Talk Religion And Be Nice About It

[SmokerSan]

@firelord111:

You know iranians cant go to hajj this year cause of politics

Yes, and they are trying hard to create a global sunni/shia conflict that has no reason to exist. They are doing this, because they need it to feed their leadership over those who believe their lies. But don't think that arab countries are all with them. North African countries are not playing their game. There is no problem between Iran and Algeria, and Algeria proved their independence from Saudi Arabia, by refusing to go to war against the poorest country in the world (Yemen). And they also refused to make Hezbollah a terrorist group, which isn't, it's a nationalist group. And of course, we do not forget our "Black decade" with our 200.000 deaths caused by their sect.

[sggupta]

@Carmilla:

I am a "fuck all religions" type without even being an atheist, lol.
It's not necessary to antagonise anything or anyone, though. I accept it as others' views but I can't stand a religion near me and I strongly dislike its concept. But I don't go "you are religious, you suck, no religion should exist". I accept that it is as it is now and that with the current condition of the world and people, it even helps some and is needed for them.

curious,as someone who often thought "fuck all religions" and still do very occasionally,what would you describe your beliefs as if not atheism?agnostic,theist,something else or just not conforming to a label or belief?

[Carmilla]

@sggupta:

curious,as someone who often thought "fuck all religions" and still do very occasionally,what would you describe your beliefs as if not atheism?agnostic,theist,something else or just not conforming to a label or belief?

I simply don't want to label myself.
To say it briefly, I do believe in the existence of some kind of supreme being but its definition is so personal I could barely describe it to the closest of people.

[firelord111]

By the way i really hope that sauds take care of themselfs as good as they take care of mecca and medina

[Femme]

@firelord111:

well you cant say thay are care taker when they destroy historical buildings and how they treat people in hajj
How they ensure the safety of people in hajj you dont need example
You know iranians cant go to hajj this year cause of politics

"Caretaker" just means you're charged with something or someone's care. :P you can be a caretaker and treat someone or something horribly.

[firelord111]

@Femme:

"Caretaker" just means you're charged with something or someone's care. :P you can be a caretaker and treat someone or something horribly.

sorry i like raged for a second with saudi being caretaker of mecca and medina and gaimon saying saudi arabia represents islam combined

[Lord Gaimon]

@Femme:

Let's play Context! A way of understanding scary issues with a wider view!

! _> It is the year 578 CE, and you are living in pre-Islamic tribal Arabia.

Society is very different from your own. Women's rights were nonexistent, and they were also fair game for killing._ this is also true post islam. > It is absolutely normal to be upset with one of your many, many wives giving birth to a female child, and acceptable to bury the baby alive. Some men even buried their older female children alive if they were tired of them. this is just a myth, there's no evidence that it's true.
! > Women did not receive equal treatment from their husbands, so some were given more from their husbands than others.
! this is also true post islam > Some husbands allowed their friends to have sex with their wives when they visited. Some husbands post islam probably did that too.
! > ]Women did not have any inheritance rights
! Not true. example: Khadija
! > Some husbands diminished the status of his wife to untouchable, but not divorced either.
! Just like Mohammed.
! > Slavery was a part of society, just as it was for pretty much the rest of the world. This is the 5th century, after all.
Slaves had no rights either, and if a man impregnated his slave which was common, both she and her child would both be slaves to him. Mistreatment of slaves was, of course, common. Freeing of slaves was never done.
! Yeah slaves were better off post islam.
! > Marriage to children was commonplace all over the world. This is the 5th century, after all.
! It was still common place post islam. and it is in some parts of the world today.
! > Suddenly Islam comes into society and it is a complete revolution. Women have rights they never had before.
! not really.
! > Men can only have a maximum of 4 wives now, and if a man can't treat them equally, then less, or none.
! now they can have only 4 wives to treat them equally bad, so progressive.
! > Women have the right to inherit land and money from their deceased relatives.
! they could do that before islam
! > Women are given exclusive access to the prophet to discuss any and every concern they have, and receive justice every time.
! Women could talk to their local leader before islam.
! > Burial of female children was abolished.
! never existed to begin with
! > Slaves had rights they never had before. There is now great importance in Muslim society in freeing slaves. You hear of people rushing to buy slaves their freedom in hopes for rewards from God. If a man had a child with his slave, she was now had the status of a wife and he had to treat her as such, and the child seen as legitimate.
! Slaves were better off after islam but owning another human being is still not a sin and is permitted.
! > Islam is now a singular nation among numerous pagan tribes in Arabia. Apostasy means you are leaving the nation to rejoin the enemy tribes that are attacking the Muslims, so of course treason would be met with death.
! Apostasy continues to be punishable by death long after that.
! > You're wrong about rape and beating of wives. Both have punishments.
! Nope husbands can beat their wives if they disobey them. And raping slaves, war prisoners and your wife is permitted.
! > Homosexuality as a sin isn't unique. Did you know that the story of Lot and Sodom also are in the gasp bible?
! this really doesn't matter
! > The question of how to reconcile with marriage to children, slavery, and some of the more "shocking" practices that don't exist anymore in today's world is simple.
! they still exist in today's world.
! > The world has changed, these issues do not affect the core concepts in Islam, so just forget it and move on. Is the fact that freeing slaves is no longer a thing I can do affect the core monotheism in Islam? No.
Does the fact that child marriage is taboo in most countries now affect Islamic monotheism? No.

So I now just understand that these were non-universal laws that applied to their society, just like the previous prophets had laws that applied to only their society, and it no longer applies to mine. It doesn't change anything about the concept of God in Islam so there's no need to focus on it.
! But isn't islam supposed to be good and universal for all times? Isn't Mohammed supposed to be the ideal human being and should be emulated by all muslims?

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@wolfwood:

But you yourself are not muslim? Mind if i ask what it's like to be an atheist in Tunisia?

From your posts here it kinda seems like it's fairly relaxed place from a religious stand-point.

It depends on the region the north is more relaxed while in the south being an atheist might get you in trouble.
As for me only a few freinds know i'm an atheist so it doesn't really affect my life.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@SmokerSan:

Plus royaliste que le roi? What's this? Rape? Pedophilia? Slavery? Even though one of the best deeds a human can do is free slaves?

Raping slaves, prisoners of war and your wife isn't a sin, child marriage isn't a sin, and slavery isn't a sin.

Please read the title of the thread. And have at least the slightest sign of respect to us here. You don't like it, Ok, we got it.

Hey i respect you, i just don't respect the religion i have no problem with muslims who are decent people.

