A religion's scripture is not enough for understanding it

[Riverwolf]

Yeesh, it's been a while. I missed this place.

Anywho, I've noticed that a lot of people make judgments about a religion solely after reading its holy scripture, whether the Bible, Qur'an, or others. While I understand the logic in this, it simply isn't enough for a complete understanding. It's also important to understand the history of the religion, the cultures that follow it, both before and after it came in, and a general history of the region. It's also important to understand how people interpret the scripture by reading commentaries, extra-canonical books, and talking to followers, since different people can read the same passages differently.

I did once think that a religion is defined by scripture, but after contemplating the issue further, it turns out that this is incorrect. After all, many religions don't even have scriptures, so what defines them? The people who follow them. The same is true of religions that are centered around a book. After all, a single book can be followed by different religions, like the Judeo-Christian Bible. In addition, most religions existed before the scriptures they're centered around were written. Buddhism, for example, existed for a hundred years before anyone wrote down the Buddha's teachings.

Most religions also have several denominations that disagree on several key issues despite using the same book. Therefore, an understanding of these denominations is essential for understanding the religion as a whole; it also becomes illogical to judge an entire religion solely because of a single denomination's interpretation.

The issue of translation is also important. Most scriptures were written in languages that either don't exist anymore, or have evolved to be completely different from their ancient versions. Therefore, translating them is often extremely difficult, as there can be words that define concepts that don't exist in modern languages or thinking, causing the original meaning to be, as it were, lost in translation. A basic understanding of linguistics, or at least traditional terminology, becomes vital in a full understanding of religion.

...I'm sure there's more, but that's all I got for now.

 

[arthra]

I would agree to an extent that you need to understand the context of the scriptures to understand them..also as you've written:

"A basic understanding of linguistics, or at least traditional terminology, becomes vital in a full understanding of religion."

Certainly helps..

In some religions you have the creation of scripture and after that the scripture has influence later.. Most religions have a long verbal tradition that is passed down and later becomes written down..and of course after that there can be revisions, mistakes, mistranslations and so on..also interpolations of scripture..scribal notes being added to scripture and so on.

In the case of the Baha'i Faith more credence is given the written word or Writings as they have been authenticated and preserved in their original condition... but also some has been lost due to persecution and just being lost over time but the core Writings are intact..

 

[Bob Dixon]

See, you can read all the science textbooks you want. Doesn't mean you'll understand science. You may, a little bit, but some of them are very advanced, so you'd need some help.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's why I use Wikipedia

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I did once think that a religion is defined by scripture, but after contemplating the issue further, it turns out that this is incorrect.

For the most part, I'd agree completely. I wonder, however, whether this holds true of Christian denominations which explicitly adopt a sola scriptura doctrine and further define their religion by the bible and only the bible (and perhaps even only the KJV). In other words, if people state that everything about their faith and belief can be found in the bible, can I understand their religion by doing what they do, and reading the bible?

 

[Riverwolf]

For the most part, I'd agree completely. I wonder, however, whether this holds true of Christian denominations which explicitly adopt a sola scriptura doctrine and further define their religion by the bible and only the bible (and perhaps even only the KJV). In other words, if people state that everything about their faith and belief can be found in the bible, can I understand their religion by doing what they do, and reading the bible?

Perhaps, but understanding the reason behind the sola scriptura doctrine would give further insight.

There's also the case that such people might still ignore certain passages from the Bible; understanding why would be important.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Perhaps, but understanding the reason behind the sola scriptura doctrine would give further insight.

There's also the case that such people might still ignore certain passages from the Bible; understanding why would be important.

Good points. Such people approach the bible in a particular way for particular reasons (sola scriptura did not arise in a vacuum) and thus while they may need only, say, the KJV to understand their religion/faith/beliefs, another would need to know the traditions behind their approach to the text and the reasons for relying on it alone.

 

[Riverwolf]

I would agree to an extent that you need to understand the context of the scriptures to understand them..also as you've written:

"A basic understanding of linguistics, or at least traditional terminology, becomes vital in a full understanding of religion."

Certainly helps..

