 sj |
||
|
||
BS: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: NicoleC Date: 23 Sep 02 - 12:49 PM Wolfgang, The question was for any European country that had elected two female heads of state (#9). I should have swapped the question order. Only Ireland has elected two. (That I could find -- did I miss one?)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Sep 02 - 08:38 AM You must be kidding with your response to question (11) or I didn't understand the question. You have been asking in (10) for Islamic countries that have elected female presidents and in (11) ask for European countries to match that statistic. You must know that more than 10 European countries are on the reocrd for having elected female presidents etc. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: wilco Date: 22 Sep 02 - 02:02 PM Historically, and culturally, we need to remember that these systems of belief developed in very primitive cultures, without the advantages of modern science. Many of these cultures that suppport these religions are having a very difficult time being relevant. In the western world, we have seen more wholesale cultural change in our lifetimes than have been seen in any group of centuries in human history. And, right now, its much faster in these contemporary non-western cultures. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 22 Sep 02 - 01:46 PM Refresh |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Sep 02 - 09:48 AM harpgirl - You said: "...what I dislike about the world's organized religions, and religious people in general, especially the ones I run into around here, is that they all seem to think they have a wrap on what virtuous behavior really is and that they have a right to enforce it on the rest of us imperfect non-whatevers......." Yeah. You could say the same about political parties, and socio-political-ecomonomic systems (like American free market capitalism or Chinese centralized Communism or any number of other examples), and cultural systems like the above or New Guineau headhunters, for another example. Of course, they are all organized religions too. They take ordinary natural life and overlay it with a set of fantastic artificial habits and assumptions which the average tribal member takes VERY seriously. :-) They just worship different deities, that's all. That all of the above systems are religions is immediately apparent to anyone who doesn't accept their basic premises of what existence is actually about. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Raedwulf Date: 20 Sep 02 - 06:25 PM Well, I read the original questions. I'm sorry, NicoleC, if they really were all yours, but they read like they were lifted off a site heavily biased towards feminism & the christers (I'm neither). Then I read through as much of the comments as I could stand. For those of you arguing/commenting about christianity, I'll only ask, have you read "Jesus, The Man", by Barbara Thiering? Being heathen, I have a biased p-o-v, so I will offer no opinion as to its 'truth'. Suffice to say, it's interesting reading &, regardless of your beliefs, ought to make you think. For anyone (especially ardent christers) inclined to be sceptical about the way she has arrived at her conclusions, I refer to you Robert Graves' "The Greek Myths" & "The White Goddess" for a compartive treatment of an entirely different religion... |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Bobert Date: 20 Sep 02 - 04:38 PM Well, Brother Jerry, thanks fir them kind words. One thing I have noticed not only around Mudcat but in other music sites is that folks don't step up too mcu and speak of Faith issues unless it is in intellectual way, which of course has really not much to do with ones spiritual self. Now, I knwo there are lots of folks here who by their posting have deep senses of Faith but you kind of have to figure it out indirectly. But, we will be judged by our deeds, irregardless so, hey, it is individually okay for folks to keep their spritual stuff to themselves but I do worry about the collective with-holding. It says something about the culture, I think, where folks that don't hardly know each other will banter about sex but are embarrassed or reluctant to say one word about their Faith. Just a curious observation... Yeah, I thought hard about hitting the "submit" button after writing my post. Not just because it was somewhat different from what everyone else was talking about, you know, with the quiz... but also because I do sense that's it's not okay to put that much of ones soul out there to get shot at. But, like I said in the post, the Holy Spirit moves within me and, like you have done here Jerry, just taken that step. Hey, maybe the fact that you and I have blazed the trail, so to speak, others may feel that what ever it is, the boogie man or whatever, that prevents folks from showing their spirtaul selves, is nothing but fear. Nothing else. No real boogie man, Just smoke... PTL Bobert
|
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 20 Sep 02 - 08:12 AM Mr. Bobert: You sure kin git to the heart of the matter. I hadn't read this thread until this morning because for me, religion is a personal relationship with God, and theology/tenets/doctrines serve the function of deepening that relationship. You could read every religious writing that has ever been created and it would mean nothing if you don't have a personal relationship with God. And, if you try to understand God by judging how people who claim to know Him act, you're missing the point. It is always interesting to me how the back-biters, back-sliders, hypocrites and self-servers who call themselves Christians, Muslims or Jews are cited as proof of the falacy of their religion, not those whose lives have been transformed by their faith, who are sincerely trying to live a loving, honest life. Some of the most admirable people I have ever had the honor to know are Atheists, and I've known some Christians who I make every effort to avoid because of their hypocrisy and mean-spirited-ness. I don't confuse their actions with the validity of their religion. Whether it's Christianity, Islam or Judaism (or Taoism) the only way to understand the religion is to go to the source, not the practitioners.
