Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Augustus]

No

What do you think is the correct explanation then?

This is the view of Prof Fred Donner, what do you think he is wrong about, and what evidence makes think this?

For many years, however, the majority of Western scholars adopted a view of the Qur’an and its origins that followed in most of its details the view presented by the Islamic tradition itself. Although there were always a few Western scholars who expressed reservations about such traditional views, their attitudes constituted for more than a century nothing more than a muted, if persistent, minority position in Western scholarly circles... It was not until the 1970s that a number of books appeared that questioned more bluntly and comprehensively the traditional view of the Qur’an’s origins and early development as a text. Although vastly different from one another, the works of Günter Lüling (1974), John Wansbrough (1977), and Patricia Crone and Michael Cook (1977) all posed fundamental challenges to the traditional vision of Islam’s origins, including the genesis of the Qur’an.

From The Quran in its Historical context - GS Reynolds (ed)

I said some of the people, events, and chronology of the life and conquests of Muhammad are confirmed by other sources.

Such as? List a few that you think are confirmed by other sources.

The problem with Christianity is we absolutely have nothing during his life, and very limited to no provenance concerning the scripture until it was compiled more than 50-100 years or more after Jesus died. Can we Trust any chronology of the life of JEsus? Contradictions abound with a lack of witnesses.

You have nothing written during Muhammad's life either, and the Islamic sources were written down nearly 2 centuries after the fact and so are more comparable in time frame to the apocrypha and gnostic writings on Jesus, rather than the Gospels.

The near contemporary non-muslim sources say nothing much beyond establishing his existence, that he was perceived as a prophet and that his followers were militaristic.

As for contradictions abound...

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

The life of Muhammad is known as the Sira and was lived in the full light of history. Everything he did and said was recorded. Because he could not read and write himself, he was constantly served by a group of 45 scribes who wrote down his sayings, instructions, and his activities. Muhammad himself insisted on documenting his important decisions. Nearly three hundred of his documents have come down to us, including political treaties, military enlistments, assignments of officials, and state correspondence written on tanned leather. We thus know his life to the minutest details: how he spoke, sat, slept (sic), dressed, walked; his behavior as a husband, father, nephew; his attitudes toward women, children, animals; his business transactions and stance toward the poor and the oppressed

You are quoting theology as history? That above is the theological view, it is rejected by modern scholars.

What is?

What do you think the contemporary scholarly view is? You said you go with contemporary scholarship, so I was wondering what you think this states.

 

[Augustus]

I find this surprising, that Muhammad would be illiterate given that he was a merchant and of a prominent family. I do not know what literacy rates were at the time or who generally were literate, I simply base it on the sense that a prominent merchant would likely be literate. To emphasize that Muhammad was illiterate strikes me as a contrived way of proving godly authenticity of the Quran because an illiterate person would never be able to formulate such a document on his own.

As you say, the idea he was illiterate does seem to be a later theological invention to counter Christian and Jewish claims that Muhammad was simply reworking their traditions. If he was illiterate, then how could he have learned all these things?

The term used to support the claims he was illiterate probably means something along the lines of 'gentile' or 'from a people without scripture'.

Something I wrote in another thread, just copy/pasted so forgive the continuity errors:

A couple of points to start, based purely on Islamic sources it can be said with certianty that:

1. Islamic orthodoxy emerged centuries after the rise of Islam, and before then there was much debate on the details of the prophetic biography and Quranic exegesis (Was it Isaac or Ishmael who was to be sacrificed? When was Muhammad born? etc.) Today, these issues are set in stone and agreed on by everyone, but this was not always the case.
2. Early exegetes did not know how to interpret numerous Quranic passages and offered multiple, often contradictory explanations which at times appear to be little more than guesswork.

So that 'tradition' says something today doesn't attest to its authenticity.

On the topic though, should we expect Muhammad to be illiterate by his origins?

According to tradition, before his prophetic calling he was a wealthy and successful merchant, was well travelled as a result. He was also very intelligent and widely respected for his wisdom.

We also know that numerous people in his community could read and write, so it would be slightly surprising if he was truly illiterate, although it is certainly not impossible.

Anyway, where does the belief Muhammad was illiterate come from?

In Q7:157 he is described as al-nabi al-ummi' (you can check how this term is translated in multiple versions here al-A`raf 7:157 and can see the diversity of persepctives: unlettered/illiterate, Ummi, gentile, layman, Arab, untutored, of the common folk, of mother wit).

So clearly it is not open and shut.

The key is the term "ummi" though, which is related to the term Ummah (community of Muslims).

Outside of the verse in question, there are no incident in the Quran of the term ummi or related terms meaning 'illiterate'.

the Qur'anic usage of umma never indicates a 'common folk,' nor 'unlearned people' in contrast to 'learned people' or 'scholars.'