[sggupta]

@Carmilla:

I simply don't want to label myself.
To say it briefly, I do believe in the existence of some kind of supreme being but its definition is so personal I could barely describe it to the closest of people.

gotcha.i am the same actually.i have my beliefs (or non-beliefs more like),and i don't feel like any singular label can define my beliefs.i still use them sometimes to desrcibe myself though
@Lord:

But isn't islam supposed to be good and universal for all times? Isn't Mohammed supposed to be the ideal human being and should be emulated by all muslims?

there are supposed to be many things,but you know the world.almost all religions have shortcomings,nothing you can really do doubt that.but if you insist on bringing up shortcomings in a thread where are supposed to not step on toes,it becomes a bit difficult

hey i respect you, i just don't respect the religion i have no problem with muslims who are decent people.

disrespecting an entire religion can be disrespecting people though,that's the problem.almost all the people have been mindful of that,and maybe you should too.look,a lot of us have stuff to say that we won't cuz of stepping on toes,so let's not kill this thread

[RazgrizX]

@Carmilla:

I am a "fuck all religions" type without even being an atheist, lol.
It's not necessary to antagonise anything or anyone, though. I accept it as others' views but I can't stand a religion near me and I strongly dislike its concept. But I don't go "you are religious, you suck, no religion should exist". I accept that it is as it is now and that with the current condition of the world and people, it even helps some and is needed for them.

When you say you dislike its concept, what do you mean exactly?

I wasn't like a complete dick to religious people out of the blue either but I was kinda prejudiced against them and honestly I didn't really understand religion as well as I thought I did. But at the end of the day, religion isn't going anywhere for a long time and it's not a big deal what other people believe as long they don't try to push it down other people's throats and as long it's not completely crazy and/or stupid.

[RoboBlue]

It seems like the standard for people "born again" into any religion to be really rude and dismissive of others' beliefs for a short period. Atheism is just the latest "religion" to get a large group of those converts. It'll settle down in time.

Aside from that… there's always a dissonance between what a holy book or a singular authority says practitioners should believe and what they actually believe; that's a good thing, and it reflects our basic need to constantly reinterpret knowledge for our own benefit.

[sggupta]

@RoboBlue:

It seems like the standard for people "born again" into any religion to be really rude and dismissive of others' beliefs for a short period. Atheism is just the latest "religion" to get a large group of those converts. It'll settle down in time.

Aside from that… there's always a dissonance between what a holy book or a singular authority says practitioners should believe and what they actually believe; that's a good thing, and it reflects our basic need to constantly reinterpret knowledge for our own benefit.

i get what you are saying,but calling atheism a religion is going a little too far imo.atheism is basically rejection of all religions,and that is why atheists tend to be "fuck-all religions".especially converted atheists.
i feel that is because a person who becomes an atheist only does so after considerable thinking and/or bad experiences with religion,like growing in a family forcing your conformity to a religion or something.so they tend to have anger at religions for various personal reasons,making them just hate the religion

[Monkey King]

Its the product of people growing up in strict conservative surroundings breaking out from it, there will be a harsher and more defensive nature to such people regarding religion than those who are plopped into a lack of religion from birth or otherwise benign circumstances.

See me for an example of the latter. Lack of religion was no siege mentality thing for me, never had to be in any shape outside of it not being the politest of conversation with the Irish-Italian extended family. But y'know, it doesn't really come up to begin with so whatever lol.
Compare with someone raised in a rural Southern Baptist Evangelical context, becoming atheist through internet exposure, having to keep it utterly quiet on the same level practically as being gay. That person will be filled with resentment and struggle to see religion in a three dimensional way, rather than as an abusive arch-conservative force.

[RoboBlue]

@Monkey:

Compare with someone raised in a rural Southern Baptist Evangelical context, becoming atheist through internet exposure, having to keep it utterly quiet on the same level practically as being gay. That person will be filled with resentment and struggle to see religion in a three dimensional way, rather than as an abusive arch-conservative force.

For the same reason, born again Christians often struggle to view other religions in a healthy way. I had a friend's mom get extremely preachy and defensive at my Jewish father in law's shiva, which wasn't any fun to deal with.

@sggupta:

i get what you are saying,but calling atheism a religion is going a little too far imo.atheism is basically rejection of all religions,and that is why atheists tend to be "fuck-all religions".especially converted atheists.
i feel that is because a person who becomes an atheist only does so after considerable thinking and/or bad experiences with religion,like growing in a family forcing your conformity to a religion or something.so they tend to have anger at religions for various personal reasons,making them just hate the religion

The same is true for converts to many religions, in my experience. The "born again" conversion process is like an exothermic chemical reaction, with emotional pain acting as the catalyst.

[sggupta]

@Monkey:

Its the product of people growing up in strict conservative surroundings breaking out from it, there will be a harsher and more defensive nature to such people regarding religion than those who are plopped into a lack of religion from birth or otherwise benign circumstances.

Exactly
@RoboBlue:

The same is true for converts to many religions, in my experience. The "born again" conversion process is like an exothermic chemical reaction, with emotional pain acting as the catalyst.

hmm,i can agree with that logic

[Femme]

@Lord:

! this is also true post islam.this is just a myth, there's no evidence that it's true.this is also true post islamSome husbands post islam probably did that too.
! Not true. example: Khadija
! Just like Mohammed.
! Yeah slaves were better off post islam.
! It was still common place post islam. and it is in some parts of the world today.
! not really.
! now they can have only 4 wives to treat them equally bad, so progressive.
! they could do that before islam
! Women could talk to their local leader before islam.
! never existed to begin with
! Slaves were better off after islam but owning another human being is still not a sin and is permitted.
! Apostasy continues to be punishable by death long after that.
! Nope husbands can beat their wives if they disobey them. And raping slaves, war prisoners and your wife is permitted.
! this really doesn't matter
! they still exist in today's world.
! But isn't islam supposed to be good and universal for all times? Isn't Mohammed supposed to be the ideal human being and should be emulated by all muslims?

Hold on a sec, before I waste my time going into detail about all of these topics, there's a huge discrepancy between what sources of information you believe as true.

You say that burying of children alive never happened when it is talked about in the Quran and some Hadith, but you also seem to believe the Hadith when it talks about Muhammad's relationship with his wives? Also what source are you quoting when you mentioned Khadijah's inheritance of her father's business?

I don't like wasting my time in debates when people have made up their minds to just hate on Islam, and that seems to be the case for you if you're selectively picking what you want to believe.

[RoboBlue]

@sggupta:

disrespecting an entire religion can be disrespecting people though,that's the problem.almost all the people have been mindful of that,and maybe you should too.look,a lot of us have stuff to say that we won't cuz of stepping on toes,so let's not kill this thread

Yeah… I get where you're coming from Gaimon, but Femme is right that the Quran needs to be taken as a product of its time. Beyond that, please don't make generalizations about large groups of people without evidence that they've endorsed specific views (a thousand people at an anti-abortion or pro-choice rally, for example).

Holy books are always massive and it would be wrong to expect people to adhere 100% to every passage within them. You can make a specific criticism of the Quran, but please be open to the possibility that other people (and even the majority of Muslims) have interpreted it differently than you do.

