conceive of a way that these were the same person, but it is a convoluted explanation that in the absence of other information may or may not be true. The simplest solution is that they are talking about different people.
My quote from the Sikh holy book above was specifically in response to “I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God.” In at least this case, Sikhism certainly does say that.
As far as the Hindu pantheon is concerned, I would make a distinction between polytheism and monotheism.
I don’t see your analogy as working in this case, I’m sorry to say.
The problem i have with declaring that all monotheists with the same god (though some get things wrong about him) is that the one God of the Bible has a very definite personality, an overwhelming one, even. He doesn’t strike me as being interchangeable with, say, the god of Islam. Throw that God (the Bible one) into the mix and suddenly the static theorized one god models just don’t cut it. Like having a bunch of black and white portraits and then you get one in color.m—in video, even.
Right. For me when there is significant divergence about ideas, particularly of a deity, then they’re different ideas.
Pretty much every idea about a deity has come from somewhere, even if it is true that Christianity, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism can be said to have originated with a historical figure, clearly they’ve diverged.
To me, when you say “divergence of ideas, particularly of a deity, then they’re different ideas,” I can wholly agree with that—they are indeed different ideas about a deity. To me this means different ideas about *a* deity—not different deities.
It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
rwmklI mhlw 5 ]
raamakalee mahalaa panjavaa ||
Raamkalee, Fifth Mehla:
koeI bolY rwm rwm koeI Kudwie ]
koiee bolai raam raam koiee khudhai ||
Some call Him, 'Raam, Raam', and some call Him, 'Khudaa-i'.
koeI syvY guseIAw koeI Alwih ]1]
koiee sevai gusieeaa koiee alaeh ||1||
Some serve Him as 'Gusain', others as 'Allaah'. ||1||
kwrx krx krIm ]
kaaran karan kareem ||
He is the Cause of causes, the Generous Lord.
ikrpw Dwir rhIm ]1] rhwau ]
kirapaa dhaar raheem ||1|| rahaau ||
He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. ||1||Pause||
koeI nwvY qIriQ koeI hj jwie ]
koiee naavai teerath koiee haj jai ||
Some bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage, and some make the pilgrimage to Mecca.|
koeI krY pUjw koeI isru invwie ]2]
koiee karai poojaa koiee sir nivai ||2||
Some perform devotional worship services, and some bow their heads in prayer. ||2||
koeI pVY byd koeI kqyb ]
koiee paRai bedh koiee kateb ||
Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran.
koeI EFY nIl koeI supyd ]3]
koiee oddai neel koiee supedh ||3||
Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. ||3||
koeI khY qurku koeI khY ihMdU ]
koiee kahai turak koiee kahai hi(n)dhoo ||
Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu.
So you are now saying that all the Hindu gods are the same as the deity you believe in?
Here’s an analogue:
There’s been a change in the monarch of a country. Some say the new monarch is a short chap with crooked teeth and a liking for croquet. That he is a cheerful soul but dim. Others say that it is an elegant woman who spends 3 hours every morning having her hair done, that she is incredibly sharp and intelligent.
One could conceive of a way that these were the same person, but it is a convoluted explanation that in the absence of other information may or may not be true. The simplest solution is that they are talking about different people.
My quote from the Sikh holy book above was specifically in response to “I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God.” In at least this case, Sikhism certainly does say that.
As far as the Hindu pantheon is concerned, I would make a distinction between polytheism and monotheism.
I don’t see your analogy as working in this case, I’m sorry to say.
Ok, plenty of people say all kinds of things about deities. Sikhs saying that all gods are one is a lot more consistent than saying “this collection of Gods are actually the same God, all the others are different. Because I say so”
I think I’m correct that even the bible itself includes monotheists who believe in different gods. So it isn’t just that monotheists are by default all believing in the same one.
I’m experiencing some level of existential angst when discussing whether God or gods (none of which I really believe in - at a push I would plump for a vastly distant deity if I really had to) are the same or different.
It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
rwmklI mhlw 5 ]
raamakalee mahalaa panjavaa ||
Raamkalee, Fifth Mehla:
koeI bolY rwm rwm koeI Kudwie ]
koiee bolai raam raam koiee khudhai ||
Some call Him, 'Raam, Raam', and some call Him, 'Khudaa-i'.
koeI syvY guseIAw koeI Alwih ]1]
koiee sevai gusieeaa koiee alaeh ||1||
Some serve Him as 'Gusain', others as 'Allaah'. ||1||
kwrx krx krIm ]
kaaran karan kareem ||
He is the Cause of causes, the Generous Lord.
ikrpw Dwir rhIm ]1] rhwau ]
kirapaa dhaar raheem ||1|| rahaau ||
He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. ||1||Pause||
koeI nwvY qIriQ koeI hj jwie ]
koiee naavai teerath koiee haj jai ||
Some bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage, and some make the pilgrimage to Mecca.|
koeI krY pUjw koeI isru invwie ]2]
koiee karai poojaa koiee sir nivai ||2||
Some perform devotional worship services, and some bow their heads in prayer. ||2||
koeI pVY byd koeI kqyb ]
koiee paRai bedh koiee kateb ||
Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran.
koeI EFY nIl koeI supyd ]3]
koiee oddai neel koiee supedh ||3||
Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. ||3||
koeI khY qurku koeI khY ihMdU ]
koiee kahai turak koiee kahai hi(n)dhoo ||
Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu.
So you are now saying that all the Hindu gods are the same as the deity you believe in?
Here’s an analogue:
There’s been a change in the monarch of a country. Some say the new monarch is a short chap with crooked teeth and a liking for croquet. That he is a cheerful soul but dim. Others say that it is an elegant woman who spends 3 hours every morning having her hair done, that she is incredibly sharp and intelligent.
One could conceive of a way that these were the same person, but it is a convoluted explanation that in the absence of other information may or may not be true. The simplest solution is that they are talking about different people.
My quote from the Sikh holy book above was specifically in response to “I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God.” In at least this case, Sikhism certainly does say that.
As far as the Hindu pantheon is concerned, I would make a distinction between polytheism and monotheism.
I don’t see your analogy as working in this case, I’m sorry to say.
Ok, plenty of people say all kinds of things about deities. Sikhs saying that all gods are one is a lot more consistent than saying “this collection of Gods are actually the same God, all the others are different. Because I say so”
I think I’m correct that even the bible itself includes monotheists who believe in different gods. So it isn’t just that monotheists are by default all believing in the same one.
I’ve never heard of the Bible including monotheists who believe in different gods. Can you give me an example?
I’m saying that I understand different monotheistic religions to be talking about the same God, just with different ideas about God. Polytheism is something else.
I’m experiencing some level of existential angst when discussing whether God or gods (none of which I really believe in - at a push I would plump for a vastly distant deity if I really had to) are the same or different.
I don’t care. Back to my toast.
I’m sorry for your angst. Enjoy your toast. Myself, I should try to sleep, as I have to get up in five hours (2:54 am here).