Christ is not a historical figure to me, or someone I read about in a book that has many obvious contradictions and myths. He is not someone I can "prove" to anyone else. Or would I try. I have enough trouble trying to live his teachings. I also believe that even those who say that God is a fig newton(thank you Pogo) of our imagination still have faith. I don't think that it's possible to live without faith in something... maybe not God, but something that makes life worth living.
I believe that Christ is the Son of God, and try to follow his teachings. I go to him as the source of my faith, and accept or reject any teachings of formal religion that I feel contradict his word. I can only speak for myself. Isn't that what we all do?
I do believe that there is a core of faith common to all religions. Those who don't believe in any religion still know the truth of those beliefs... striving to be respectful and loving of others and live a life that is honest and compassionate.
I also agree with you, Bobert, that God does not cause suffering. The most eloquent argument on that subject is in a wonderful book, Why Bad Things Happen To Good People by Harold Kushner. My copy has an inscription inside the cover from a dear friend who gave it to me many years ago. He is an Athiest. As he would say, "Ain't life grand?" Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: harpgirl Date: 18 Sep 02 - 07:14 PM ...what I dislike about the world's organized religions, and religious people in general, especially the ones I run into around here, is that they all seem to think they have a wrap on what virtuous behavior really is and that they have a right to enforce it on the rest of us imperfect non-whatevers.......of course one might accuse psychotherapists of something similar...not me of course, but.... Virtuous behavior, beliefs, and feelings are at best kept to oneself...at worst, the cause of world-wide strife...hg |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: BH Date: 18 Sep 02 - 06:37 PM Love a good quiz---this was a bit convoluted. But, when it comes to the politics involved---listen to the lyrics of Holly Near's song--I Ain't Afraid. Puts it all into perspective to me. Gee---brought it back to a folk/protest oriented piece of music. Bill Hahn |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Amos Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:56 AM NTERJECTION: Used to express praise or adoration to God. NOUN: 1. A cry of "hosanna." 2. A shout of fervent and worshipful praise. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English osanna, from Old English, from Late Latin sanna, from Greek hsanna, from Hebrew hôa'-n', deliver us : hôa', second person singular of hôîa', to save; see wc in Appendix II + -n', injunctive particle. You can answer such questions on your own if you wish, by looking at www.bartleby.com, a good source of reference listings. A |
|
Subject: Hosanna? From: aaronjclegg Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:49 AM Question: Where does the Christian name "Hosanna" come from? Aaron. |
|
Subject: "Which religion...?" From: aaronjclegg Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:46 AM "Which religion uses 'common sense' as it's basic premise, insists that it's participants treat others as equals, never solicits money, does not make men and women adversaries, does not rely on the supernatural to threaten people, and amends it's beliefs as new information comes to light?" It sounds almost like science to me, except that science does solicit money. While science isn't generally considered to be a religion, it does form the basis of a world-view (esp. the one we hold in the West). Aaron.