[Monkey King]

Gaimon, your talk reminds me of well….someone from the US. Obviously Tunisia is way more homogenous and small than the US, but the resentment of someone from a liberal cosmopolitan area toward religious rural areas in terms of reforms and what not? All too familiar.
Lots of people here turn on religion for the same reason. Unlike most European countries (western Europe anyway) this is a shared feature between our countries.
Granted we've made a lot of progress against it recently (only to see perhaps darker conservative forces rev up...).
But I understand the anger you're feeling. But don't let that blind you too much to the nuance of religion as a whole.
When I was younger I talked basically similar regarding religion (specifically Christianity), not due to personal circumstances but more political ones. Seeing the George Bush era Republicans wielding political religion left and right. But through time and experience I've moved on from that.
Islam, and heck you know this, is too big, too broad, to be blamed so simply for that.
Go ahead and blame specific sub-groups, Salafi/Wahhabis for instance. But not the whole vast thing.

In my experience as an American, I think the main thing of all is not religion being the problem so much as the point where religion is personal vs communal.
In a religiously homogenous country like Tunisia I'm not sure how that pans out (in that regard you maybe have more historically in common with Europe). But it should be possible to be entirely religious, and yet comprehend ones neighbor won't be. Even within the same sect of one religion.
When these things are personal, not private, everyone can relax a lot.
Obviously Salafis don't believe that really. But well, they have to be made to learn through law and order if they refuse.

[Carmilla]

@RazgrizX:

When you say you dislike its concept, what do you mean exactly?

I just don't think faith (or lack of it) needs definition, grouping people by it, things to be done in its name, etc. And mainly I don't think it should have this much significance, for the people themselves, yes. For the ones around_ no.
I also think that no matter what people will miss conceive and misuse the religion with this much emphasis being on it.
Does any of this make sense?

[RazgrizX]

@Carmilla:

I just don't think faith (or lack of it) needs definition, grouping people by it, things to be done in its name, etc. And mainly I don't think it should have this much significance, for the people themselves, yes. For the ones around_ no.
I also think that no matter what people will miss conceive and misuse the religion with this much emphasis being on it.
Does any of this make sense?

Yeah, it makes sense. You don't like that religions are like giant, influential institutions. I agree but thankfully that influence is going away, albeit very slowly

[Lord Gaimon]

@Femme:

Hold on a sec, before I waste my time going into detail about all of these topics, there's a huge discrepancy between what sources of information you believe as true.

You say that burying of children alive never happened when it is talked about in the Quran and some Hadith, but you also seem to believe the Hadith when it talks about Muhammad's relationship with his wives? Also what source are you quoting when you mentioned Khadijah's inheritance of her father's business?

I don't like wasting my time in debates when people have made up their minds to just hate on Islam, and that seems to be the case for you if you're selectively picking what you want to believe.

The pagans were Mohammed's enemies so he had reason to make stuff up about them, why would he lie about his relationship with his wives.
Khadija inherited from her husband and was a successful and respected merchant so it's clear Quraish didn't have a problem with financially independent women.
And inheritance pre islam was different from tribe to tribe so islam probably helped some women but it wasn't really revolutionary.

[xan]

@RazgrizX:

Yeah, it makes sense. You don't like that religions are like giant, influential institutions. I agree but thankfully that influence is going away, albeit very slowly

But something new and more influential is replacing it

God = Country
Religious leader = Prime Minister/President
Famed devotees/Saints = Soldiers
Followers = Patriots
Holy book = Constitution
Symbol of Faith = Flag
Devotional prayer = National anthem

I think we are seeing an evolution and embodiment of factors which were abstract to attract groups into religions but now, quantifiable and solid to attract people to groups that are more extreme in their views. Religions will slowly tune itself out or take another form. Nations and Nationalism will be the new religion.

(My bad if I diverted from the topic of religion here but just pointing out some interesting analogies between religion and nationalism)

[Lord Gaimon]

@RoboBlue:

Yeah… I get where you're coming from Gaimon, but Femme is right that the Quran needs to be taken as a product of its time. Beyond that, please don't make generalizations about large groups of people without evidence that they've endorsed specific views (a thousand people at an anti-abortion or pro-choice rally, for example).

Yes, the Quran is a product of its time that's why it should be viewed as a piece of history and not used to guide people's lives in the 21st century.
And i'm not really generalizing anyone just talking about what is written in the texts.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Monkey:

Gaimon, your talk reminds me of well….someone from the US. Obviously Tunisia is way more homogenous and small than the US, but the resentment of someone from a liberal cosmopolitan area toward religious rural areas in terms of reforms and what not? All too familiar.
Lots of people here turn on religion for the same reason. Unlike most European countries (western Europe anyway) this is a shared feature between our countries.
Granted we've made a lot of progress against it recently (only to see perhaps darker conservative forces rev up...).
But I understand the anger you're feeling. But don't let that blind you too much to the nuance of religion as a whole.
When I was younger I talked basically similar regarding religion (specifically Christianity), not due to personal circumstances but more political ones. Seeing the George Bush era Republicans wielding political religion left and right. But through time and experience I've moved on from that.
Islam, and heck you know this, is too big, too broad, to be blamed so simply for that.
Go ahead and blame specific sub-groups, Salafi/Wahhabis for instance. But not the whole vast thing.

I agree completely that muslims are too diverse and shouldn't be generalized, but the quran/hadith themselves can be judged and should be criticized as long as people use them to form their opinions and beliefs.

In my experience as an American, I think the main thing of all is not religion being the problem so much as the point where religion is personal vs communal.
In a religiously homogenous country like Tunisia I'm not sure how that pans out (in that regard you maybe have more historically in common with Europe). But it should be possible to be entirely religious, and yet comprehend ones neighbor won't be. Even within the same sect of one religion.
When these things are personal, not private, everyone can relax a lot.
Obviously Salafis don't believe that really. But well, they have to be made to learn through law and order if they refuse.

Religion here is mosly private but people turn into salafis when they hear someone is an atheist or gay. probably because they view them as degenerates and a danger to society.

[RazgrizX]

@xan:

But something new and more influential is replacing it

God = Country
Religious leader = Prime Minister/President
Famed devotees/Saints = Soldiers
Followers = Patriots
Holy book = Constitution
Symbol of Faith = Flag
Devotional prayer = National anthem

I think we are seeing an evolution and embodiment of factors which were abstract to attract groups into religions but now, quantifiable and solid to attract people to groups that are more extreme in their views. Religions will slowly tune itself out or take another form. Nations and Nationalism will be the new religion.

(My bad if I diverted from the topic of religion here but just pointing out some interesting analogies between religion and nationalism)

Not sure if that's a valid comparison since you're making it sound like nationalism is something recent(sure, it's not older than religion but that doesn't make it recent) and replacing religion as if they're mutually exclusive. I mean, I think nationalism is also as whole dying down and what we're seeing in the world is mostly reactionary to it declining.

Something also to consider is that religion can be used to bolster nationalism. On top of "our contry/people are the greatest" we also have "our religion makes us morally superior" so that excuse not working as well as it used to is a hit to nationalism as well.

[xan]

@RazgrizX:

Not sure if that's a valid comparison since you're making it sound like nationalism is something recent(sure, it's not older than religion but that doesn't make it recent) and replacing religion as if they're mutually exclusive. I mean, I think nationalism is also as whole dying down and what we're seeing in the world is mostly reactionary to it declining.