It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
rwmklI mhlw 5 ]
raamakalee mahalaa panjavaa ||
Raamkalee, Fifth Mehla:
koeI bolY rwm rwm koeI Kudwie ]
koiee bolai raam raam koiee khudhai ||
Some call Him, 'Raam, Raam', and some call Him, 'Khudaa-i'.
koeI syvY guseIAw koeI Alwih ]1]
koiee sevai gusieeaa koiee alaeh ||1||
Some serve Him as 'Gusain', others as 'Allaah'. ||1||
kwrx krx krIm ]
kaaran karan kareem ||
He is the Cause of causes, the Generous Lord.
ikrpw Dwir rhIm ]1] rhwau ]
kirapaa dhaar raheem ||1|| rahaau ||
He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. ||1||Pause||
koeI nwvY qIriQ koeI hj jwie ]
koiee naavai teerath koiee haj jai ||
Some bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage, and some make the pilgrimage to Mecca.|
koeI krY pUjw koeI isru invwie ]2]
koiee karai poojaa koiee sir nivai ||2||
Some perform devotional worship services, and some bow their heads in prayer. ||2||
koeI pVY byd koeI kqyb ]
koiee paRai bedh koiee kateb ||
Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran.
koeI EFY nIl koeI supyd ]3]
koiee oddai neel koiee supedh ||3||
Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. ||3||
koeI khY qurku koeI khY ihMdU ]
koiee kahai turak koiee kahai hi(n)dhoo ||
Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu.
So you are now saying that all the Hindu gods are the same as the deity you believe in?
Here’s an analogue:
There’s been a change in the monarch of a country. Some say the new monarch is a short chap with crooked teeth and a liking for croquet. That he is a cheerful soul but dim. Others say that it is an elegant woman who spends 3 hours every morning having her hair done, that she is incredibly sharp and intelligent.
One could conceive of a way that these were the same person, but it is a convoluted explanation that in the absence of other information may or may not be true. The simplest solution is that they are talking about different people.
My quote from the Sikh holy book above was specifically in response to “I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God.” In at least this case, Sikhism certainly does say that.
As far as the Hindu pantheon is concerned, I would make a distinction between polytheism and monotheism.
I don’t see your analogy as working in this case, I’m sorry to say.
Ok, plenty of people say all kinds of things about deities. Sikhs saying that all gods are one is a lot more consistent than saying “this collection of Gods are actually the same God, all the others are different. Because I say so”
I think I’m correct that even the bible itself includes monotheists who believe in different gods. So it isn’t just that monotheists are by default all believing in the same one.
I’ve never heard of the Bible including monotheists who believe in different gods. Can you give me an example?
I’m saying that I understand different monotheistic religions to be talking about the same God, just with different ideas about God. Polytheism is something else.
Oh god, now you are asking.
Mammon I think was from a monotheistic religion. I think there were others.
But please discuss this amongst yourselves, I’m out.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
Look, a MAGA supporter and a left-wing liberal say completely different things about Trump. They are nevertheless talking about the same person.
What is to be gained?
Firstly, it doesn't matter what is or isn't gained. It's a matter of how language works. Reference doesn't require agreement on sense.
Secondly, it helps if religious practitioners don't dismiss each other as one hundred per cent untrue.
Thirdly, religious practitioners can and do adopt spiritual and ritual practices from each other. Christian contemplation and Hindu meditation can borrow from each other, or how Christians and Hindus in the Middle East can worship at the shrine of a Sufi saint, which implies a common purpose.
Fourthly, it helps understand what is going on philosophically if you take a structuralist approach to religion.
That'll do for starters.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
Look, a MAGA supporter and a left-wing liberal say completely different things about Trump. They are nevertheless talking about the same person.
What is to be gained?
Firstly, it doesn't matter what is or isn't gained. It's a matter of how language works. Reference doesn't require agreement on sense.
Secondly, it helps if religious practitioners don't dismiss each other as one hundred per cent untrue.
Thirdly, religious practitioners can and do adopt spiritual and ritual practices from each other. Christian contemplation and Hindu meditation can borrow from each other, or how Christians and Hindus in the Middle East can worship at the shrine of a Sufi saint, which implies a common purpose.
Fourthly, it helps understand what is going on philosophically if you take a structuralist approach to religion.
That'll do for starters.
Religious practitioners. You are essentially saying that there is this thing called religion and the those that practice it are essentially the same. They are not. This is the problem with the word religion. As I said a Buddhist and I are not the same. Our belief systems are completely different. They believe in achieving enlightenment over many lives. I believe in Jesus Christ Lord and saviour. We are not practicing the same thing. Many belief systems claim to get salvation you have to be good in some way. Christianity claims you can not be good enough and Jesus’ sacrifice sorted that out.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
Look, a MAGA supporter and a left-wing liberal say completely different things about Trump. They are nevertheless talking about the same person.
What is to be gained?
Firstly, it doesn't matter what is or isn't gained. It's a matter of how language works. Reference doesn't require agreement on sense.
Secondly, it helps if religious practitioners don't dismiss each other as one hundred per cent untrue.
Thirdly, religious practitioners can and do adopt spiritual and ritual practices from each other. Christian contemplation and Hindu meditation can borrow from each other, or how Christians and Hindus in the Middle East can worship at the shrine of a Sufi saint, which implies a common purpose.
Fourthly, it helps understand what is going on philosophically if you take a structuralist approach to religion.
That'll do for starters.
Religious practitioners. You are essentially saying that there is this thing called religion and the those that practice it are essentially the same.
No, he isn't.
There is this thing called Synapsida but that's not saying that Duck billed platypuses, shrews and Moschops are/were all essentially the same.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
Look, a MAGA supporter and a left-wing liberal say completely different things about Trump. They are nevertheless talking about the same person.
What is to be gained?
Firstly, it doesn't matter what is or isn't gained. It's a matter of how language works. Reference doesn't require agreement on sense.
Secondly, it helps if religious practitioners don't dismiss each other as one hundred per cent untrue.
Thirdly, religious practitioners can and do adopt spiritual and ritual practices from each other. Christian contemplation and Hindu meditation can borrow from each other, or how Christians and Hindus in the Middle East can worship at the shrine of a Sufi saint, which implies a common purpose.
Fourthly, it helps understand what is going on philosophically if you take a structuralist approach to religion.
That'll do for starters.
Religious practitioners. You are essentially saying that there is this thing called religion and the those that practice it are essentially the same.
No, he isn't.
There is this thing called Synapsida but that's not saying that Duck billed platypuses, shrews and Moschops are/were all essentially the same.
I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God. I don’t see what is gained by continually asserting that everyone is talking about the same deity.
Look, a MAGA supporter and a left-wing liberal say completely different things about Trump. They are nevertheless talking about the same person.
What is to be gained?
Firstly, it doesn't matter what is or isn't gained. It's a matter of how language works. Reference doesn't require agreement on sense.
Secondly, it helps if religious practitioners don't dismiss each other as one hundred per cent untrue.
Thirdly, religious practitioners can and do adopt spiritual and ritual practices from each other. Christian contemplation and Hindu meditation can borrow from each other, or how Christians and Hindus in the Middle East can worship at the shrine of a Sufi saint, which implies a common purpose.
Fourthly, it helps understand what is going on philosophically if you take a structuralist approach to religion.
That'll do for starters.
Religious practitioners. You are essentially saying that there is this thing called religion and the those that practice it are essentially the same.
No, he isn't.
There is this thing called Synapsida but that's not saying that Duck billed platypuses, shrews and Moschops are/were all essentially the same.
Ok I stand corrected about what he is saying. I withdraw my statement.
However what I said is still a prevalent view among some people I know. They do conflate all belief systems into one.