|
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Pied Piper Date: 16 Sep 02 - 01:20 PM I think that any babies in these three religious bathwaters drowned a long time ago. All the best PP |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 15 Sep 02 - 04:39 PM What I rember of my Islamic Studies: Muhammad and following prophets: Muslim belief is that Muhammad is the seal of prophets, i.e. there will be no prophets after him. Muslim sects believing otherwise are not considered true Muslims (prosecution of the Ahmadiya sect in Pakistan). Imam in Sunni Islam is the person leading the prayer. In Shiite Islam he is a descendant of Muhammad through his daughter Fatima and his cousin and son in law Ali Ibn-Abi-Talib. Ali was the fourth caliph (i. e. successor of the prophet as worldly AND spiritual leader of the Islamic community); his descendants were deprived of the caliphate. So the Shiites constructed their concept of Imama: The Imam is the spiritual leader of the worldwide Islamic community. There are two mainstreams of Shia: The Ismailis (now in India, head: Agha Khan) named after the 7th Imam Ismail where the chain stopped because his oldest son and appointed successor died before him, and the Twelver Shia (who took Ismail's next son as successor), because the 12th Imam, al-Mahdi, disappeared as a child of about five years. He lives in the ghaiba (concealment) and will come back at the end of the world. Meanwhile his reign is represented on earth by high qualified muslim theological teachers called Ayatollahs (signs of Allah. Their role is qualified in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran). Use of the veil for Islamic women: Quran says that decent women should cover their faces when squatting to move their bowels. Since I'm recovering at home I can't give the source; need to look it up at University. Wilfried |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Art Thieme Date: 15 Sep 02 - 11:55 AM Some good observations herein. Art |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Sep 02 - 11:52 AM You are quite correct, Amos, and I have come across a book that you would love to read. I'm just into the first part of it. I will PM you later, and maybe you can find it somewhere. John - Yes, work is indeed a very desirable thing, when it is accompanied by healthy motivations and by joy. It's the kind of work people do in "Dilbert" that I was referring to. Their work is joyless, repetitive, meaningless, and trivial. They do not really believe in it, but they see no way out. They are in fact enslaved. That is the problem with many people's work nowadays, yet that empty work becomes the very centrepiece of their lives. How sad. This is the defeat of the human spirit in the name of materialism. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 02 - 10:08 AM Art, you're a bloke after me own heart!! LH, I would suggest your defintiion is slightly off. The most widespread religion in the world today is the High Holy Church of the Physical Universe (HHCOPU). Materialism is a mere splinter group under the higher umbrella of the Planetary Archdiocese. Some of its mantras: If it isn't physical, it isn't real. Time flies like an arrow, and only like an arrow. No hopping over space; please go _through_! One life per being only. No sharing! If it isn't matter, it isn't you. Gravity is virtue. What you give to gravity is who you are. I am the Phsyical Universe; thou shalt have no other Universe before me. ...and so on. The beliefs that sustain this religion are remarkably obdurate and consititute the real belief systems held by people who pretend to be Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindi, and other superficial layers of asserted belief. The cult reportedly welcomes members from all other religions and does not require conversion. According to the cult's own publications, membership is currently in the range of 1.8 billion and growing faster than any other sect. Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: John Hardly Date: 15 Sep 02 - 09:20 AM I like what Little Hawk just said......except for lumping "working" in with "earning money, spending money, partying, and acquiring ever-increasing amounts of goods and services". It's a minor point, I know, but I still think that work, in proper balance is a virtuous thing.... ...in fact, the nature of our materialism is often focused on how we may aquire and enjoy without the "work" part. And when out of balance, it seems to be because the value of the work is judged almost soley by what it will gain us materially -- not that it fulfills us by the act itself.
I'd properly attribute it if I knew who originated it, but I've heard it said that in the west we now; |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: mack/misophist Date: 15 Sep 02 - 12:47 AM An interesting note on the social changes in Islamic countries in the last generation. Somewhere around 1956, I don't remember for sure exactly, my father arranged for me to spend an extended summer with the family of a Pakistani Air Force Captain. Some good things, a few bad, one absolutely necessary, but what comes to mind most strikeingly today is that no one seemed to care that much about religion. In Karachi nothing stopped when the muezzin called. One seldom saw any one praying in public. The mosques were never crowded save on special holidays. It was a very secular place then. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Art Thieme Date: 14 Sep 02 - 11:43 PM ...and make room for all. This world'd sure run more peacefully. Art again with a last word. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Art Thieme Date: 14 Sep 02 - 11:36 PM This is a fascinating discussion albeit one I bowed out of long ago.