Something also to consider is that religion can be used to bolster nationalism. On top of "our contry/people are the greatest" we also have "our religion makes us morally superior" so that excuse not working as well as it used to is a hit to nationalism as well.

Nationalism is old of course but it has more concrete reasons to grow now that religion is slowly having less and less influence and power in societies than it used to.

The reason why I am saying that it will eventually replace is that nationalism's objectives and reasons to defend itself are more concrete than religion. Nationalism doesn't depend on an abstract God to convince people to lose their lives over it. It has a quantifiable object to convince people to believe in it. Religious nationalism is still a thing but I am just speculating that the religion part will lose its sheen soon.

[Femme]

@Lord:

The pagans were Mohammed's enemies so he had reason to make stuff up about them, why would he lie about his relationship with his wives.
Khadija inherited from her husband and was a successful and respected merchant so it's clear Quraish didn't have a problem with financially independent women.
And inheritance pre islam was different from tribe to tribe so islam probably helped some women but it wasn't really revolutionary.

That's kind of really opinionated picking and choosing of information. If you believe the chain of narration system is true when there are saheeh ahadith about Muhammad's personal life, you can't reject saheeh ahadith about other topics just because you think he had a reason to make stuff up.

[firelord111]

Well there are alot of people that i saw that they think like gaimon in where i come so i get the hate but you should go smother if you dont want to hurt peoples feelings

[Lord Gaimon]

@Femme:

That's kind of really opinionated picking and choosing of information. If you believe the chain of narration system is true when there are saheeh ahadith about Muhammad's personal life, you can't reject saheeh ahadith about other topics just because you think he had a reason to make stuff up.

I'm not rejecting the ahadith, i acknowledge that he said them i just think they are propaganda because there's no evidence of female infanticide being a common cultural practice in pre islamic arabia.

[Femme]

@Lord:

I'm not rejecting the ahadith, i acknowledge that he said them i just think they are propaganda because there's no evidence of female infanticide being a common cultural practice in pre islamic arabia.

Oh? So if it wasn't him in the Hadith speaking on the topic, would you reject that? Say if it was Umar reporting an incident where a man admitted to burying his daughters to Muhammad?

[Lord Gaimon]

@Femme:

Oh? So if it wasn't him in the Hadith speaking on the topic, would you reject that? Say if it was Umar reporting an incident where a man admitted to burying his daughters to Muhammad?

But that hadith is talking about an isolated indecent not about infancide being a common occurance.
Would you say that leaving babys in dumpsters is a common practice today because some people to do it? No.

[Femme]

@Lord:

But that hadith is talking about an isolated indecent not about infancide being a common occurance.
Would you say that leaving babys in dumpsters is a common a practice today because some people to do it? No.

Isolated incident you say?

How about this, it's from Saheeh Bukhari, the same source that reports many hadiths about the prophet's personal life that you believe.

Narrated Asma bint Abi Bakr:
I saw Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail standing with his back against the Ka'ba and saying, "O people of Quraish! By Allah, none amongst you is on the religion of Abraham except me." He used to preserve the lives of little girls: If somebody wanted to kill his daughter he would say to him, "Do not kill her for I will feed her on your behalf." So he would take her, and when she grew up nicely, he would say to her father, "Now if you want her, I will give her to you, and if you wish, I will feed her on your behalf."

Also an isolated incident? Or did all the companions get together and decide to fabricate lies about a huge infanticide conspiracy, which was frankly, unneeded because the other tribes have too many other crimes on their hands.

[wolfwood]

On one hand i'd imagine that my relaxed outlook on religion is due to living in a nation that has mostly treated religion as a quaint little curiosity. But on the other hand we are also the nation thats ahead of the class on really hating any and all religious expressions outside of the home. It's that weird oh how cute your religion is, can i pet it? But also make sure you keep it on a tight leash and neuter it. Feels slightly schizophrenic at times

[RoboBlue]

@Femme:

Also an isolated incident? Or did all the companions get together and decide to fabricate lies about a huge infanticide conspiracy, which was frankly, unneeded because the other tribes have too many other crimes on their hands.

To be fair, a lot of holy books contain historical information that has turned out to be false. There was no mass enslavement of Hebrews in Egypt, and there was never a mass slave escape. Likewise, if the story of Noah had actually happened, we'd all be dead from inbreeding.

[Monkey King]

Old Testament history is pretty much a big pile of bunk until after the Jews settle in Canaan. Since all actual evidence of the origin of the Jews as a people suggests they were a native culture born right out of Canaan in the first place.

[Femme]

@RoboBlue:

To be fair, a lot of holy books contain historical information that has turned out to be false. There was no mass enslavement of Hebrews in Egypt, and there was never a mass slave escape. Likewise, if the story of Noah had actually happened, we'd all be dead from inbreeding.

The point I'm trying to make by challenging him on this is that he can't claim that the practice of female infanticide among the arab tribes never existed, thus saying that the verses in the Quran that mention this are not true (and Muhammad made it up), when he takes for true the hadiths from the exact same sources that talk about other things he believes about the character of Muhammad and his family that also speaks about others' accounts of dealing with female infanticide.

It's like, you can't debate with someone who is also quoting hadiths from the same trustworthy source as if they believe it's true and then they suddenly they decide to say that hadith number 2 "never happened" but they think that 1, 3, 4, 5 did happen, when they all use the same system of verification of authenticity.

If you decide that hadith number 2 never happened, then you must also reject all other hadiths that was reported by the same narrator of number 2. But what if that narrator also narrated number 4 and 5?

A bit complicated, but do you see where I'm going with this?

[RoboBlue]

@Femme:

A bit complicated, but do you see where I'm going with this?

Kind of… but it sounds like you're arguing that the Quran is a really unreliable source of information.

[Femme]

@RoboBlue:

Kind of… but it sounds like you're arguing that the Quran is a really unreliable source of information.

Well the Quran and the hadiths go hand in hand. The Quran says you have to pray, and the hadiths mention accounts of what Muhammad said about all the steps you should do to pray, you see? Muhammad was described as "a walking Quran". He went into detail about the verses that were revealed, that's why it's mandatory to also believe in the hadiths as a secondary source of information.

The hadiths are graded in a verification system called "chain of narrators". There are the strongest hadiths which are reported by very trustworthy people, sometimes many at a time will report the exact same thing which raises the grade of that hadith to the strongest level. Then there's hadiths that are reported by only one person, or maybe someone who had a reputation for having a weak memory and messing up a few times, that hadith will be graded as weak, and shouldn't usually be used as a source.

There are two books of hadith in Sunni islam which are a collection of the strongest indisputable hadiths with the strongest chains of narrators, and that is called Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim. Gaimon was mentioning hadiths from saheeh bukhari to back up his claims, but I also responded and said but hey, there's also these hadiths in Saheeh Bukhari that counters your claims.