Thirdly, religious practitioners can and do adopt spiritual and ritual practices from each other. Christian contemplation and Hindu meditation can borrow from each other, or how Christians and Hindus in the Middle East can worship at the shrine of a Sufi saint, which implies a common purpose..
Religious practitioners. You are essentially saying that there is this thing called religion and the those that practice it are essentially the same. They are not. This is the problem with the word religion. As I said a Buddhist and I are not the same. Our belief systems are completely different. They believe in achieving enlightenment over many lives. I believe in Jesus Christ Lord and saviour. We are not practicing the same thing. Many belief systems claim to get salvation you have to be good in some way. Christianity claims you can not be good enough and Jesus’ sacrifice sorted that out.
I'm not saying that there is a single thing called religion (I don't think there is), and I'm certainly not talking about all religious practitioners. I am saying that, say, some Roman Catholic contemplatives and Buddhist meditators can and do find each other's texts and practices helpful from time to time. Now, they do understand the place of prayer or meditation in their overall spiritual life differently. No orthodox Roman Catholic would say that their prayer achieves or gets salvation.
I once came across an edition of the first three parts of Kempis' Imitation of Christ edited by a Buddhist monk with the last part, about the Eucharist, omitted. Now to most Christians the Eucharist is pretty central, so overall there's a big difference; but there are places where they're doing the same thing.
Thirdly, religious practitioners can and do adopt spiritual and ritual practices from each other. Christian contemplation and Hindu meditation can borrow from each other, or how Christians and Hindus in the Middle East can worship at the shrine of a Sufi saint, which implies a common purpose..
Religious practitioners. You are essentially saying that there is this thing called religion and the those that practice it are essentially the same. They are not. This is the problem with the word religion. As I said a Buddhist and I are not the same. Our belief systems are completely different. They believe in achieving enlightenment over many lives. I believe in Jesus Christ Lord and saviour. We are not practicing the same thing. Many belief systems claim to get salvation you have to be good in some way. Christianity claims you can not be good enough and Jesus’ sacrifice sorted that out.
I'm not saying that there is a single thing called religion (I don't think there is), and I'm certainly not talking about all religious practitioners. I am saying that, say, some Roman Catholic contemplatives and Buddhist meditators can and do find each other's texts and practices helpful from time to time. Now, they do understand the place of prayer or meditation in their overall spiritual life differently. No orthodox Roman Catholic would say that their prayer achieves or gets salvation.
I once came across an edition of the first three parts of Kempis' Imitation of Christ edited by a Buddhist monk with the last part, about the Eucharist, omitted. Now to most Christians the Eucharist is pretty central, so overall there's a big difference; but there are places where they're doing the same thing.
Yes there is overlap, in some ways it is almost inevitable. They come from a differ starting point and don’t set out to achieve the same thing. We then have to ask ourselves how important is that difference. Can we take the practice as free standing or is it too intricately link with the belief? Different people will answer that question differently.
I personally do not find any of the meditation practices I have tried helpful. That is just my perspective though. Dance and movement and food are more my bag.
Yes, and dance, movement and food can be found in other religions too ... 😋
I don't think anyone is arguing for religious syncretism here.
I think we could certainly learn something about the 'techniques' or fasting or meditation - or dance, movement and the communal sharing of food - from other faiths.
But the goal and intention would be different.
A Buddhist monk once told me he had little time for Catholic contemplatives for instance, who borrowed things from the Buddhist tradition.
His view was that if you are going to be a Christian be the best Christian you can be and explore the riches of your own faith tradition.
Equally, if you are going to be a Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu, give yourself to that.
He wasn't being nasty and exclusivist. He was talking sense. I agree with him.
It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
To me that seems like six of one, half dozen of the other. What questions could you ask to determine which one it is? Assuming there is exactly one god and it's perfectly described by one of the religions (whether or not we know which), all the other religions' descriptions are hypothetical. So it seems to me that "same god different description" or "different gods" are functionally (fictionally?) equivalent.
It’s clear to me that the different religions have different ideas about their (monotheistic) deity and therefore the believe in different attributes and personality and therefore different Gods.
I don’t agree with “And therefore different Gods”—I would say that different monotheistic religions have different ideas about the one God-Of-Everything, not that those are different deities.
To me that seems like six of one, half dozen of the other. What questions could you ask to determine which one it is? Assuming there is exactly one god and it's perfectly described by one of the religions (whether or not we know which), all the other religions' descriptions are hypothetical. So it seems to me that "same god different description" or "different gods" are functionally (fictionally?) equivalent.
Technically I think it would not have to be perfectly (or even marginally accurately) described by any of the religions, but monotheists of all stripes would still be talking about "The One God Behind Everything In The Universe."
Assuming there is exactly one god and it's perfectly described by one of the religions (whether or not we know which), all the other religions' descriptions are hypothetical. So it seems to me that "same god different description" or "different gods" are functionally (fictionally?) equivalent.
Even if God is perfectly described by one and only one religion, (how significant are the differences in how Judaism, Islam, and Baha'i describe God as opposed to what God commands?) that doesn't make other religions perfectly wrong. Even the fact of assuming one God is a significant commonality.
(One other reason, in addition to those I listed in an earlier post, is that their existence is mutually exclusive - you couldn't have a possible world in which both the Trinity and Allah exist as different entities; which implies that they are the same entity.)
Assuming there is exactly one god and it's perfectly described by one of the religions (whether or not we know which), all the other religions' descriptions are hypothetical. So it seems to me that "same god different description" or "different gods" are functionally (fictionally?) equivalent.
Even if God is perfectly described by one and only one religion, (how significant are the differences in how Judaism, Islam, and Baha'i describe God as opposed to what God commands?) that doesn't make other religions perfectly wrong.
Assuming there is exactly one god and it's perfectly described by one of the religions (whether or not we know which), all the other religions' descriptions are hypothetical. So it seems to me that "same god different description" or "different gods" are functionally (fictionally?) equivalent.
Even if God is perfectly described by one and only one religion, (how significant are the differences in how Judaism, Islam, and Baha'i describe God as opposed to what God commands?) that doesn't make other religions perfectly wrong. Even the fact of assuming one God is a significant commonality.
(One other reason, in addition to those I listed in an earlier post, is that their existence is mutually exclusive - you couldn't have a possible world in which both the Trinity and Allah exist as different entities; which implies that they are the same entity.)
I think I would use the word "equivalent" in place of "the same entity". And I wonder if mutual exclusivity is a given - for example, if it is effectively not possible for a believer to believe in more than one of these gods at a time, it could be possible for them all to coexist, as they won't step on each other's toes in relation to their adherents - there's no overlap.
And rather than considering their existence, this seems more like an argument for saying that *belief* in the existence of one or the other is equivalent. But from a structuralist perspective, I'm not sure there's a lot of difference.
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
Almost the exact opposite. It started with communities deciding they could decide religion. Early Protestant centre were all cities. You can name the cities: Calvin of Geneva, Zwingli of Zurich, Luther of Wittenberg and so on. The only real exception is Knox of Scotland though St Andrew's claims him, and he worked on developing what was a city bound model to a nation. Calvin was invited back to Geneva not by the religious authorities but by the town Burgesses. There are even a project to build links today in the cities of the Reformation.