Oh, the master guards the sheepfold bin, from the song "Master Of The Sheepfold" which is itself taken from a poem by the nineteenth century poet Sarah Pratt McLean Greene called "De Sheepfol'" To me, this song says: Forget the details. These metaphors nre not set in concrete. Forget the shepherd's admonitions and live and let live. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Art Thieme Date: 14 Sep 02 - 10:55 PM For all the gods / God's sakes, let the mystery be !!! What stange dogmas, laws, coercions, and outright lies are told by all of the above belief systems in the name of what is unknowable and of little actual import to us as individual human beings striving to live out our own personal lives with as little hurt to ourselves and hopefully others. And why????? So the shepherd can control the flock with as little resistence as possible. What better fucking way to control a nomadic people, wheter two millenia ago or now, who are wandering aimlessly, day after day, in the desert of their lives and spirits. Fantasies of security are all they have and they / we seem willing to die to protect those shaky and transparent visions hovering in the heat. I can see why they were told, "A plague on all your houses." Art Thieme
|
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Sep 02 - 09:54 PM Who's the ex-nun you speak of, Misophist? It almost sounds like Karen Armstrong, except that she used to be a Roman Catholic nun (in the UK), and I think she's a pretty reliable resource on Islam and comparative religion. But yes, she presents Islam in a favorable light. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Sep 02 - 09:15 PM Good stuff, Nicole. However, the dominant religion of the West today is not Christianity. It is materialism, consumerism, capitalism, and marketing. Its churches are the commercial marketplace, the banks, and the stock exchange. Its priests are the advertisers. Their main pulpit is the TV. Its forms of worship and ritual are working, earning money, spending money, partying, and acquiring ever-increasing amounts of goods and services. Buying now and paying later (if ever) is a cherished ideal that inspires the parishioners to mortgage their lives away on an uncertain future...and THAT's FAITH, by golly. Its promised salvation is instant gratification of all desires, easily achievable through credit spending...accompanied by a very powerful cultural myth about romantic "love" (finding that special "someone" who will complement you perfectly, always turn you on, and make up for the fact that the rest of your life is essentially meaningless in the greater context of existence, which is itself...well...ummm...meaningless.). The romantic love thing seems to be necessary, since the rest of the package as offered is utterly soulless, and that could lead to serious trouble. Gotta put some emotional content in life or people could lose their minds and run amok in the streets. Christianity ceased being the dominant religion a long time ago in the West, and is now merely a cultural remnant of a time when it once WAS the dominant religion, just as the British monarchy is now a cultural remnant of a time when it was the dominant power in the British Empire and the world. However, these are just side observations to the general theme of this thread. The info you have provided about 3 much older religions which arose in the Middle East has been quite interesting and informative. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: mack/misophist Date: 14 Sep 02 - 08:22 PM One problem in discussions such as this is that the 'soft' sciences (sociology, psychology, and to an extent, theology) have become so PC, sometimes that noted scholars can be said to be liars. A few years ago I read a book comparing the Xian, Jewish and Islamic concepts of God. The author was an ex-Anglican nun who is considered a world authority on her subject. The book was published by the Yale University Press. In the section on Islam, she lied. Not erred, not espoused a minority theory; she lied. Every dictionary I have ever seen gives the same origin of the word 'Koran'. She gave a different one which showed Mohammed in a kindlier light. There were many other items as well. So choose your references carefully and read the source material if you can. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: NicoleC Date: 14 Sep 02 - 07:39 PM Way better than I can say it, here's a quote from understanding-islam.com: "The Shiite faith of "Imamah" implies that after the Prophet (pbuh), there shall be no other prophet, but the only true leader of the Muslims, at any given time, is an "Imam" who, like the prophets of God, is directly appointed by God. The appointment of the first "Imam" was made by God through the last Prophet (pbuh), while every subsequent "Imam" is appointed through the "Imam", who precedes him. Another qualification of the "Imam", according to the Shiite belief is that he shall belong to the family of the last Prophet (pbuh). The Shiite belief holds that the "Imams", like the prophets of God, are "ma`soom" (sinless, innocent) and, therefore, should be obeyed in all matters and under all circumstances. The "Imams", according to the Shiite faith, are thus not just the political leaders of the Muslims but also their religious leaders and clergy. The Sunni school, on the other hand, does not ascribe to any such belief. This may, at first sight, seem to be a trivial difference between the two schools. However, a close analysis reveals that it amounts to a difference in the basic sources of religion and religious knowledge information and