[sggupta]

wrote this on reddit in reply,thought i'd share it here too.
this is in reply to the following:i

wth the exception of buddhism (which believes that when their doctrine is proven wrong, it is correct to accept the proven answer over the doctrine), and… not sure on any others (not a professional) - most "mainstream" religion we see today puts emphasis on their doctrine over law and common sense. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, are the most commonly publicized offenders of this

"think it's unfair to accuse Hinduism of"putting emphasis on doctrine over law and common sense" and praising Buddhism in this matter given that they are largely similar in this regard,and in all regards honestly.hell,Buddha as a God exists in hinduism,and originated in india. firstly,Hinduism has a wide variety of lore and scripture,and doesn't really demand absolute faith in all of it,not to mention that is just not possible.on top of that,changing social customs and rules according to the changing times is a prevalent theme,especially in epics like mahabarata and ramayan.in ramayana,this is not really that significant,but there are instances like rama staying and eating at a lower-caste old woman's house. In mahabharata,it is pretty much a major theme.almost all the trouble that happens can be ascribed to blindly following old customs,tradition and "dharma".Karna,portrayed as a morally neutral character,time and again shows the unfairness of the caste system(although it is all ruined by him actually secretly being of noble birth,but still).Bhishma,who is the probably one of the most honorable,incorruptible and just badass persons is killed(indirectly) by Krishna because his unstaunching and unwavering focus on tradition and honor is ultimately wrong. Krishna himself goes against the norm many times,criticising the worship of indra and instead promoting the worship of the mountain(i don't remember the name),encouraging cheating in the war and using tricks that would be considered dishonorable and wrong because it was required. the entire concept of Dashavatara means that the concept of "dharma",or of right and wrong needs to be changed according to time,and hence why Vishnu appears in an avatara 9 times(1 left) to establish it. anyway long rant tl;dr hinduism doesn't encourage blind following of scripture and lore.that people still do it is coz they are idiots and like someone pointed out,both Sikhism and jainism are similar.(significantly,all of the religions discussed share some connection wth hinduism)

[xan]

@sggupta:

wrote this on reddit in reply,thought i'd share it here too.
this is in reply to the following:i
"think it's unfair to accuse Hinduism of"putting emphasis on doctrine over law and common sense" and praising Buddhism in this matter given that they are largely similar in this regard,and in all regards honestly.hell,Buddha as a God exists in hinduism,and originated in india. firstly,Hinduism has a wide variety of lore and scripture,and doesn't really demand absolute faith in all of it,not to mention that is just not possible.on top of that,changing social customs and rules according to the changing times is a prevalent theme,especially in epics like mahabarata and ramayan.in ramayana,this is not really that significant,but there are instances like rama staying and eating at a lower-caste old woman's house.

The problem with that perspective is that Hinduism being a liberal and broad religion have multiple scriptures which have their own assertions that could be implemented as a ruler who follows the religion. The ancient Varna system taken from Manusmriti (the writings specifying the caste system) is wherein lies a broad category which ended up being taken into an advantageous context and utilized to categorize and demean sects of the population. Incidentally, there was many doctrines which thoroughly go against the caste system but they are not put into limelight because well… humans. It cannot be denied that the caste system is specified in the religion BUT so are so many things which lie in direct contradiction and its upto the people to decide which one to take up and follow. Same with every single religion out there. I still think the argument made by the statement "Hinduism has put its doctrine over law and order" is flawed because law and order is ambiguous and change over time. The caste system was an acceptable norm ages back and the religion is reforming its doctrines based on the current era. Rules of law and order valid today might seem flawed 10 centuries later so it cannot be used as a premise for this specific argument.

When I get time (and if anyone is interested) I can post in detail about the caste system that people might have heard about in Hinduism, in this thread. Not just the theory but its effects etc

[Femme]

I was thinking I'll write up a practical example of how the Chain of Narration system works for Hadiths, because it'd be fun, and also a look into what makes Islam a religion that is supremely concerned about authenticity.

[hide]First, imagine we are all from a nation of people renowned for their memories, who have memorised their lineage up to 10, 20, 30 generations, and who have passed down poetry in verbal form, word for word, generation by generation. The following people in this example are ones who have the reputation to be truthful, competent, honest, free of bias, and have accurate memories.

**Femme says:

"I like cookies."**
Monkey King and RoboBlue were there and heard Femme say this directly.

Time passes and Monkey King and RoboBlue meet up with different people.

Monkey King says:

"I was going to the kitchen to get a can of whoopass and I heard Femme say she likes cookies."

Wolfwood and Lord Gaimon was there and witnessed Monkey King say that.
Roboblue says:

"I was waiting with Femme for the chicken to be done in the oven and I heard Femme say she likes cookies."

Firelord and Captain Ugly were there and witnessed Roboblue say that.

Time passes and those four meet up with different people.

Wolfwood says:

"I heard Monkey King say that he was in the kitchen to get a can of whoopass when he heard Femme say she likes cookies."

Xan was there and witnessed Wolfwood say that.
Lord Gaimon says:

"I heard Monkey King say that he was in the kitchen to get a can of whoopass when he heard Femme say she likes cookies."

Sggupta and Hosemisnuba were there and witnessed Lord Gaimon say that.

–

Firelord says:

"I heard Roboblue say that he was waiting with Femme for the chicken to be done in the oven when she said that she likes cookies."

Smokersan was there and witnessed Firelord say that.

Captain Ugly says:

"I heard Roboblue say that he was waiting with Femme for the chicken to be done in the oven when she said that she likes cookies."

MetaMario and Dr. Faust were there and witnessed Captain Ugly say that. Time passes and Robby, the collector of verbal accounts of Femme, talks to Xan, Sggupta, Hosemisnuba, Smokersan, MetaMario, and Dr. Faust.
Xan says:

I heard Wolfwood say that Monkey King said that he was in the kitchen for a can of whoopass when Femme said she liked cookies.

Sggupta says:

Hosemisnuba and I were playing smash when Lord Gaimon said that Monkey King said that he was in the kitchen for a can of whoopass when Femme said she liked cookies.

Hosemisnuba says:

Sggupta and I were playing smash when Lord Gaimon said that Monkey King said that he was in the kitchen for a can of whoopass when Femme said she liked cookies.

Smokersan says:

I was petting my cat when Firelord said that Roboblue said that he was waiting for Femme to be done with the chicken when she said that she liked cookies.

MetaMario says:

I was eating a sandwich with Dr. Faust when we heard Captain Ugly say that Roboblue said that he was waiting for Femme to be done with the chicken when she said that she liked cookies.

Dr. Faust says:

I was eating a sandwich with MetaMario when we heard Captain Ugly say that Roboblue said that he was waiting for Femme to be done with the chicken when she said that she liked cookies.

Robby has all the accounts of this verbal account of Femme. He creates four hadiths for four chains of confirmed authentic narrations:

1. Dr. Faust and Metamario said that Captain Ugly said that Roboblue said that Femme said that she likes cookies.
2. Smokersan said that Firelord said that Roboblue said that Femme said that she likes cookies.
3. Hosemisnuba and Sggupta said that Lord Gaimon said that Monkey King said that Femme said that she likes cookies.
4. Xan said that Wolfwood said that Monkey King said that Femme said that she likes cookies.