It is, of course, wrong to think of cities as today's large metropolis' holding millions of people. Thing rather of places with 10s of thousands as St Andrew's is to this day. Urbanisation was taking place but on a small level. In conurbations of this size you still know your neighbours, interact with them and so on. It is small enough to have a single unitary authority albeit one with more beaureacracy than in a village where everything could be settled or not at the local pub. The seeds of modern hyper-urbanisation of today is some two hundred years away from the Reformation. Remember Columbus was only trying to circumnavigate the globe around the time of the Reformation. It is the hyper-urbanisation that I think is at the root of the breakdown between Religion and Community.
I was thinking about the Dr Seuss story Horton hears a who yesterday in the context of gods and deities.
It’s a story where Horton believes that there is a microscope community (I think on a speck of dust) which he can observe and nobody else accepts it. I first knew about when my children were little and I still find it quite a magical story.
In relation to deities, one interesting thing is that the residents of Whoville come to realise that Horton is just a person like them rather than God, even though Horton hold the power to completely destroy them without a thought.
There’s that scale thing of Whoville to Horton and then Horton to the universe (or whatever), with those who live in Whoville unable to comprehend the complexity of things that are far bigger than Horton.
I was thinking about the Dr Seuss story Horton hears a who yesterday in the context of gods and deities.
It’s a story where Horton believes that there is a microscope community (I think on a speck of dust) which he can observe and nobody else accepts it. I first knew about when my children were little and I still find it quite a magical story.
In relation to deities, one interesting thing is that the residents of Whoville come to realise that Horton is just a person like them rather than God, even though Horton hold the power to completely destroy them without a thought.
There’s that scale thing of Whoville to Horton and then Horton to the universe (or whatever), with those who live in Whoville unable to comprehend the complexity of things that are far bigger than Horton.
To me this says something about gods and deities.
What does it say? It sounds to me like Horton would be analogous to a little-g god like Zeus or Thor, or perhaps an archangel, rather than to the God Who made everything.
I was thinking about the Dr Seuss story Horton hears a who yesterday in the context of gods and deities.
It’s a story where Horton believes that there is a microscope community (I think on a speck of dust) which he can observe and nobody else accepts it. I first knew about when my children were little and I still find it quite a magical story.
In relation to deities, one interesting thing is that the residents of Whoville come to realise that Horton is just a person like them rather than God, even though Horton hold the power to completely destroy them without a thought.
There’s that scale thing of Whoville to Horton and then Horton to the universe (or whatever), with those who live in Whoville unable to comprehend the complexity of things that are far bigger than Horton.
To me this says something about gods and deities.
Maybe it’s been too long since I read, but I don’t recall any suggestion in Horton Hears a Who of the Whos viewing Horton like as anything like a god, or any inability to comprehend him. The focus of the story is that no one in the Jungle of Nool believes Horton when he says there are people on the speck of dust. They can’t comprehend the Whos, and eventually they decide to destroy the dust speck. It takes the voices of every Who, including the smallest, to make the animals other than Horton hear them. “A person’s a person, no matter how small.”
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
Almost the exact opposite. It started with communities deciding they could decide religion. Early Protestant centre were all cities. You can name the cities: Calvin of Geneva, Zwingli of Zurich, Luther of Wittenberg and so on. The only real exception is Knox of Scotland though St Andrew's claims him, and he worked on developing what was a city bound model to a nation. Calvin was invited back to Geneva not by the religious authorities but by the town Burgesses. There are even a project to build links today in the cities of the Reformation.
It is, of course, wrong to think of cities as today's large metropolis' holding millions of people. Thing rather of places with 10s of thousands as St Andrew's is to this day. Urbanisation was taking place but on a small level. In conurbations of this size you still know your neighbours, interact with them and so on. It is small enough to have a single unitary authority albeit one with more beaureacracy than in a village where everything could be settled or not at the local pub. The seeds of modern hyper-urbanisation of today is some two hundred years away from the Reformation. Remember Columbus was only trying to circumnavigate the globe around the time of the Reformation. It is the hyper-urbanisation that I think is at the root of the breakdown between Religion and Community.
By "community" I was not referring to cities and earthly kingdoms, but the community of the Church. All protestantism devolves to "every man a pope."
You make some good points, @Jengie Jon but could it not be argued that city-states choosing their own religious path - or rulers choosing it for them - illustrates @mousethief's point to a certain extent?
If Geneva, or Wittenberg or wherever else 'broke-away' from wider Western Christendom, could that not be seen as a form of 'individualism' - at a micro community level rather than a macro level - such as a nation state. And yes, I know nation states were only just emerging at the time of the Reformation.
Florence, Madrid, Padua etc all remained part of the Roman Catholic orbit, of course. They may have been city-states but they remained part of a bigger scene.
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
Almost the exact opposite. It started with communities deciding they could decide religion. Early Protestant centre were all cities. You can name the cities: Calvin of Geneva, Zwingli of Zurich, Luther of Wittenberg and so on. The only real exception is Knox of Scotland though St Andrew's claims him, and he worked on developing what was a city bound model to a nation. Calvin was invited back to Geneva not by the religious authorities but by the town Burgesses. There are even a project to build links today in the cities of the Reformation.
It is, of course, wrong to think of cities as today's large metropolis' holding millions of people. Thing rather of places with 10s of thousands as St Andrew's is to this day. Urbanisation was taking place but on a small level. In conurbations of this size you still know your neighbours, interact with them and so on. It is small enough to have a single unitary authority albeit one with more beaureacracy than in a village where everything could be settled or not at the local pub. The seeds of modern hyper-urbanisation of today is some two hundred years away from the Reformation. Remember Columbus was only trying to circumnavigate the globe around the time of the Reformation. It is the hyper-urbanisation that I think is at the root of the breakdown between Religion and Community.
By "community" I was not referring to cities and earthly kingdoms, but the community of the Church. All protestantism devolves to "every man a pope."
There are religious mindsets like that among some Protestants, but I don’t think it always does that at all.
I think if you follow what we might call the Protestant 'imperative' to its extreme conclusion, then yes, I think it can lead to that.
Most Protestant Christians, I would suggest, stop short of that somewhere along the line.
Even those who teeter towards the extreme conclusion will still 'think' and interpret the scriptures in a communal way - even if they insist they don't.
None of us live on desert islands. We all derive our ideas about God, the universe and everything from the milieux we inhabit and the cultures and societies around us.
To have a 'paper Pope' in the form of a Bible in the first place is the result of a communal effort - the collective and collegial process of canonisation, the various Christian traditions, infrastructures which permit the publication and distribution of texts etc etc etc.
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
Almost the exact opposite. It started with communities deciding they could decide religion. Early Protestant centre were all cities. You can name the cities: Calvin of Geneva, Zwingli of Zurich, Luther of Wittenberg and so on. The only real exception is Knox of Scotland though St Andrew's claims him, and he worked on developing what was a city bound model to a nation. Calvin was invited back to Geneva not by the religious authorities but by the town Burgesses. There are even a project to build links today in the cities of the Reformation.
It is, of course, wrong to think of cities as today's large metropolis' holding millions of people. Thing rather of places with 10s of thousands as St Andrew's is to this day. Urbanisation was taking place but on a small level. In conurbations of this size you still know your neighbours, interact with them and so on. It is small enough to have a single unitary authority albeit one with more beaureacracy than in a village where everything could be settled or not at the local pub. The seeds of modern hyper-urbanisation of today is some two hundred years away from the Reformation. Remember Columbus was only trying to circumnavigate the globe around the time of the Reformation. It is the hyper-urbanisation that I think is at the root of the breakdown between Religion and Community.