directives for the two schools. The Sunni school, because of its lack of belief in the institution of "Imamah" holds the last Prophet of God and the book revealed on him as the two primary sources of Islam, while the Shiite school, because of the importance and position it gives to the "Imams" holds them to be an autonomous source of their religion. Anything that an "Imam" says, anything that he does and anything that he narrates is "religion" for the Shiite school. Differing with an "Imam" in any matter is of about the same consequence as differing with a prophet. Not submitting to the directions of an "Imam" is as grave a sin as refusing to submit to the directions of a prophet of God." |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Amos Date: 14 Sep 02 - 04:26 PM Nicole: Shi'ites are indoctrinated into the infallibility of their Imami? Is that what you mean? Or, at least, secular auhority over the lives of followers? A |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: NicoleC Date: 14 Sep 02 - 03:58 PM Art, I wasn't using the Catholic Bible as a reference to Judaism, I was using in reference to Catholicism. Sorry for being unclear. Fionn's explantion above says it way better than me. However, the book does happen to appear, under another name, in many collections of Jewish religious literature. Since you had some of that, I though you might find the reference you were looking for in that. Misophist, you may be right, but I keep finding a bunch of "explanations" written by Muslims that all disagree. Perhaps it's in the definition of the word "last" -- is Mohammed the LAST prophet (forever), or was he the last (latest) prophet. Some explanations say that any Muslim who believes in the existence or possible existence of another prophet after Mohammed isn't really a Muslim, which sounds like some of the nit-picking among Christian sects about some other sect not being Christian. So I'm not sure how seriously to take it. I erroneously injected the word "Pope" in the Shiite description. It was a note to self I accidentally pasted over -- the Imam are not like Popes, but the attitude toward them is much like the Catholic attitude toward the Pope. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Amos Date: 14 Sep 02 - 10:42 AM Nicole: Many thanks for injecting a fine quality discussion; I am full of admiration for the erudition being exercised here both by you and others. A |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: mack/misophist Date: 14 Sep 02 - 10:30 AM Ms Castle: I think you are incorrect in your definition of Sunni Islam. I can't point a finger at a passage but I'm certain they regard Mohammed as the last prophet. And it is true that, historically, they have violently resisted any amendments to the Koran. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: artbrooks Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:11 AM Sorry, but neither "Ben Sira" or "Book of Sirach" appear in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. All of the on-line references to it that I can find are to the Apocrypha, which is a Christian concept. What would be the justification for using it as proof of the Jewish belief in anything? Because it may have been originally written in Hebrew? I really can't see that. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: NicoleC Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:42 PM See? I knew ya'll could do these questions!
6) OT: Head, hair and face, but it's more of a respectabilty issue for, not an absolute requirement. 9) This one is a toughie. It's Bangladesh --- 1991-1996 Prime Minister Khaleda Zia; 1996-2001, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed. Ironically, Khaleda and Wajed are in opposing parties.
10) Indonesia --- 2001 President Megawati Sukarnoptri Of note are also Israel (1969-74, Golda Meir) and India (1966-77, Indira Ghandi) 11) Ireland --- 1990-97 President Mary Robinson, 1997- present President Mary McAleese New Zealand has also had 2 female Prime Ministers and 2 female Governor-Generals. Finland and Britain have also had female non-heriditary heads of state. 12) Correct. Sunnis make up about 85% of Muslims. Almost all of the rest are Shiite.
13) Good! 14) Correct Shiite -- The true religious (and sometimes political leader) at any given time, the Imam, Pope, is divinely appointed and he is the arbiter of religious doctrine. Sunni -- The words of Mohammed and his writings in the Koran are the only source of the true religious beliefs, but there may be other prophets to come. Ahmadi -- Mohammed was a true prophet, but he has not been the LAST prophet and messenger of God. Getting Shiites and Sunnis together si like Irish Catholics and Protestants. To an outsider, the religious beliefs seem relatively similar, but history adds the real fuel to the flames. 18) Yahweh and Jehovah are personal names roughly meaning "The One Who Is," Allah is a more general term for God, like the Jewish El or Elohim. Only a few questions left, none of which are easy. In some early manuscripts, the number "616" is the number of the beast, in others the number "616" is a notation along with the usual "666." The ancient Jewish penalty for rape was a small fine (50 silver sheckles) and marrying the woman, which sounds a lot more like a punishment for the woman since she has to marry the jerk. 80 lashes and a loss of legal status is the punishment in ancient Islam. Since women had the same legal status as men (with a few gender-based exceptions), reducing a man's legal status was much like the modern American practice of withdrawing voting priviledges from felons.