–

One instance, 12 people who have confirmed that Femme said she liked cookies, and since these 12 people are known to be reputable in transmitting other accounts of Femme that were true, then these four chains are confirmed to be the highest grade of authentic.[/hide]
That's basically how the Chain of Narration system works, but it's way more complicated than this, because each narrator's reputation for transmitting hadith (or verbal accounts of Muhammad) is closely scrutinized, and if one person in the chain is known to have a deficient memory, the authenticity of that hadith is weakened from saheeh (authentic) to hasan (good) to musnad (supported) to da'if (weak) to fabricated.

[cooldud]

@xan:

The problem with that perspective is that Hinduism being a liberal and broad religion have multiple scriptures which have their own assertions that could be implemented as a ruler who follows the religion.

The problem is the perspective that Hinduism is a religion. And when I say religion, I mean in the Western lens that is dominated by the Abrahamic worldview.

Dharmic "religions" are weird. They are metaphysical treatises that combine everything from history to folklore, from music to agriculture. The sheer volume of literature is vast, and to distill a unique philosophy is tough, let alone a code of conduct or one theological doctrine.

To illustrate this, believing in Shakti is a consistent Hindu worldview. Believing in Karma is a consistent Hindu worldview. Believing in Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh is a consistent Hindu worldview. For the longest time I believed that you need to express faith in the validity of the Vedas to be considered a Hindu. I now realise that there were sects in the subcontinent that questioned the validity of the Vedas. And were still within the umbrella of Hinduism.

I believe Hinduism only started being defined as a "religion" in the Gupta period of around 300-400 to separate itself from the now wildly varying traditions of Jainism and Buddhism which were both offshoots of the Dharmic school of thought and had taken the rejection of Vedas to its logical extreme and formed huge bodies of philosophical doctrine in their own rights over roughly a millennium of state patronage. The arrival of Islam and the resulting us-vs-them battle for survival only entrenched this as a part of the Indian identity (for the sake of this broad history I'm ignoring the early, tiny footholds Christianity made in coastal India). The word Hindu comes from the Persian word for the Indus river and was simply used to denote anyone from beyond that river. It was the British who finally solidified the Hindu identity to classify all the non-Abrahamic natives of India (a name also coming from the Indus river) who used to follow the hodge-podge of religious texts and pagan customs.

I'm actually saddened with the age of information that is resulting in the loss of diversity in Hindu traditions and customs across the breadth of India, as religious nationalism and the desire to create a common Hindu identity is actively trying to standardise and condense a rich and mind-blowingly diverse culture. Looking at where Hinduism is in South-East Asia in places like Bali is fascinating. Apart from a few common factors (belief in the Vedas and reading of the same epics of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana), their customs are completely divergent.

@xan:

"Hinduism has put its doctrine over law and order"

I actually have no idea what this even means. Can anyone explain this to me?

@xan:

When I get time (and if anyone is interested) I can post in detail about the caste system that people might have heard about in Hinduism, in this thread. Not just the theory but its effects etc

Caste is what happens when people mix a treatise combining philosophy and Machiavelli's The Prince and politics. It is not an artefact of Hinduism itself.

[xan]

@cooldud:

The problem is the perspective that Hinduism is a religion. And when I say religion, I mean in the Western lens that is dominated by the Abrahamic worldview.

I had mentioned Hinduism as a religion for easier understanding for people here. It does not fall under the same category of Abrahamic religions of course

I'm actually saddened with the age of information that is resulting in the loss of diversity in Hindu traditions and customs across the breadth of India, as religious nationalism and the desire to create a common Hindu identity is actively trying to standardise and condense a rich and mind-blowingly diverse culture. Looking at where Hinduism is in South-East Asia in places like Bali is fascinating. Apart from a few common factors (belief in the Vedas and reading of the same epics of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana), their customs are completely divergent.

That's true. People don't realize that Hinduism is more pluralistic because they feel that it has to be categorize it just like how the other religions are. It definitely ruins the beauty of it

I actually have no idea what this even means. Can anyone explain this to me?

I just quoted it from his post but what I believe is being said there is that Hinduism is trying to infuse its views by giving it a higher priority than considering law and order which is incorrect as I had mentioned above.

Caste is what happens when people mix a treatise combining philosophy and Machiavelli's The Prince and politics. It is not an artefact of Hinduism itself.

That goes for any ideology which has been propagated by religion where the majority of them rise from dire needs of time or dependent on the power of the person who holds the reigns to push them forward. The problem happens when it becomes more culturally infused than just remaining as an ideology. A self assessment of your morality becomes difficult when people start questioning the way you are used to thinking from age 0 when you culturally inherit infused flaws centuries old. I think many people are facing that problem now but oh well.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Femme:

Isolated incident you say?

How about this, it's from Saheeh Bukhari, the same source that reports many hadiths about the prophet's personal life that you believe.
Also an isolated incident? Or did all the companions get together and decide to fabricate lies about a huge infanticide conspiracy, which was frankly, unneeded because the other tribes have too many other crimes on their hands.

@Femme:

The point I'm trying to make by challenging him on this is that he can't claim that the practice of female infanticide among the arab tribes never existed, thus saying that the verses in the Quran that mention this are not true (and Muhammad made it up), when he takes for true the hadiths from the exact same sources that talk about other things he believes about the character of Muhammad and his family that also speaks about others' accounts of dealing with female infanticide.

But i don't believe that infanticide didn't happen just that it wasn't as common as the islamic narrative says it was because:
-they wouldn't be able to sustain their population and all that polygamy if it was.
-there isn' any archaeological evidence for it.
-i can't find any mention of it in pre-islamic poetry and stories.
And again the reason i belive the stuff about Mohammed's life is because there's no reason for anyone to lie about them and his behavior doesn't really contradict the culture of his time.

It's like, you can't debate with someone who is also quoting hadiths from the same trustworthy source as if they believe it's true and then they suddenly they decide to say that hadith number 2 "never happened" but they think that 1, 3, 4, 5 did happen, when they all use the same system of verification of authenticity.

If you decide that hadith number 2 never happened, then you must also reject all other hadiths that was reported by the same narrator of number 2. But what if that narrator also narrated number 4 and 5?

A bit complicated, but do you see where I'm going with this?

"Hadith" means "talk", the authenticity grades tell you how likely that the talk happened but it doesn't tell you if the person talking is lying or exaggerating, that you need to figure out by looking at the context

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Femme:

I was thinking I'll write up a practical example of how the Chain of Narration system works for Hadiths, because it'd be fun, and also a look into what makes Islam a religion that is supremely concerned about authenticity.

[hide]First, imagine we are all from a nation of people renowned for their memories, who have memorised their lineage up to 10, 20, 30 generations, and who have passed down poetry in verbal form, word for word, generation by generation. The following people in this example are ones who have the reputation to be truthful, competent, honest, free of bias, and have accurate memories.