By "community" I was not referring to cities and earthly kingdoms, but the community of the Church. All protestantism devolves to "every man a pope."
An enlightening discussion. Obviously though, the key triggering factor was the corruption of Rome? The fact that Luther found a protector (Frederick of Saxony) may have been miraculous also (considering what happened to the Waldenses and Hussites.) But in a way literacy must have also. You got a Bible and religious practices in the vernacular that started accessibility to holy writings in a wider scale right. It would have been a major sense of freedom to allow clergy to marry. There is also a time dimension. Calvin was 9 years old when Luther nailed up his 95 statements on the Wittenberg church door..but what he said had been said by Hus and was being said by others like Erasmus. I think that what made it stick this time was it’s popularity amongst the populace. Rome could not contain that sea change feeling in sixteenth century Europe and was slow to recognise it. It is my conviction God was moving by his Spirit in all these events.
I don't think there is any doubt that there was a degree of popular support for the Reformation. There'd long been issues between particular city-states and emerging nation-states and the Papacy, as well as popular movements outwith medieval Western Catholicism - such as the Waldenses and Hussites, of course.
There were also breakaway groups like the Cathars in France and the Bogomils in Eastern Europe who were rather more exotic ...
A revisionist historian like Eamonn Duffy makes a case in The Stripping of the Altars that popular Catholic practices persisted for some time after the Reformation. I think he overstates his case, but equally I don't think the transition was as clear-cut as it's often represented.
Nor do I think it was an entirely rosy picture with valiant Reformers and increasingly liberated populaces facing down the might of Rome ...
What we had were Princedoms and city-states effectively imposing the Reformation on their citizens whether they liked it or not. They often relied on the civil law to enforce it too.
We can't read back modern liberal or pluralist tendencies back into the 16th and 17th centuries, although we can certainly detect factors at work that led to the later development of these.
The final straw, or trigger-factor if you like, was the sale of indulgences and corrupt practices, but that doesn't mean that everything that emerged from the turmoil of the Reformation was whiter than white.
Anabaptists for instance were imprisoned, persecuted and executed in many places that embraced the Reformation. When the Puritans emigrated to New England and set up a virtual theocracy there they persecuted Quakers and others who didn't fit their particular mould.
It doesn't do to have a sanitised goodies and baddies view of early modern history.
@KarlLB I think raised the issue of how cruel our ancestors can appear. I read recently how, during the annual burning of an effigy of the Pope in 17th century London, they would put baskets of live cats inside so that their shrieks and mews would provide colourful sound-effects.
Words fail me.
Yes, the Holy Spirit will have been at work - but on which side?
The Protestant side? The Catholic side? Both? Neither?
I think if you follow what we might call the Protestant 'imperative' to its extreme conclusion, then yes, I think it can lead to that.
“Can” being the operative word there, it seems to me.
It’s off the mark, I think, to say Protestantism “started with decoupling religious belief from community” (meaning the Church). At least with the magisterial Reformers, religious belief remained coupled with the (church) community, but the nature of that community, in terms of structure and practice, changed from Catholic to Evangelical/Lutheran, Reformed (or Huguenot or Waldensian) or Anglican. Community, and the expectation of agreement on the interpretation of Scripture within that community, remained.
Even with the non-magisterial Reformers, belief wasn’t decoupled from community, I don’t think. Looking at Anabaptist groups like the Mennonites or the Amish, there is no decoupling from community.
FWIW I think the estimable @mousethief overstated his case to some extent.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying the Reformers eschewed community. What they did was to atomise community or draw the boundaries more tightly, if we can put it that way.
Hence The Church of England, The Church of Scotland and so on ... rather than it being national churches in communion with Rome. And let's not get into arguments as to whether the CofE was ever properly 'Reformed' or not.
The Magisterial Reformers expected everyone within their particular territories to follow the same line. There's a phrase for this which I've forgotten, to the effect that the religion of the Prince should be the religion of the community.
The radical reformers further boiled things down to more 'gathered' communities or more locally defined ones.
That's not 'individualism' of course but stretch it further and that's where we end up.
Is it the 'Umma' that the Muslims have? The idea that all Muslims irrespective of race or nationality are part of a worldwide brotherhood / sisterhood?
Medieval Christendom had a similar idea and arguably that gradually broke down due to the various Schisms and the Reformation and its aftermath.
The final straw, or trigger-factor if you like, was the sale of indulgences and corrupt practices, but that doesn't mean that everything that emerged from the turmoil of the Reformation was whiter than white
That there was huge popularity for Luther is undeniable. What emerged from it was ..FREEDOM!
If it wasn’t populist it couldn’t have succeeded but would have been suppressed like the Hussite movement 100 years earlier.
Luther was a great man ..Calvin was an arrogant sod but as I said, only 9 when Luther was in full swing..the abuses came, true but later and let’s face it, were minor compared to the huge abuses of freedom perpetrated by the iron grip on religious thinking that Rome exercised at that time.
No, we aren't talking about questions atheists can't answer but @MPaul's highly partisan and two-dimensional Ladybird book level view of history.
Luther was antisemitic - like many if not most of his contemporaries - urged the German Princes to massacre the peasants when they revolted - 'the peasants are revolting!' - 😉 and no more espoused freedom and liberty than anyone else at that time.
All this 'iron-grip' of nasty evil Roman Catholicism stuff ... nobody is giving the Papacy a free pass but if anything the Reformation drove Rome towards a more intransigent position that it occupied before.
From an Orthodox perspective the Counter-Reformation took Rome to more extremes whilst the Reformation sent the Protestant world on a trajectory that led to increasing levels of secularism and decline.
But that's another topic entirely 🙄.
My point is that none of this stuff is clear-cut or black and white. Neither was the Byzantine Empire or anything else that went on outside the medieval RC or later Protestant orbits.
But yes, we are getting off topic as MPaul gets carried away with a 19th century Whig view of the Reformation in general and Luther in particular.
FWIW I think the estimable @mousethief overstated his case to some extent.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying the Reformers eschewed community. What they did was to atomise community or draw the boundaries more tightly, if we can put it that way.
Hence The Church of England, The Church of Scotland and so on ... rather than it being national churches in communion with Rome. And let's not get into arguments as to whether the CofE was ever properly 'Reformed' or not.
The Magisterial Reformers expected everyone within their particular territories to follow the same line. There's a phrase for this which I've forgotten, to the effect that the religion of the Prince should be the religion of the community.
Cuius regio, eius religio. Literally translated "whose land, his religion".
The radical reformers further boiled things down to more 'gathered' communities or more locally defined ones.
That's not 'individualism' of course but stretch it further and that's where we end up.
It doesn't stretch that far, though. For various reformers there was no virtue in individual freedom of conscience. What we see historically in the Reformation is a struggle for power. It wasn't so much that reformers had the idea that distributing power to smaller entities was in some way better, it was simply the idea that it's better if power is in our (more localized) hands than in their hands.
To a certain degree this seems to be a consequence of state consolidation during this period; smaller polities being absorbed by larger ones and central governments being able to exert greater power over their peripheries. States gaining authority at the expense of the Western church.
