I don’t pretend to be an expert on India, but I have read numerous articles about Muslim oppression, not just at the national level from Modi, but at the regional and local level, from the extremists there. Overall, it sounds very much like the various laws being forced through state governments in America.
For decades, Muslim communities have faced discrimination in employment and education and encountered barriers to achieving wealth and political power. They are disproportionately the victims of communal violence.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling party have moved to limit Muslims’ rights, particularly through the Citizenship Amendment Act, which allows fast-tracked citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from nearby countries.
Are all these articles not true? If they are true, I can’t understand how you are denying the cultural and political harassment of Muslims in India, based off of religious bigotry.
So you have no expertise on India, read articles in the last 7 years since and have reached the conclusion
[quote=“Exapno_Mapcase, post:26, topic:943909”]
…It is true of Jews in Israel. It is true of Hindus in India.[/quote]
I am sorry, but that is a gross generalization with very little data. Yes the current government has religious zealots, but it does not prove anything about Hindus in general, who by and large don’t want to impose their views on others. As pointed out above Muslims in India have their own law system based on Islamic Sharia law, perhaps the only non-muslim majority country to allow this.
It is also worthwhile to point out that the Animosity between Hindus and Muslims, has its origins in the Hindu Persecution by Muslims starting around 1100AD.
It was the whole reason that led to the creation of a new country : Pakistan
It should also be noted that the Hindus of India welcomed Jews to Kochi Kerala during the time of King Solomon and there was/is no anti-semitism for centuries. When the Muslims invaded Persia, Hindus provided refuge to Parsees (Zoroastrians). Zoroastrians in Persia were wiped out by Muslims.
So bottomline : Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism historically has not sought to make everyone go one way.
You don’t have to be a Christian at all while believing these things. The first is from the Torah, and is basically what is put on the doorposts of Jews, among other places. The second wasn’t invented by Jesus, and is perfectly reasonable as a matter of secular ethics.
So, what do you feel about salvation?
First, you are abusing my entire argument. As long as there is one instance of the government putting the favored religion’s beliefs into law, my point is made. That instance exists. What individuals think is irrelevant. How many times do I have to say this?
Second, I’d like to hear from an Indian Muslim to see if they’re so sanguine on the subject.
Third, what do this have to do with the question of why people are choosing atheism or spiritualist philosophies in increasing numbers? Could the increasing fundamentalism of the religion you’re defending have anything to do with it? Is bringing up a history of hatred and revenge really the best argument for your position? Does a reflexive defense whenever anybody mentions the obvious faults of every religion in the world help when explaining why people are fleeing organized religions? How about trying to explain the question in the OP rather than try to argue that objective reality isn’t real?
I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion. I do not assume that at least two people must agree on the answer to a religious question, for that religion to be ‘true’; in the same vein, I do not assume at least two people must agree on the answer to a physics question for that physical theory to describe reality.
Even informally, just because people disagree, does not mean everybody is wrong.
There is a saying I learned in shul, ‘two Jews, three opinions’. Many religions have a history or tradition of theological debate and disagreement, but so far as I can tell, Judaism has a unique tradition of arguing with God. Major Jewish prophets tried to reason with God or implied that His proposed acts would be unjust, just to list a few, Abraham’s plea to spare Sodom/Gomorrah, Moses’s plea to spare the idolators, and of course Job.
There is one particular story where rabbis are debating whether a new form of pottery is ritually pure according to halakha (Jewish religious law). Rabbi Eliezer cannot convince the Sanhedrin (council of rabbis/elders) that his interpretation is correct. He calls on God to prove him right, and after a series of miracles fail to persuade them, God directly tells the rabbis that Eliezer is correct. The rabbis then rebuke the word of God, saying it is for man to interpret the law: lo bashamayim hi, ‘it [the Torah] is not in heaven’.
The name Israel, after all, means ‘contends-with-God’ (Jacob was blessed with the name after literally wrestling God/an angel). So in the case of Judaism, where people sometimes argue with God, of course they are going to argue with eachother.
Cute story, which I’ve heard, but it just shows that no one knows what God means. At least we Jews admit it - fundamentalists Christians think they know exactly, though they are all different.
God could come down and straighten everything out (or at least do a new rev of the book) but he doesn’t for some reason. If planets and stars and atoms were as shy as god science would be in big trouble.
It’s called the problem of divine hiddenness. I think God is on mute, and doesn’t know it. He is kind of old, after all.
I do, and over 50 years of experience from the time I was, briefly, a physics major, so do all physicists. You’re the outlier here.