Femme says:
Monkey King and RoboBlue were there and heard Femme say this directly.

Time passes and Monkey King and RoboBlue meet up with different people.

Monkey King says:
Wolfwood and Lord Gaimon was there and witnessed Monkey King say that.
Roboblue says:
Firelord and Captain Ugly were there and witnessed Roboblue say that.

Time passes and those four meet up with different people.

Wolfwood says:
Xan was there and witnessed Wolfwood say that.
Lord Gaimon says:
Sggupta and Hosemisnuba were there and witnessed Lord Gaimon say that.

–

Firelord says:
Smokersan was there and witnessed Firelord say that.

Captain Ugly says:
MetaMario and Dr. Faust were there and witnessed Captain Ugly say that. Time passes and Robby, the collector of verbal accounts of Femme, talks to Xan, Sggupta, Hosemisnuba, Smokersan, MetaMario, and Dr. Faust.
Xan says:

Sggupta says:
Hosemisnuba says:
Smokersan says:

MetaMario says:

Dr. Faust says:

Robby has all the accounts of this verbal account of Femme. He creates four hadiths for four chains of confirmed authentic narrations:

1. Dr. Faust and Metamario said that Captain Ugly said that Roboblue said that Femme said that she likes cookies.
2. Smokersan said that Firelord said that Roboblue said that Femme said that she likes cookies.
3. Hosemisnuba and Sggupta said that Lord Gaimon said that Monkey King said that Femme said that she likes cookies.
4. Xan said that Wolfwood said that Monkey King said that Femme said that she likes cookies.

–

One instance, 12 people who have confirmed that Femme said she liked cookies, and since these 12 people are known to be reputable in transmitting other accounts of Femme that were true, then these four chains are confirmed to be the highest grade of authentic.[/hide]
That's basically how the Chain of Narration system works, but it's way more complicated than this, because each narrator's reputation for transmitting hadith (or verbal accounts of Muhammad) is closely scrutinized, and if one person in the chain is known to have a deficient memory, the authenticity of that hadith is weakened from saheeh (authentic) to hasan (good) to musnad (supported) to da'if (weak) to fabricated.

But after further reading into the context of the hadith you find out that Femme only said that to appease the cookie tribe so they will help her with wars, and she might not have even liked cookies!

[Femme]

[hide]@Lord:

But i don't believe that infanticide didn't happen just that it wasn't as common as the islamic narrative says it was because:
-they wouldn't be able to sustain their population and all that polygamy if it was.
-there isn' any archaeological evidence for it.
-i can't find any mention of it in pre-islamic poetry and stories.

1. No one is saying that everybody did it, but it was common enough to be a problem. The definition of "common" is where we differ, but obviously it wasn't so common that every man killed his female children. To compare to your "baby in a dumpster" example, what if it was as common as drug addicts are today? Not everyone does drugs (speaking from Canadian society perspective), but enough people do it for it to be a problem in society.

2. That's an unfair claim because digging up bodies in Islam is incredibly taboo, so places like Mecca, which was the setting for the Hadith I referenced, would be entirely unlikely to permit digs to find infant bodies.

3. There's some poetry here.

And again the reason i belive the stuff about Mohammed's life is because there's no reason for anyone to lie about them and his behavior doesn't really contradict the culture of his time.

"Hadith" means "talk", the authenticity grades tell you how likely that the talk happened but it doesn't tell you if the person talking is lying or exaggerating, that you need to figure out by looking at the context.

But after further reading into the context of the hadith you find out that Femme only said that to appease the cookie tribe so they will help her with wars, and she might not have even liked cookies!

The problem with this opinion is that if you think that a person is exaggerating or lying in a certain Hadith, especially if it's saheeh, you must also doubt every other Hadith transmitted by that person. Then, you also have to doubt the people who vouched for that person and transmitted their Hadith. Then, you have to doubt every Hadith that speaks about that person.

Before long you have a chain reaction of doubts that span tons of people and hundreds of chains, and so the tower of saheeh hadiths on which is held up by the pillars of many people considered trustworthy, will crumble. You must then doubt everything that anyone in these chains say, which means that everyone who was involved in those hadiths are lying in some way.

Which then refutes the work done by tons of scholars who dedicated their lives to traveling across the Arabian peninsula and painstakingly collecting and organizing thousands of hadiths, comparing and contrasting one chain of hadiths to others and determining each person's reliability in speaking the truth.

Which then means you don't trust the Hadith scholars.

Which then means that you don't take any books of hadiths as accurate, which is impossible because these scholars didn't come up with thousands of hadiths and chains on their own. [/hide]

[Monkey King]

@xan:

stuff

I've heard Hinduism described as kinda sort of like what would have happened if European paganism (for instance) had survived past the whole Christian thing, and become mashed together vaguely into an overarching pantheon with separate focal points.
So like Zeus and Thor would be in the same "canon" and stuff like that. Except they'd still have their own focused followings.

Or is that horribly inaccurate.

[wolfwood]

I think you can still get an asatru burial in Sweden, if you are registered with the proper heathen organization.

They are atleast recognized as proper religious organization, just with like a thousand worshippers maybe.

But they atleast have the best religious drink. Mead > Wine >> No drinks allowed.

[xan]

@Monkey:

I've heard Hinduism described as kinda sort of like what would have happened if European paganism (for instance) had survived past the whole Christian thing, and become mashed together vaguely into an overarching pantheon with separate focal points.
So like Zeus and Thor would be in the same "canon" and stuff like that. Except they'd still have their own focused followings.

Or is that horribly inaccurate.

I won't use the more abrahamic religion-centric word "paganism" to define Hinduism as it kind of stands a varies a bit more than the western definition of pagan religions. Hinduism on the highest level believes that a supreme being exists but it doesn't matter in which form he/she exists by. I have seen my neighbors having pictures of Jesus, Mother Mary and Gods from other religions kept alongside their Hindu gods yet they consider themselves as only Hindus. I have seen many Hindus who come to my church and give utmost respect to the Gods although they don't subscribe the religion. There have been scriptures written dating back from thousands of years which have steadily revolved around the spiritual side of religions rather than concentrating on the assertive bookish strictly monotheistic one. I would even push Hinduism into a slightly modified monotheistic perspective where they still believe that there is just one God but nobody is denying the other Gods are false either where if you consider the abrahamic ones, they believe in one God and deny the rest. It's an acceptance that all Gods are just one but under different names.

[Lord Gaimon]

! @Femme:
! > 1. No one is saying that everybody did it, but it was common enough to be a problem. The definition of "common" is where we differ, but obviously it wasn't so common that every man killed his female children. To compare to your "baby in a dumpster" example, what if it was as common as drug addicts are today? Not everyone does drugs (speaking from Canadian society perspective), but enough people do it for it to be a problem in society.

2. That's an unfair claim because digging up bodies in Islam is incredibly taboo, so places like Mecca, which was the setting for the Hadith I referenced, would be entirely unlikely to permit digs to find infant bodies.