When the Puritans emigrated to New England and set up a virtual theocracy there they persecuted Quakers and others who didn't fit their particular mould.
This dynamic is precisely why Thomas Jefferson wrote that there will ever be “a wall of separation between Church and State” in the USA. He was returning a letter to the Baptist community of Danbury, who were being mistreated by the Congregationalists of Danbury.
When the Puritans emigrated to New England and set up a virtual theocracy there they persecuted Quakers and others who didn't fit their particular mould.
This dynamic is precisely why Thomas Jefferson wrote that there will ever be “a wall of separation between Church and State” in the USA. He was returning a letter to the Baptist community of Danbury, who were being mistreated by the Congregationalists of Danbury.
For those who are interested, a transcript of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists can be read here. It's quite brief by Jefferson's usual standards. What many people don't realize about Jefferson's letter was that although he expressed sympathy and agreement with the Baptist position ("religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God") he also expressed regret that as president there was nothing he could to about Congregationalism being the state established and official religion of Connecticut. The First Amendment only applied to the federal government at the time. It would take the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights' restrictions on government actions to the states.
Connecticut did eventually disestablish Congregationalism in 1818, one of the last American states to do so. (Massachusetts was the very last, disestablishing its official church in 1833.) In terms of officially established religion most Americans took Jefferson's (and Madison's) position, that such things were relics of European-style tyranny and antithetical to American liberties, even if the Constitution did technically permit states to do so (until 1868). Hence the rush by various states to disestablish their official churches in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
...
The Magisterial Reformers expected everyone within their particular territories to follow the same line. There's a phrase for this which I've forgotten, to the effect that the religion of the Prince should be the religion of the community.
Cuius regio, eius religio. Literally translated "whose land, his religion".
The radical reformers further boiled things down to more 'gathered' communities or more locally defined ones.
That's not 'individualism' of course but stretch it further and that's where we end up.
It doesn't stretch that far, though. For various reformers there was no virtue in individual freedom of conscience. What we see historically in the Reformation is a struggle for power. It wasn't so much that reformers had the idea that distributing power to smaller entities was in some way better, it was simply the idea that it's better if power is in our (more localized) hands than in their hands.
To a certain degree this seems to be a consequence of state consolidation during this period; smaller polities being absorbed by larger ones and central governments being able to exert greater power over their peripheries. States gaining authority at the expense of the Western church.
This makes sense to me, as the context in which to consider the ideological consequences and effects of the reformation.
In itself, the ongoing struggle for power doesn't obviously describe a path that leads to individualism and secularism - power had been changing hands between rulers for years without the nature of legitimate authority itself being called into question, and there appears to have been widespread acceptance of this being how authority worked (which is itself an understanding that those in power clearly had and still have a vested interest in perpetuating). Or, if not "widespread acceptance", then whatever doubts and opposition existed didn't appear to result in significant ideological change.
So the issue that remains for me is what it was about the reformation that stuck, and that alongside all the factors that have been mentioned (on this thread), that ordinary people were invited to take into their own hands the question of their own (eternal) destiny.
My gut feel is that we can't disaggregate the Reformation from other factors and influences that helped shape and develop it. The invention of the printing press, for instance. Catholics used that technology of course, just as much as Protestants.
So increasing levels of literacy is one legacy, although that obviously didn't happen overnight.
I'd also suggest that a continuing spiral of fissaporousness and fragmentation within Protestant Christianity is another feature.
I apologise for mentioning my Madagascan trip again but in a township of some 3,500 people we visited there were now 12 churches and a mosque whereas 20 years ago there was 'just' a mainstream Protestant (Presbyterian?), an Anglican, Catholic and a Pentecostal church.
Now there are a gazillion varieties of Protestant churches all competing for adherents.
The 'protest' within Protestantism may well have been legitimate and understandable but once started the momentum appears to be unstoppable.
'What are you against?'
'What have you got?'
A wise man once said that it was high time the Protestant world recovered the pro in 'Protestant'.
Comments
I didn’t say the Christian should say I know. I indicated that if you are a Christian it should be accepted as the basis for the conversation. In my experience the atheist is often more closed minded than the Christian. Sometimes louder and more arrogant. A few can verge on verbal abuse. Also the atheist does not say I believe or don’t believe. They just assume they are correct. That gives them a subliminal advantage. Saying you believe means it may or not be true. Not having to say that puts each side on a more equal footing.
We have to be careful here as a person may not be an atheist for scientific or theological reasons. They may not believe in God because of a tragedy or bad event in their life. They may see the world and the injustice in it and decide there cannot be a God. We need above all to show love. Not score points.
Sikhism does not appear to see it that way:
https://www.sikhitothemax.org/ang?ang=885&source=G
We all specifically worship the God of Abraham.
So you are now saying that all the Hindu gods are the same as the deity you believe in?
Here’s an analogue:
There’s been a change in the monarch of a country. Some say the new monarch is a short chap with crooked teeth and a liking for croquet. That he is a cheerful soul but dim. Others say that it is an elegant woman who spends 3 hours every morning having her hair done, that she is incredibly sharp and intelligent.
One could conceive of a way that these were the same person, but it is a convoluted explanation that in the absence of other information may or may not be true. The simplest solution is that they are talking about different people.
It was this exchange I was responding to—I do stand corrected that @Hugal didn’t use the word “know” himself. My apologies!
As for saying the “know” thing, since I’ve mainly said it in response to one other poster who has claimed to “know” there is no supernatural/God/etc., I thought I should be fair and use it in response to a poster who shares my own Christian faith, rather than risk being one-sided. (I was imagining, “Hey, I see you complain when atheists do it, but you’re quiet when Christians do it…”) Again, though, I got the exchange mixed up from the material quoted above.
Right. For me when there is significant divergence about ideas, particularly of a deity, then they’re different ideas.
Pretty much every idea about a deity has come from somewhere, even if it is true that Christianity, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism can be said to have originated with a historical figure, clearly they’ve diverged.
My quote from the Sikh holy book above was specifically in response to “I say that’s an assertion and a choice which doesn’t match with what the religions say themselves about God.” In at least this case, Sikhism certainly does say that.
As far as the Hindu pantheon is concerned, I would make a distinction between polytheism and monotheism.
I don’t see your analogy as working in this case, I’m sorry to say.
To me, when you say “divergence of ideas, particularly of a deity, then they’re different ideas,” I can wholly agree with that—they are indeed different ideas about a deity. To me this means different ideas about *a* deity—not different deities.
Ok, plenty of people say all kinds of things about deities. Sikhs saying that all gods are one is a lot more consistent than saying “this collection of Gods are actually the same God, all the others are different. Because I say so”
I think I’m correct that even the bible itself includes monotheists who believe in different gods. So it isn’t just that monotheists are by default all believing in the same one.
I don’t care. Back to my toast.
I’ve never heard of the Bible including monotheists who believe in different gods. Can you give me an example?
I’m saying that I understand different monotheistic religions to be talking about the same God, just with different ideas about God. Polytheism is something else.
I’m sorry for your angst. Enjoy your toast. Myself, I should try to sleep, as I have to get up in five hours (2:54 am here).
Oh god, now you are asking.
Mammon I think was from a monotheistic religion. I think there were others.