|
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Lepus Rex Date: 13 Sep 02 - 09:09 PM "wan't?" Good god, I must be tired... --Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: mack/misophist Date: 13 Sep 02 - 09:03 PM It's been 30 years since I read the Koran but I'll take a stab at the questions left. The ones I think I know, that is. 6. The Koran doesn't require women to cover anything that I recall, only to be 'modest'. 9. Pakistan, I think. 12.Sunni 13.?, Wahhabi, Wahhabi, Shiite, Sunni (It seems to me the Taliban must be Sunni because they hate Shiites. And the Wahhabi are really a kind of Sunni.) 14. #1 is A, of course. The rest lose me. Are the Ahmadis the same as the Madhists? If so, I think they're extinct. 18. Yhwh is the unspeakable name of god to the Jews. Jehovah is, I think, Martin Luther's pronunciation of it. I presume (guess) Allah is an Arabic equivalent. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Lepus Rex Date: 13 Sep 02 - 08:32 PM Ok, without cheating, I'll try the Islam stuff, questions 9-14... Watch me suck. :/ (9) I wan't to say Indonesia, so I will. (10) Uh... Pakistan and Turkey, I know for sure... Then... Hell, I dunno. Malaysia. (11) Iceland? (12) B. (13) Out of the previous choices from the previous question? K... A. Taleban---Well, B, but influenced by D B. Osama bin Laden---D C. Saudi Arabia---D D. Iran---A E. Pakistan---B (14) 1. A 2. B, I guess, though I don't think most Sunni Muslims would agree that "there may be other prophets to come." 3. C There, now someone took a stab at the Muslim questions. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Bobert Date: 13 Sep 02 - 08:26 PM P.s. If anyone wants to carry this on with me, PM me... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Bobert Date: 13 Sep 02 - 08:17 PM Well, danged, I reckon it's time fir me to wade into this thread but don't expect me to hang around here much because I'm more a spiritual Christain than an intellectual. As fir what I know about Islam, my book knowledge is real lacking but I have a good Islamic friend who I talk with and we find much to agree on. He interprts the jahad much the way that I interpret, "and sin no more". Yeah, the stuggle of mankind to spend the time to listen to God thru meditation and then go out and act on his message. Now as fir Jesus, I am very much in the minority here with theologans and have found myself frustratin' a few in my day. Fundemental Christains believe that God controls everything and can make anything happen He wants or prevent anything from happening that He doesn't want to happen. For everything a purpose. And this can thinking can be well supported by scripture. Problem is, scripture leaves a lot of room for personal interpretation. Lets just say, for instance that God does control all and can make everything happen that he wants and prevent those things from happening that he doesn't. Well, if that is the case and one, as a Christain believes in the forty days of rain, then why did God have to do this if He controls all? And the biggest question of all, why send Jesus, His son to Earth as flesh to teach the aspect of a merciful God and more importantly a forgiving God? If God in fact could have controlded everything then there would not have been thids need. Doctor Charles Stanley, who I love to his very core, and I are at odds on this and I consider Charles to be one of the most spiritual men that I know. Charles says that I am letting God of the hook. I don't see it that way. I might have when I was younger but I have been witness to too many of God's blessings in my life and in the lives of others to realize that He is hanging in there with us, going thru thr ups and downs, like riding shotgun. I can not bridge the wide divide of reason where God would let a 5 year old girl run into the street and be killed by a car, yet this stuff happens everyday. And folks get real mad at God and want to know why He did this or allowed this to happen. Why, why, why, looking for the rest of the story, the silver cloud. Yeah, I believe there are things that happen just because and there are evil thing which are also done for which at the ebnd of the day, God puts his head in his hand and figuratively says to Himself, "Danged, I'll do better tomorrow." Now, back to Jesus. I have read the New Testamnet and the stories told by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and the letters to the various churches and the story is very consistant and the underlying message is the message of love and forgiveness. Is it all peaches and cream, no. Jesus lives as a man. He gets impatient, He gats aggrivated. He gets tired. The same things that we as men get. It's how he allows himself the solitude (meditation) to deal with it and come out teaching the parables of seed and showing His love and talking about the importance of a relationship that thru Him we as people can have with the Father. Some folks want to argue the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, but