In some religions you have the creation of scripture and after that the scripture has influence later.. Most religions have a long verbal tradition that is passed down and later becomes written down..and of course after that there can be revisions, mistakes, mistranslations and so on..also interpolations of scripture..scribal notes being added to scripture and so on.

In the case of the Baha'i Faith more credence is given the written word or Writings as they have been authenticated and preserved in their original condition... but also some has been lost due to persecution and just being lost over time but the core Writings are intact..

Well, it's easier to preserve such things these days than it used to be.

 

[outhouse]

Yeesh, it's been a while. I missed this place.

Anywho, I've noticed that a lot of people make judgments about a religion solely after reading its holy scripture, whether the Bible, Qur'an, or others. While I understand the logic in this, it simply isn't enough for a complete understanding. It's also important to understand the history of the religion, the cultures that follow it, both before and after it came in, and a general history of the region. It's also important to understand how people interpret the scripture by reading commentaries, extra-canonical books, and talking to followers, since different people can read the same passages differently.

I did once think that a religion is defined by scripture, but after contemplating the issue further, it turns out that this is incorrect. After all, many religions don't even have scriptures, so what defines them? The people who follow them. The same is true of religions that are centered around a book. After all, a single book can be followed by different religions, like the Judeo-Christian Bible. In addition, most religions existed before the scriptures they're centered around were written. Buddhism, for example, existed for a hundred years before anyone wrote down the Buddha's teachings.

Most religions also have several denominations that disagree on several key issues despite using the same book. Therefore, an understanding of these denominations is essential for understanding the religion as a whole; it also becomes illogical to judge an entire religion solely because of a single denomination's interpretation.

The issue of translation is also important. Most scriptures were written in languages that either don't exist anymore, or have evolved to be completely different from their ancient versions. Therefore, translating them is often extremely difficult, as there can be words that define concepts that don't exist in modern languages or thinking, causing the original meaning to be, as it were, lost in translation. A basic understanding of linguistics, or at least traditional terminology, becomes vital in a full understanding of religion.

...I'm sure there's more, but that's all I got for now.

its why some people are designated as priest, so they can teach the books meanings and slow down the errors from ignorance.


the problem is your only getting a biased view based on said persons dogma he was taught

 

[England my lionheart]

its why some people are designated as priest, so they can teach the books meanings and slow down the errors from ignorance.


the problem is your only getting a biased view based on said persons dogma he was taught

Which is evident in just about every religion today,IMO much depends on the culture or demograph you are born into.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yeesh, it's been a while. I missed this place.

Anywho, I've noticed that a lot of people make judgments about a religion solely after reading its holy scripture, whether the Bible, Qur'an, or others. While I understand the logic in this, it simply isn't enough for a complete understanding. It's also important to understand the history of the religion, the cultures that follow it, both before and after it came in, and a general history of the region. It's also important to understand how people interpret the scripture by reading commentaries, extra-canonical books, and talking to followers, since different people can read the same passages differently

In the Abrahamic group of religions, and probably others, it is held that the holy text was written by a (near-)all-powerful God. You state, quite correctly, that the holy texts don't contain all of the beliefs, etc, of the religion. However, by the religions' own logic, they should; they were written by a God who literally does not make mistakes, and so saying "to understand the HT, you must consult [an external source]", is an implicit admission that God overlooked something, or was somehow thwarted.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In the Abrahamic group of religions, and probably others, it is held that the holy text was written by a (near-)all-powerful God. You state, quite correctly, that the holy texts don't contain all of the beliefs, etc, of the religion. However, by the religions' own logic, they should; they were written by a God who literally does not make mistakes, and so saying "to understand the HT, you must consult [an external source]", is an implicit admission that God overlooked something, or was somehow thwarted.

I can't see how this is true. First, even for most Muslims, the Quran was dictated to Muhammad by Gabrial/Jibril, not Allah. Second, Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination in the world. It's so large that by itself is it one of the largest "religions". Yet Catholics not only believe (along with many other denominations) that the Bible is the inspired word of god written by humans (i.e., god neither wrote the bible nor "planted" any particular text in the head of any author, but that these authors received some sort of spark of the divine which allowed them to write something containing divine thought), but also that the catholic church was and is in many ways the "mouth" of god on earth. Third, what in the religions' own logic necessitates that their texts contain all their "beliefs, etc."?