But please discuss this amongst yourselves, I’m out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon
What is to be gained?
Firstly, it doesn't matter what is or isn't gained. It's a matter of how language works. Reference doesn't require agreement on sense.
Secondly, it helps if religious practitioners don't dismiss each other as one hundred per cent untrue.
Thirdly, religious practitioners can and do adopt spiritual and ritual practices from each other. Christian contemplation and Hindu meditation can borrow from each other, or how Christians and Hindus in the Middle East can worship at the shrine of a Sufi saint, which implies a common purpose.
Fourthly, it helps understand what is going on philosophically if you take a structuralist approach to religion.
That'll do for starters.
Religious practitioners. You are essentially saying that there is this thing called religion and the those that practice it are essentially the same. They are not. This is the problem with the word religion. As I said a Buddhist and I are not the same. Our belief systems are completely different. They believe in achieving enlightenment over many lives. I believe in Jesus Christ Lord and saviour. We are not practicing the same thing. Many belief systems claim to get salvation you have to be good in some way. Christianity claims you can not be good enough and Jesus’ sacrifice sorted that out.
No, he isn't.
There is this thing called Synapsida but that's not saying that Duck billed platypuses, shrews and Moschops are/were all essentially the same.
Agreed.
Ok I stand corrected about what he is saying. I withdraw my statement.
However what I said is still a prevalent view among some people I know. They do conflate all belief systems into one.
I once came across an edition of the first three parts of Kempis' Imitation of Christ edited by a Buddhist monk with the last part, about the Eucharist, omitted. Now to most Christians the Eucharist is pretty central, so overall there's a big difference; but there are places where they're doing the same thing.
Yes there is overlap, in some ways it is almost inevitable. They come from a differ starting point and don’t set out to achieve the same thing. We then have to ask ourselves how important is that difference. Can we take the practice as free standing or is it too intricately link with the belief? Different people will answer that question differently.
I personally do not find any of the meditation practices I have tried helpful. That is just my perspective though. Dance and movement and food are more my bag.
I don't think anyone is arguing for religious syncretism here.
I think we could certainly learn something about the 'techniques' or fasting or meditation - or dance, movement and the communal sharing of food - from other faiths.
But the goal and intention would be different.
A Buddhist monk once told me he had little time for Catholic contemplatives for instance, who borrowed things from the Buddhist tradition.
His view was that if you are going to be a Christian be the best Christian you can be and explore the riches of your own faith tradition.
Equally, if you are going to be a Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu, give yourself to that.
He wasn't being nasty and exclusivist. He was talking sense. I agree with him.
To me that seems like six of one, half dozen of the other. What questions could you ask to determine which one it is? Assuming there is exactly one god and it's perfectly described by one of the religions (whether or not we know which), all the other religions' descriptions are hypothetical. So it seems to me that "same god different description" or "different gods" are functionally (fictionally?) equivalent.
Technically I think it would not have to be perfectly (or even marginally accurately) described by any of the religions, but monotheists of all stripes would still be talking about "The One God Behind Everything In The Universe."
(One other reason, in addition to those I listed in an earlier post, is that their existence is mutually exclusive - you couldn't have a possible world in which both the Trinity and Allah exist as different entities; which implies that they are the same entity.)
I didn't mean to say so. What you say is correct.
And rather than considering their existence, this seems more like an argument for saying that *belief* in the existence of one or the other is equivalent. But from a structuralist perspective, I'm not sure there's a lot of difference.
Almost the exact opposite. It started with communities deciding they could decide religion. Early Protestant centre were all cities. You can name the cities: Calvin of Geneva, Zwingli of Zurich, Luther of Wittenberg and so on. The only real exception is Knox of Scotland though St Andrew's claims him, and he worked on developing what was a city bound model to a nation. Calvin was invited back to Geneva not by the religious authorities but by the town Burgesses. There are even a project to build links today in the cities of the Reformation.
It is, of course, wrong to think of cities as today's large metropolis' holding millions of people. Thing rather of places with 10s of thousands as St Andrew's is to this day. Urbanisation was taking place but on a small level. In conurbations of this size you still know your neighbours, interact with them and so on. It is small enough to have a single unitary authority albeit one with more beaureacracy than in a village where everything could be settled or not at the local pub. The seeds of modern hyper-urbanisation of today is some two hundred years away from the Reformation. Remember Columbus was only trying to circumnavigate the globe around the time of the Reformation. It is the hyper-urbanisation that I think is at the root of the breakdown between Religion and Community.
It’s a story where Horton believes that there is a microscope community (I think on a speck of dust) which he can observe and nobody else accepts it. I first knew about when my children were little and I still find it quite a magical story.
In relation to deities, one interesting thing is that the residents of Whoville come to realise that Horton is just a person like them rather than God, even though Horton hold the power to completely destroy them without a thought.
There’s that scale thing of Whoville to Horton and then Horton to the universe (or whatever), with those who live in Whoville unable to comprehend the complexity of things that are far bigger than Horton.
To me this says something about gods and deities.
What does it say? It sounds to me like Horton would be analogous to a little-g god like Zeus or Thor, or perhaps an archangel, rather than to the God Who made everything.
By "community" I was not referring to cities and earthly kingdoms, but the community of the Church. All protestantism devolves to "every man a pope."
If Geneva, or Wittenberg or wherever else 'broke-away' from wider Western Christendom, could that not be seen as a form of 'individualism' - at a micro community level rather than a macro level - such as a nation state. And yes, I know nation states were only just emerging at the time of the Reformation.
Florence, Madrid, Padua etc all remained part of the Roman Catholic orbit, of course. They may have been city-states but they remained part of a bigger scene.
There are religious mindsets like that among some Protestants, but I don’t think it always does that at all.
Most Protestant Christians, I would suggest, stop short of that somewhere along the line.
Even those who teeter towards the extreme conclusion will still 'think' and interpret the scriptures in a communal way - even if they insist they don't.
None of us live on desert islands. We all derive our ideas about God, the universe and everything from the milieux we inhabit and the cultures and societies around us.
To have a 'paper Pope' in the form of a Bible in the first place is the result of a communal effort - the collective and collegial process of canonisation, the various Christian traditions, infrastructures which permit the publication and distribution of texts etc etc etc.
'No man is an island.'
An enlightening discussion. Obviously though, the key triggering factor was the corruption of Rome? The fact that Luther found a protector (Frederick of Saxony) may have been miraculous also (considering what happened to the Waldenses and Hussites.) But in a way literacy must have also. You got a Bible and religious practices in the vernacular that started accessibility to holy writings in a wider scale right. It would have been a major sense of freedom to allow clergy to marry. There is also a time dimension. Calvin was 9 years old when Luther nailed up his 95 statements on the Wittenberg church door..but what he said had been said by Hus and was being said by others like Erasmus. I think that what made it stick this time was it’s popularity amongst the populace. Rome could not contain that sea change feeling in sixteenth century Europe and was slow to recognise it. It is my conviction God was moving by his Spirit in all these events.
There were also breakaway groups like the Cathars in France and the Bogomils in Eastern Europe who were rather more exotic ...
A revisionist historian like Eamonn Duffy makes a case in The Stripping of the Altars that popular Catholic practices persisted for some time after the Reformation. I think he overstates his case, but equally I don't think the transition was as clear-cut as it's often represented.