those folks are missing the message and giving in to their own agendas, not Gods. There are still way too many folks who say they are Christain, who believe in a God to be feared and by doing that it is my opinion that these folks are missing the entire piece, Yeah, and I believe there a folks, who for their own agends satnd in a pulpit and allow themselves to use Christianity as not only their shield but their swords. It is this group that I find the most trouble with and have sermonized a tad here and there about. Charlie Daniels said it best when he wrote, " Sometimes I think that preacher man like to do a little walkin' to". So, I'm not too sure how far we've come here, Probably lots of folks thinkin' ol' Bobert done lost his marbles getting out here on a limb. But, to my critics, hey it doesn't bother me at all. I have a daily realtionship with the Lord and think I listen to Him purdy good. If I didn't I sure wouldn't come out here and spill my guts. This isn't a rant. Maybe a challenging testimonial but if so I'd just say, the Holy Spirit just got me going. God Bless Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: JedMarum Date: 13 Sep 02 - 08:05 PM and as to Nicole's point that enlighted, modern thought can be found within Islam, I have no doubt - in spite of the fact that many terrible things have been done, recently in its name. Islamic bigotry has no monopoly on hate! And, like Christianity - Islam the religion is not to blame for the murderous acts of some of its followers. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: JedMarum Date: 13 Sep 02 - 08:02 PM good discussion, Nicole. Jesus and pre-existence? Seems to discount his role and the value of his actions, if he was not fully human and if he was a pre-existing being in a way no other human exists ... as a Catholic I was told this was part of the mystery. Jesus was, I was taught - fully human and of course the story only makes sense if he was. I suspect there really was historical man that the Christian stories call Jesus and that he really was a remarkable human being. The faith he passed on interests me. The religious thought his life inspired, and the religions that grew around them have less interest to me. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: NicoleC Date: 13 Sep 02 - 07:59 PM Wouldn't Ecclesiasticus be called the ben Sira or Book of Sirach in the Jewish Bible? Online text at: http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/SIR/SIR25.HTM |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: John Hardly Date: 13 Sep 02 - 07:23 PM yeah Rick, well I've been doing some 'sperimenting myself and maybe we can invent one we'd both like. Currently I straddle between the one I believe.......and what I wish it was!
|
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: NicoleC Date: 13 Sep 02 - 07:19 PM Thanks for the synopsis on the Jesus/man/God thing, John. Now, where did I get the idea that Jesus existed prior to his human incarnation, agreed to the deal, and then once he was born on earth he was unaware of his heavenly nature until divine revelation later in life? I guess that's like #2... sort of. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: artbrooks Date: 13 Sep 02 - 07:07 PM Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24? That book doesn't show up in my Jewish "Bible". And that statement doesn't show up in Ecclesiastes. Are the rest of the quotations equally valid? |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: Rick Fielding Date: 13 Sep 02 - 06:55 PM Ha, ha! Not far off the mark, John. If I could FIND a religion that met my criterion, I might not neccessarily JOIN it...but I'd sure want to be friends with the folks who DID belong to it. Cheers Rick |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: John Hardly Date: 13 Sep 02 - 06:47 PM Oh yeah, and Fionn, I think Rick's "religion" is not religion at all, rather science or rationalism. (I've always found Rick to be very respectful of well-behaved religion but I think I've read Rick say before that he is non-religious) |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: John Hardly Date: 13 Sep 02 - 06:43 PM "I've always wondered about Jesus. Do believers hold that he pre-existed his birth on earth - ie was he always part of the triumvirate up there, or was he created specifically to be slaughtered? If the latter, it doesn't seem much of a sacrifice. It would have been better if his father had sacrificed something he'd always cherished" I can only tell you what I was taught. Fundamentalist Christians, most "Evangelical" Christians (that's Christians who believe in pretty much the same orthodoxy as "fundamentalists" but who, because the term fundamentalist has become so negatively distorted, choose to go by another name), and, in doctrine though not in practice or as individual "believers", most main-line protestant denominations..........wow...how's that for a qualifier?! ...anyway, this is how it was taught to me. Jesus