3. There's some poetry here.
! 1. ok, that makes sense.
2. the graves weren't marked, right? couldn't someone dig up a body by accident?
3. those aren't pre-islamic though, could you tell me witch ones you mean maybe i missed them.
also your link says:
! > yet we do not find in what remained, any mention by the poets of the word wa’d (infanticide) or its derivatives, except in rare cases.
! Also seems infanticide was a problem in a few tribes and islam stoped it, but that wasn't really revolutionary and doesn't change that islam is deeply misogynistic.
! > The problem with this opinion is that if you think that a person is exaggerating or lying in a certain Hadith, especially if it's saheeh, you must also doubt every other Hadith transmitted by that person. Then, you also have to doubt the people who vouched for that person and transmitted their Hadith. Then, you have to doubt every Hadith that speaks about that person.

Before long you have a chain reaction of doubts that span tons of people and hundreds of chains, and so the tower of saheeh hadiths on which is held up by the pillars of many people considered trustworthy, will crumble. You must then doubt everything that anyone in these chains say, which means that everyone who was involved in those hadiths are lying in some way.

Which then refutes the work done by tons of scholars who dedicated their lives to traveling across the Arabian peninsula and painstakingly collecting and organizing thousands of hadiths, comparing and contrasting one chain of hadiths to others and determining each person's reliability in speaking the truth.

Which then means you don't trust the Hadith scholars.

Which then means that you don't take any books of hadiths as accurate, which is impossible because these scholars didn't come up with thousands of hadiths and chains on their own.
! I don't think you get my point. so i'll give an example:
! >! Person A says:
! > 2+2=5
! Person B hears that and tells person C:
! > Person A said 2+2=5
! Person C believes Person B but doesn't believe that 2+2=5.
! See what i mean? i'm not doubting the authenticity of the hadiths or their transmitters what i'm doubting is the claims made in them.

[cooldud]

@Monkey:

I've heard Hinduism described as kinda sort of like what would have happened if European paganism (for instance) had survived past the whole Christian thing, and become mashed together vaguely into an overarching pantheon with separate focal points.
So like Zeus and Thor would be in the same "canon" and stuff like that. Except they'd still have their own focused followings.

Or is that horribly inaccurate.

That is almost completely accurate and xan has covered well in the ways that this manifests.

The one major thing that differentiates Hinduism from European pagan religions, even the more "advanced" Greco-Roman pantheon was the one major thing: the vast availability of very fertile land in the subcontinent. This manifested itself in two ways. First, this allowed people leisure time to advance philosophy and metaphysics to a very advanced level. This also prevented people from creating cults of personality and anoint themselves as Gods, as the Roman emperors started doing. Second, the sheer population mass that this provided grinded the invading forces of Islam and later Christianity to a halt and enabled people to hold on to their beliefs unlike European pagans who failed. Most of what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan was the bulwark that Hinduism "ceded" to fortify its own position (Bangladesh is an interesting case that I could expound upon further if invited to).

[sggupta]

@cooldud:

! Dharmic "religions" are weird. They are metaphysical treatises that combine everything from history to folklore, from music to agriculture. The sheer volume of literature is vast, and to distill a unique philosophy is tough, let alone a code of conduct or one theological doctrine.
! To illustrate this, believing in Shakti is a consistent Hindu worldview. Believing in Karma is a consistent Hindu worldview. Believing in Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh is a consistent Hindu worldview. For the longest time I believed that you need to express faith in the validity of the Vedas to be considered a Hindu. I now realise that there were sects in the subcontinent that questioned the validity of the Vedas. And were still within the umbrella of Hinduism.
! I believe Hinduism only started being defined as a "religion" in the Gupta period of around 300-400 to separate itself from the now wildly varying traditions of Jainism and Buddhism which were both offshoots of the Dharmic school of thought and had taken the rejection of Vedas to its logical extreme and formed huge bodies of philosophical doctrine in their own rights over roughly a millennium of state patronage. The arrival of Islam and the resulting us-vs-them battle for survival only entrenched this as a part of the Indian identity (for the sake of this broad history I'm ignoring the early, tiny footholds Christianity made in coastal India). The word Hindu comes from the Persian word for the Indus river and was simply used to denote anyone from beyond that river. It was the British who finally solidified the Hindu identity to classify all the non-Abrahamic natives of India (a name also coming from the Indus river) who used to follow the hodge-podge of religious texts and pagan customs.

great post and yeah i agree.the main problem is hinduism is vast and complex,and has a lot of variety as well as inclusion of other topics apart from religion,like administration,literature,art,philosophy etc.
and i would say that this inclusion,as well as the evolution and diversity is the reason why the hinduism doesn't put it's doctrine above law and common sense,as the doctrine itself changes a lot and has a wide variety in itself.yeah,some if it is more culturally integrated but that also means there's no current reason,belief-wise to stick to those cultural traits.in short,there's nothing stopping religious hindus to stick to caste system,discrimination,strict gender roles,radicalism and the actual inclination religion wise should be to go in the reverse direction

I actually have no idea what this even means. Can anyone explain this to me?

essentially what was said was that aside from buddhism,all other major religion put their existing religious beliefs and doctrine above what the current common sense and morality dictates.
which,as i said above,is not true because the religious beliefs and doctrine have changed,evolved and varied themsleves.
also,buddhism itself has close connections with hinduism,and they both developed in similar environemnts so contrasting them is just wrong

Caste is what happens when people mix a treatise combining philosophy and Machiavelli's The Prince and politics. It is not an artefact of Hinduism itself.

@xan:

That goes for any ideology which has been propagated by religion where the majority of them rise from dire needs of time or dependent on the power of the person who holds the reigns to push them forward. The problem happens when it becomes more culturally infused than just remaining as an ideology. A self assessment of your morality becomes difficult when people start questioning the way you are used to thinking from age 0 when you culturally inherit infused flaws centuries old. I think many people are facing that problem now but oh well.

while i agree that cultural assimilation of certain ideas and concepts tied with religion should not be ignored,i also think it's just that,culture and not specifically religion.like,if you were to ask someone here why you think women should stay at home and just not be bold or vocal,or why they should be subservient most people would say "because that's how things are",and not "because that's what my belief in god and religion says"
@Monkey:

I've heard Hinduism described as kinda sort of like what would have happened if European paganism (for instance) had survived past the whole Christian thing, and become mashed together vaguely into an overarching pantheon with separate focal points.
So like Zeus and Thor would be in the same "canon" and stuff like that. Except they'd still have their own focused followings.

Or is that horribly inaccurate.

others have given well thought responses,but to chip in i would say you are mostly right.
but i think while the various gods can be considered to have different followings,they are also very connected and not really separate.i would describe it more as all the common figures having multitudes of stories and canon from different sources.
like,for example you take one timeline for a marvel/dc comic series,you add a lot of stuff from another timeline which has the same characters and setting,but different story and content,then you add various one short and short sub-series that is also connected but just it's own thing

[wolfwood]

I'm very fond of the evolution of this thread.

The early Christianity gives way to Islam who is superseded by Hinduism