I also of of the opinion, like those rabbis, that listening to outside voices in one’s head merely makes you psychotic rather than holy. Otherwise you have to believe wholeheartedly that every killer, rapist, vandal, looter, lyncher, and out-and-out bigot who claims that god told them to commit their crimes is equally as holy and equally right to do so.
There are people to whom that is not an acceptable answer and they’d rather have an answer – any answer – than “We don’t know.” religion fills the bill for them.
Also, for some, ‘we don’t know’ implies ignorance which itself implies lack of ability and so you should’nt be trusted.
If a doctor say to you ‘I know know’ you may say, ‘in that case I’ll go to anther doctor because you’re not a good doctor’. And before long you end up with the quack who DOES know.
That is such a wrong reading of the story. Like, in another galaxy wrong.
Rabbi Eliezer did not “hear voices in his head.” The voice was heard by all present (and the preceding miracles were witnessed by all present), and in fact the other rabbis responded to it.
The other Rabbis did not regard Rabbi Eliezer as insane. (I supposed this follows from point one.) They simply argued that the divine voice (post-Moses) (as well as the ability to invoke miraculous occurrences) has no place in the process of deciding religious law.
The notion the the Rabbis would have believed that hearing the voice of G-d privately means one is insane would imply that they think the same of the Biblical-era prophets, and from the fact that their statements in the Talmud are all based on the recorded words of these prophets, it is self-evident that they did not believe this overall.
I was going by Max_S’s summary. If that’s not accurate, then strike it.
So let’s go to your words. There is absolutely nothing that is more telling about religion in the real world than a religious body claiming “that the divine voice … has no place in the process of deciding religious law.” If there were any sentence in the universe that proves that religion is made up in peoples’ head, that would be the one.
And since everybody has continued to ignore the actual OP, I would also say that the need to pretend that a “divine voice” is a meaningful giver of laws that even non-believers have to obey is a driver of peoples’ abandonment of formal religion in favor of spirituality.
I think I understand what you are saying, and if I am correct, then you missed the significance of a critical part of cmkeller’s post. Namely, the caveat, “(post-Moses)”, which you excluded from your quote.
The third-to-last verse of the Torah (Deuteronomy 34:10) attests that no prophet would be as great as Moses. Also, Deut 4:2 and 13:1 specifically forbid changes to God’s laws.
cmkeller’s point was that (via Moses) God gave His people a set of laws, and rules for how to understand and interpret those laws, (for example, Deut. 17:8-13.) and those rules do not allow for God to interfere with the process. Rabbi Eliezer’s interpretation and understanding of the law in that case differed from that of the other rabbis. Quite an everyday situation, actually, and normally, the case would end with the law following the majority rule. What was different in this case was that Rabbi Eliezer tried to bring God’s own testimony to prove his side, but that evidence was ruled inadmissible. End of story. (Well, actually, there’s more to the story: The Talmud relates that God laughed from pride at how his children followed the rules so very correctly.)
There is plenty of room within the law for figuring out how to deal with new situations. But the law itself does not, can not, and will not change. That’s why the Jews reject the whole concept of a “New Testament”. The later books of the prophets and the rest of the Jewish Bible do nothing to change the original Torah; their only purpose is to inspire the people to be faithful to that original Torah.
I was speaking strictly, not in general. Strictly speaking, if a theory may only describe reality when at least two people agree that it describes reality, it is strictly impossible for any single person to develop an accurate theory. And that is clearly false.
The council all witnessed the series of miracles and they all heard the voice of God. I chose this particular story because despite the rabbis having their religious question answered directly by God, they still disagreed - with God. They claimed the right of man to interpret religious text, and discounted God himself when he tried to clarify.
Hence the variety of viewpoints on answers to religious questions - it is exactly what it looks like, individuals giving their own interpretations. In the Jewish tradition there is supposed to be a Sanhedrin to settle the question, but that council is long gone.
This goes straight back to your original question, my paraphrasing: if a religion is real (not just made up) how there can be so many interpretations on a basic question, what are the consequences for this act?
It could be because this multi-interpretations is a feature designed by god. Perhaps god is interested how each individual solves the morality conundrum in the face of a confusing set of rules. The fact that each religion disagrees with each other religion is part of god’s plan. The fact that each denomination of each religion disagrees with the other denomination is part of god’s plan. And the fact that each individual’s interpretation of the religion differs from all other individuals is part of god’s plan. Maybe he creates an environment with a lot of contention to see the variety of human responses. And one of the best ways to create a lot of contention is to make sure that there is a lot of disagreement about what god is and what god wants.
Did you see my post, just two above this one? It’s not that they claimed the right to interpret it; rather God explicitly gave them that right. They were totally within the rules of the system that God Himself set up.