Nor do I think it was an entirely rosy picture with valiant Reformers and increasingly liberated populaces facing down the might of Rome ...
What we had were Princedoms and city-states effectively imposing the Reformation on their citizens whether they liked it or not. They often relied on the civil law to enforce it too.
We can't read back modern liberal or pluralist tendencies back into the 16th and 17th centuries, although we can certainly detect factors at work that led to the later development of these.
The final straw, or trigger-factor if you like, was the sale of indulgences and corrupt practices, but that doesn't mean that everything that emerged from the turmoil of the Reformation was whiter than white.
Anabaptists for instance were imprisoned, persecuted and executed in many places that embraced the Reformation. When the Puritans emigrated to New England and set up a virtual theocracy there they persecuted Quakers and others who didn't fit their particular mould.
It doesn't do to have a sanitised goodies and baddies view of early modern history.
@KarlLB I think raised the issue of how cruel our ancestors can appear. I read recently how, during the annual burning of an effigy of the Pope in 17th century London, they would put baskets of live cats inside so that their shrieks and mews would provide colourful sound-effects.
Words fail me.
Yes, the Holy Spirit will have been at work - but on which side?
The Protestant side? The Catholic side? Both? Neither?
It’s off the mark, I think, to say Protestantism “started with decoupling religious belief from community” (meaning the Church). At least with the magisterial Reformers, religious belief remained coupled with the (church) community, but the nature of that community, in terms of structure and practice, changed from Catholic to Evangelical/Lutheran, Reformed (or Huguenot or Waldensian) or Anglican. Community, and the expectation of agreement on the interpretation of Scripture within that community, remained.
Even with the non-magisterial Reformers, belief wasn’t decoupled from community, I don’t think. Looking at Anabaptist groups like the Mennonites or the Amish, there is no decoupling from community.
FWIW I think the estimable @mousethief overstated his case to some extent.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying the Reformers eschewed community. What they did was to atomise community or draw the boundaries more tightly, if we can put it that way.
Hence The Church of England, The Church of Scotland and so on ... rather than it being national churches in communion with Rome. And let's not get into arguments as to whether the CofE was ever properly 'Reformed' or not.
The Magisterial Reformers expected everyone within their particular territories to follow the same line. There's a phrase for this which I've forgotten, to the effect that the religion of the Prince should be the religion of the community.
The radical reformers further boiled things down to more 'gathered' communities or more locally defined ones.
That's not 'individualism' of course but stretch it further and that's where we end up.
Is it the 'Umma' that the Muslims have? The idea that all Muslims irrespective of race or nationality are part of a worldwide brotherhood / sisterhood?
Medieval Christendom had a similar idea and arguably that gradually broke down due to the various Schisms and the Reformation and its aftermath.
It hasn't disappeared entirely of course.
If it wasn’t populist it couldn’t have succeeded but would have been suppressed like the Hussite movement 100 years earlier.
Luther was a great man ..Calvin was an arrogant sod but as I said, only 9 when Luther was in full swing..the abuses came, true but later and let’s face it, were minor compared to the huge abuses of freedom perpetrated by the iron grip on religious thinking that Rome exercised at that time.
No, we aren't talking about questions atheists can't answer but @MPaul's highly partisan and two-dimensional Ladybird book level view of history.
Luther was antisemitic - like many if not most of his contemporaries - urged the German Princes to massacre the peasants when they revolted - 'the peasants are revolting!' - 😉 and no more espoused freedom and liberty than anyone else at that time.
All this 'iron-grip' of nasty evil Roman Catholicism stuff ... nobody is giving the Papacy a free pass but if anything the Reformation drove Rome towards a more intransigent position that it occupied before.
From an Orthodox perspective the Counter-Reformation took Rome to more extremes whilst the Reformation sent the Protestant world on a trajectory that led to increasing levels of secularism and decline.
But that's another topic entirely 🙄.
My point is that none of this stuff is clear-cut or black and white. Neither was the Byzantine Empire or anything else that went on outside the medieval RC or later Protestant orbits.
But yes, we are getting off topic as MPaul gets carried away with a 19th century Whig view of the Reformation in general and Luther in particular.
Cuius regio, eius religio. Literally translated "whose land, his religion".
It doesn't stretch that far, though. For various reformers there was no virtue in individual freedom of conscience. What we see historically in the Reformation is a struggle for power. It wasn't so much that reformers had the idea that distributing power to smaller entities was in some way better, it was simply the idea that it's better if power is in our (more localized) hands than in their hands.
To a certain degree this seems to be a consequence of state consolidation during this period; smaller polities being absorbed by larger ones and central governments being able to exert greater power over their peripheries. States gaining authority at the expense of the Western church.
Anyone who harbours romanticised ideas that the Reformation was all about freedom of conscience ought to read and heed your post.
This dynamic is precisely why Thomas Jefferson wrote that there will ever be “a wall of separation between Church and State” in the USA. He was returning a letter to the Baptist community of Danbury, who were being mistreated by the Congregationalists of Danbury.
For those who are interested, a transcript of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists can be read here. It's quite brief by Jefferson's usual standards. What many people don't realize about Jefferson's letter was that although he expressed sympathy and agreement with the Baptist position ("religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God") he also expressed regret that as president there was nothing he could to about Congregationalism being the state established and official religion of Connecticut. The First Amendment only applied to the federal government at the time. It would take the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights' restrictions on government actions to the states.
Connecticut did eventually disestablish Congregationalism in 1818, one of the last American states to do so. (Massachusetts was the very last, disestablishing its official church in 1833.) In terms of officially established religion most Americans took Jefferson's (and Madison's) position, that such things were relics of European-style tyranny and antithetical to American liberties, even if the Constitution did technically permit states to do so (until 1868). Hence the rush by various states to disestablish their official churches in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
In itself, the ongoing struggle for power doesn't obviously describe a path that leads to individualism and secularism - power had been changing hands between rulers for years without the nature of legitimate authority itself being called into question, and there appears to have been widespread acceptance of this being how authority worked (which is itself an understanding that those in power clearly had and still have a vested interest in perpetuating). Or, if not "widespread acceptance", then whatever doubts and opposition existed didn't appear to result in significant ideological change.
So the issue that remains for me is what it was about the reformation that stuck, and that alongside all the factors that have been mentioned (on this thread), that ordinary people were invited to take into their own hands the question of their own (eternal) destiny.
My gut feel is that we can't disaggregate the Reformation from other factors and influences that helped shape and develop it. The invention of the printing press, for instance. Catholics used that technology of course, just as much as Protestants.
So increasing levels of literacy is one legacy, although that obviously didn't happen overnight.
I'd also suggest that a continuing spiral of fissaporousness and fragmentation within Protestant Christianity is another feature.
I apologise for mentioning my Madagascan trip again but in a township of some 3,500 people we visited there were now 12 churches and a mosque whereas 20 years ago there was 'just' a mainstream Protestant (Presbyterian?), an Anglican, Catholic and a Pentecostal church.
Now there are a gazillion varieties of Protestant churches all competing for adherents.
The 'protest' within Protestantism may well have been legitimate and understandable but once started the momentum appears to be unstoppable.
'What are you against?'
'What have you got?'
A wise man once said that it was high time the Protestant world recovered the pro in 'Protestant'.
What are you for?'
'What have you got?'