 

[F0uad]

Yeesh, it's been a while. I missed this place.

Anywho, I've noticed that a lot of people make judgments about a religion solely after reading its holy scripture, whether the Bible, Qur'an, or others. While I understand the logic in this, it simply isn't enough for a complete understanding. It's also important to understand the history of the religion, the cultures that follow it, both before and after it came in, and a general history of the region. It's also important to understand how people interpret the scripture by reading commentaries, extra-canonical books, and talking to followers, since different people can read the same passages differently.

I did once think that a religion is defined by scripture, but after contemplating the issue further, it turns out that this is incorrect. After all, many religions don't even have scriptures, so what defines them? The people who follow them. The same is true of religions that are centered around a book. After all, a single book can be followed by different religions, like the Judeo-Christian Bible. In addition, most religions existed before the scriptures they're centered around were written. Buddhism, for example, existed for a hundred years before anyone wrote down the Buddha's teachings.

Most religions also have several denominations that disagree on several key issues despite using the same book. Therefore, an understanding of these denominations is essential for understanding the religion as a whole; it also becomes illogical to judge an entire religion solely because of a single denomination's interpretation.

The issue of translation is also important. Most scriptures were written in languages that either don't exist anymore, or have evolved to be completely different from their ancient versions. Therefore, translating them is often extremely difficult, as there can be words that define concepts that don't exist in modern languages or thinking, causing the original meaning to be, as it were, lost in translation. A basic understanding of linguistics, or at least traditional terminology, becomes vital in a full understanding of religion.

...I'm sure there's more, but that's all I got for now.

This is not a debate worth its just a fact that is well accepted by most scholars. I think you posted this simply for frubals.. :no: your not getting them. hehee

 

[Riverwolf]

This is not a debate worth its just a fact that is well accepted by most scholars. I think you posted this simply for frubals.. :no: your not getting them. hehee

Nah. As you can see, I have plenty of frubals. I only post my thoughts, and if someone thinks they're worth frubals, good. If not, no problem.

I'd be seriously disappointed if Scholars didn't already know this.

This was actually directed towards those novice/hobbyist/amateur students of religion who decide to base their entire judgments of a particular religion on the contents of its holy book(s).

 

[F0uad]

I agree these days debaters and students just want to ''win'' to get a name or just to ''win'' so they just spout theories and things without even taking a real look into the religion what upsets me also. Since in islam you need to know Classical Arabic, Its context(tasfir), Hadiths, Historical context and reasons why person A said/acted in the way he/she did before being called a scholar inside the Islamic religion what actually takes your whole life and then your to old to debate unless you have a great memorization.

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree these days debaters and students just want to ''win'' to get a name or just to ''win'' so they just spout theories and things without even taking a real look into the religion what upsets me also. Since in islam you need to know Classical Arabic, Its context(tasfir), Hadiths, Historical context and reasons why person A said/acted in the way he/she did before being called a scholar inside the Islamic religion what actually takes your whole life and then your to old to debate unless you have a great memorization.

Believe me, Islam is not the only religion like that. :no: At least you guys only have the Qur'an and Hadith for authoritative scripture. We Hindus have hundreds, if not thousands, of Scriptures, many of them written in a form of Sanskrit so old that even scholars struggle with it.

 

[Quintessence]

Are there people who really believe that the scripture is the only thing that defines a particular religion? I find that hard to believe, I guess. If you yourself are in a religion, you would know this is wrong from personal experience. And if you yourself are not in a religion, it's pretty hard to escape not realizing this as well. Perhaps it's a strawperson constructed by people who know better but have a point they are attempting to prove?

 

[Riverwolf]

Are there people who really believe that the scripture is the only thing that defines a particular religion?

Like I said, I used to be such a person, and I've observed in periodically.

You've seen those statements like "Well, you're not a real Christian because the Bible says don't do this, but you do it all the time."

 

[atanu]

...I'm sure there's more, but that's all I got for now.

I agree. The address is not the destination. The words surely are the pointers but it is said that words and the mind return from there.