did pre-exist (before the incarnation). The Christian points to several things in both old and New Testament to conclude this but it would be unwieldy here to proof-text. If you really want specifics PM me (I'm not around here much but I'll try to check back from time to time). In an "inter-diety" (just made that'n up!) pact, and for reasons unknown to man, the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) set about the plan that would contain creation and redemption. Jesus "emptied himself" -- making himself as a man. So....when Jesus was here incarnate, he was a man. He suffered the same illnesses and struggles as are common to man. The deal was though -- he remained perfect. He was, to the fundamental belief of a Christian, more important as a sacrifice than for a moral example. Here you will find a HUGE, three-way (if not more-way) disagreement among many who go by the name "Christian". 1. many (especially among more "liberal" denominations) believe that the example was the real deal -- there was no need for a sacrifice because man, at his core, is good. Not in need of a sacrifice. 2. those who think the sacrifice is the thing and the example the proof of his worthiness -- but the LIFE was also the real deal. In other words, these (like myself) marvel at the humaness of Jesus -- that he did what he did as a man who was not at all times entirely aware of how his incarnation was relly meant to play itself out. 3. Finally there are those who think that the belief that Jesus was both man and God is diminished if he didn't maintain the all-knowing, all-powerfulness of his godness. These are the ones who, for example, chafe at the concept behind "The Last Temptation" because the Jesus of that movie wasn't entirely aware of the end in the beginning. In short, 'tis a mystery. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: NicoleC Date: 13 Sep 02 - 06:24 PM That would be lousy spelling, Fionn. I ended up somewhere in between both spellings... The reason I only included the big 3 western religions, is because I don't know much about the rest of them. The 4th and 5th religions of the west would not go over well in a religious quiz, namely Science and Money. DMcG: Sorry, I missed your answer. I was referring to the Roman/Orthodox split on the Eastern Orthodox side. And I THINK that catches me up. Which leaves 6, 7, 9-14 and 16-20. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: John Hardly Date: 13 Sep 02 - 06:17 PM "Augustine really invented the doctrine of Original Sin" see now.....this is just the kinda stuff that starts pissin' religious people off :^) There is a sorta transcendence to the doctrines of most religious beliefs -- that is, though someone may be known for pointing a doctrine out, those who believe the doctrine would not say that that fellow "invented" the doctrine. They would believe that the doctrine is in and of itself true, and the fellow who pointed it out was perhaps first, or just the best at pointing it out -- putting it into words -- systematizing it. If I believe in original sin it is not because Augustine "invented it". It is because I can see it as a reasonable interpretation of the scriptures. There is a difference between believing that something is true, and being able to support that truth by emperical means -- but those with real religious beliefs do actually believe that something is true. That doesn't mean that two opposing views can't happily co-exist, but it is one of the flaws in hoping we (religious and non-religious) can get along by a pluralism model, rather than by a toleration model. Pluralism presupposes that all religious viewpoints (or anything else that cannot be proven empirically, for that matter) are equally invalid......presupposing in a rather condescending manner that "unprovable" is the same as "untrue". Tolerance, on the other hand, merely demands that we allow for our differences in the name of a better society. It doesn't discount the possibility for truth. Oh yeah, and when Jed says "I do deny that they have not made a similar focus of the sinfulness of men.", I agree with 'im on that'n too. |
|
Subject: RE: QUIZ: Comparative Western Religions From: NicoleC Date: 13 Sep 02 - 06:10 PM Interesting thoughts, Jed. Not being a practicer of any particular religion, I view them all with the same sort of scholarly curiosity. Of course, I admit the agenda implied by a few above... stated it in fact in that interminable Iraq war thread. Since this quiz started in the other thread in response to a lot of talk being thrown around about religion and governments in the Middle East, I find it interesting that none of the regular political-BS-thread posters around here has answered even one of the Islam questions. (Most of which are FAR easier than the Christianity questions.) Heck, John answered the toughest one. It is valid to question the accuracy of defining a religious belief in a few quotes, and what effect religion has upon government and culture. I TOTALLY agree :) |