Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
I'd be curious to know what impact Islam has made on the age of enlightenment
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
the good of the Abrahamic religions
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
I'd be curious to know what impact Islam has made on the age of enlightenment
If I'm wrong, you should be able to quote the words that you think are incorrect and explain why they are. What part did you consider nothing more than prejudice? The doctrine is that Jesus was sacrificed to appease a god.
No, Jesus was a blood sacrifice.
The OP claimed that her god didn't require sacrifices. If she's a Christian, it did.
Religious claims are not privileged in the marketplace of ideas. Many think they should be, and consider posting like this mean-spirited, but how so? Let the faithful defend their claims like the rest of do, and we do it without complaining about being disagreed with or calling those that disagree bullies or attackers. I say that these Abrahamic religions do a net harm, not good. They are predicated in false beliefs not just about gods and the supernatural, but about the value and beneficence of the religions - their charity and their contributions to knowledge.
"Religions' entire authority and real-world power are undergirded by their abilities to command reverence and deference and create the illusion that they are sacred, sacrosanct, and immune from fundamental criticism or ridicule." - Dan Fincke
"If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even defiled, without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through: undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence." - Pat Condell
I don't understand what you're asking. Please rephrase the question.
Please show me specific examples of the "irrationality of polytheism" leading to human sacrifice. I'd be most interested to learn about examples in the last 100 years or so.
Eastern religions seem to have fared well with rationality despite the absence of messengers and prophets.
Would eastern religions counter the sacrificial type religions? I don't know, maybe. But Islam brought a of rationalizing to the world. Founders of all sorts of things from theories in math, arts, science, from them including Ibn Sina knowns as Avicenna in the west who is the father of medicine.
It maybe if it wasn't for this light emphasizing on reasoning, irrational religions would be dominant now.
Pretty huge, actually. The Islamic world carried the torch of Classical philosophy while Western Europe was sleeping on it. That was then carried back in to Western Europe where it had a huge influence on Christian Europe. All that context is relevant to understanding the what and the why of the Enlightenment as a movement.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
It's not just "no human sacrifice," it's also no more animal sacrifice. In fact, no more burnt offerings of food, either. Christianity did, in fact, effectively wipe out many harmful pagan superstitions and practices.
Of course, Christianity also replaced them with new ones. Mortification of the flesh? Burning heretics? The inquisition and the witchcraft trials? They even worsened homophobia in many regions. They kept science back because most scientists were conscripted by the church, so they had to bow to doctrine and theology, often based on Aristotlean physics, geocentrism, and young-earth creationism. That wasn't really as much of an issue in the pagan world.
So I'm not sure that I can give Christianity the win for merely replacing harmful superstitions with new harmful superstitions.
Of course, Christianity also replaced them with new ones. Mortification of the flesh? Burning heretics? The inquisition and the witchcraft trials? They even worsened homophobia in many regions. They kept science back because most scientists were conscripted by the church, so they had to bow to doctrine and theology, often based on Aristotlean physics, geocentrism, and young-earth creationism. That wasn't really as much of an issue in the pagan world.
So I'm not sure that I can give Christianity the win for merely replacing harmful superstitions with new harmful superstitions.
I think what made me a bit exasperated with the OP was the example given was in comparison to 'other' traditions.
I was curious to read stand alone examples, not 'better/worse' than.
It could have been an interesting topic, otherwise, in my opinion.
I don't think @Starlight is a Christian. If I remember right, she's an Omnist, with a leaning towards the New Age and Abrahamic religions. (Correct me if I'm wrong, @Starlight )
Is it in any way, shape or form prejudice to point out that the defining moment of the relationship between Abraham and his God is the testing of Abraham by request of the sacrifice of his son?
Or that the high point of Jesus' tale is his actual if presumably temporary death, which is usually presented as a voluntary sacrifice on behalf of humanity?
Is this poetic language? I am not following.
Polytheism is no less rational than Abrahamic monotheism, unless I am missing something.
Actually, morality is easier, purer and more frequent among atheist than among Abramists. As one would expect.
Nor is rationality to be credited to the Abrahamic creeds.
Those of the Abrahamic creeds? I wonder why you think that way. I definitely disagree. If anything they have harmed the development of morality.
Really, Jay?
I don't picture you as the type of person who hesitates to challenge expectations.
You don't understand what you read.
No, the example given was in comparison to many [but not all] pagan religions. I might have worded the OP differently, but I see nothing particularly wrong with what was said nor do I imagine anything wrong with the intent.
I don't understand.
This is a thread in a debate area. It is to be expected that disagreements with the OP would be voiced.
You of all people know that people can and will disagree with each other.
So what is it that so saddened you?
I'm not a big fan of gross generalizations or religion bashing. Still, I'm sorry that you're sad that I'm sad.
It seems to me that this OP pretty much demands generalizations either way. Even leaving it alone is tacit endorsement.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
@SalixIncendium said he loved the body parts (wafers).
I can't say that I'm too impressed with eating body parts.