This notion is maintained by the Qur'anic ideas that each umma had its messenger (rasul),103 and
each era its sacred book.104 Only the Arabs were deprived of revelation.105 Hence, God sent a messenger from among them (wa ma arsalna min rasulin ilia hi lisani qawmihi li yubayyina lahum),106 who was chosen - as the Qur'an states - to be 'the one who warns in plain Arabic speech' 107 and to whom the 'Arabic Qur'an'108 was revealed.109 Thus the Arabs became a 'people' (umma) with a sacred text in their own language, in which they were commanded to believe.

Muḥammad, the Illiterate Prophet: An Islamic Creed in the Qur'an and Qur'anic Exegesis - S Gunther, Journal of Quranic Studies

Ibn Abbas: the term ummiyyun refers to all Arabs, i.e., those who did write and those who did not; [they were called in this way] since they were not People of the Book.

Tabari: He [it is who] sent a prophet to the ummiyyun, who was from amongst them;' [the expression 'from amongst them'] means 'from amongst the ummiyyun.' Furthermore, it is said 'from amongst them' because [Muhammad] as [an] ummi, [i.e.] arising from the Arabs.1

[thus] the philological-historical examination of the three Qur'anic terms ummi, ummiyyun, and umma does not confirm the popular interpretation of ummi, which focuses exclusively on illiteracy.

Why did this interpretation arise then? The Quran itself acknowledges that the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." In addition we have records of Christian apologists attacking the Quran for the same reason in the centuries after, in light of this the idea that he was illiterate becomes very theologically convenient (as Islamic theologians have noted). Thus:

this interpretation seems to reflect a post Qur'anic approach that evolved in circles of Muslim learning (possibly not before the first half of the2nd/8thcentury)123 and that has been shaped further under the influence of Muslim theologians and apologists. These findings are based on the information given in medieval Muslim sources. However, they are also supported by some medieval Christian Arabic sources

So a better fit is gentile/Arab who has not been taught the scriptures fits a lot better as 1) previous prophets (at least since Moses) had all been Jews 2) the Quran emphasises its "Arabicness" 3) it reflects a more common usage of the language in question:

... when understood in the way shown here, the Qur’anic expression al-nabi al ummi can contribute essentially to the understanding of the history of Islam since it stresses both: the ethnic origin (Arab, Arabian), and the originality of the Prophet of Islam.125

Somewhat similar to Christianity, where God reveals Himself through Christ ('the word made flesh'), and where the virginity of the Mother of Christ, Mary, is required to produce an immaculate vessel for the Divine Word, so in Islam, God lets people know about His existence through the Qur’an. The Prophet of Islam - communicating the Word of God - came to be seen like 'a vessel that was unpolluted by 'intellectual' knowledge of word and script, so that he could carry the trust' that God had granted him through the revelation 'in perfect purity.' Muḥammad, the Illiterate Prophet

 

[shunyadragon]

What do you think is the correct explanation then?

This is the view of Prof Fred Donner, what do you think he is wrong about, and what evidence makes think this?

For many years, however, the majority of Western scholars adopted a view of the Qur’an and its origins that followed in most of its details the view presented by the Islamic tradition itself. Although there were always a few Western scholars who expressed reservations about such traditional views, their attitudes constituted for more than a century nothing more than a muted, if persistent, minority position in Western scholarly circles... It was not until the 1970s that a number of books appeared that questioned more bluntly and comprehensively the traditional view of the Qur’an’s origins and early development as a text. Although vastly different from one another, the works of Günter Lüling (1974), John Wansbrough (1977), and Patricia Crone and Michael Cook (1977) all posed fundamental challenges to the traditional vision of Islam’s origins, including the genesis of the Qur’an.

From The Quran in its Historical context - GS Reynolds (ed)

I am not concerned with many years, because the knowledge of history evolves, and today only 'some' facts about Muhammod are documented by independent sources, but his life is not independently documented

Such as? List a few that you think are confirmed by other sources.

References cited from non-Muslim sources.

You have nothing written during Muhammad's life either, and the Islamic sources were written down nearly 2 centuries after the fact and so are more comparable in time frame to the apocrypha and gnostic writings on Jesus, rather than the Gospels.

The near contemporary non-muslim sources say nothing much beyond establishing his existence, that he was perceived as a prophet and that his followers were militaristic.

My referenced source documents that 'some' facts about Muhammad were confirmed by non-Muslim sources

As for contradictions abound...

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

Yes as with the life of Christ and the Torah contradictions abound,

You are quoting theology as history? That above is the theological view, it is rejected by modern scholars.

No, ot everything is rejected by modern scholars just most

What do you think the contemporary scholarly view is? You said you go with contemporary scholarship, so I was wondering what you think this states.

I fully acknowledge that an accurate biography of Muhammad pr Jesus Christ is impossible, because of the lack of sources when they lived.
Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia. Only limited sources are available that only describe 'some' events and people and time of the conquest of Muhammad. The historical problems of Judaism, Christianity and Islam share similar problems as a lack of provenance concerning their scripture and claims of historicity. Yes, there is controversy and many unknowns concerning the scripture and claims of all three religions. As bolded yes it is likely that the followers exaggerated the life and claims of Muhammad, like in Judaism and Christianity, Yes all the invaders were not likely Muslims and in the beginning it was a rather loose association. Some parts deleted to fit. read the reference to get the whole thing.

Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

. Note some deletions to fit.

Modern scholarship​

Though the Quran contains few and rudimentary details of the prophet's life, most of the biographical information about Muhammad comes from the sirah (biographical literature), especially the work of Ibn Ishaq.[62] These sources normally provide a historical trail of names that lead, in some cases, to an eyewitness and sometimes converge with other earlier sources near the time of the prophet.[62] Though "there is no compelling reason to suggest that the basic scaffolding of the traditional Islamic account of Muhammad's life is unhistorical", a much more detailed biography is difficult to be understood as historically certain knowledge.[62] According to Wim Raven, attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the unhistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have been problematic.[63] According to F. E. Peters, despite any difficulties with the biographical sources, scholars generally see valuable historical information about Muhammad therein and suggest that what is needed are methods to be able to sort out the likely from the unlikely.[64]
. . .

In 1952 French Arabist Régis Blachère, author of a critical biography of Muhammad . . . wrote

We no longer have any sources that would allow us to write a detailed history of Muhammad with a rigorous and continuous chronology. To resign oneself to a partial or total ignorance is necessary, above all for everything that concerns the period prior to Muhammad's divine call [ca. 610 CE]. All a truly scientific biography can achieve is to lay out the successive problems engendered by this preapostolate period, sketch out the general background atmosphere in which Muhammad received his divine call, give in broad brush strokes the development of his apostleship at Mecca, try with a greater chance of success to put in order the known facts, and finally put back into the penumbra all that remains uncertain. To want to go further is to fall into hagiography or romanticization.[65]

. . .

Overall, Cook takes the view that evidence independent of Islamic tradition "precludes any doubts as to whether Muhammad was a real person" and clearly shows that he became the central figure of a new religion in the decades following his death. He reports, though, that this evidence conflicts with the Islamic view in some aspects, associating Muhammad with Israel rather than Inner Arabia, complicating the question of his sole authorship or transmission of the Quran, and suggesting that there were Jews as well as Arabs among his followers.[69]

Cook's fellow revisionist Patricia Crone complains that Sīrat is written "not by a grandchild, but a great grandchild of the Prophet's generation", that it is written from the point of view of the ulama and Abbasid, so that "we shall never know ... how the Umayyad caliphs remembered their prophet".[70]

While Crone argues that Muhammad was a person whose existence is supported by various sources, she takes a view that Muhammad's traditional association with the Arabian Peninsula may be "doctrinally inspired", and is put in doubt by the Quran itself, which describes agricultural activity that could not have taken place there, as well as making a reference to the site of Sodom which appears to place Muhammad's community close to the Dead Sea.[71]

Concerning the dates of Muhammad's life, Lawrence Conrad writes that "well into the second century A.H. [Islamic] scholarly opinion on the birth date of the Prophet displayed a range of variance of 85 years. On the assumption that chronology is crucial to the stabilization of any tradition of historical narrative, whether transmitted orally or in writing, one can see in this state of affairs a clear indication that sīra studies in the second century were still in a state of flux".[34] Since second century A.H. scholarly opinion is the earliest scholarly opinion, and assuming the closer scholars were to the actual event the more likely their sources are to be accurate, this suggests a surprising lack of information among Islamic scholars about basic information on Muhammad.[72]

Robert Hoyland suggests his historical importance may have been exaggerated by his followers, writing that "other" Arab leaders "in other locations" had preceded Muhammad in attacking the weakened Byzantine and Persian empires, but these had been "airbrushed out of history by later Muslim writers". Hoyland and other historians argue that the original Arab invaders were not all Muslims.[73]

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, extreme beliefs exist and often militantly cominate in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and they all lack historical provenance for their scripture and claims in history.

Under historical scrutiny the major figures Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus Christ and Muhammad may not have ever existed as described in the scripture,

 

[Augustus]

would like to correct my wording, Many but not all ancient texts are considered narratives set in history and historical texts, an example of what may be called an ancient historical first person text confirmed by archaeology and other sources is Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars.

Caesar claims he killed a million Gauls and captured a million more, this is obviously a massive exaggeration.

The work is basically propaganda, akin to Churchill's quip "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it".

It is certainly based around factual events, but the narrative must be treated with scepticism. This is pretty much like most ancient texts based around historic events, you have to treat them cautiously.

I don;t see Caesar's text as being qualitatively different in that respect.

I am not concerned with many years, because the knowledge of history evolves, and today only 'some' facts about Muhammod are documented by independent sources, but his life is not independently documented

But you now accept I was correct when I said up until the mid-20th C most scholars took the Islamic narratives as broadly true?

Before you very explicitly said it was incorrect, not that scholarship evolves (which is a view entirely consistent with what I said)

References cited from non-Muslim sources.

"Islamic history contains references to chronology, people, events and places confirmed with other sources."

You agree that it's nothing much beyond what I said - A Muhammad existed, was seen as a prophet, his followers attacked some places and that these don't really match things from specific Islamic narratives?

No, ot everything is rejected by modern scholars just most

The passage you quoted was explicitly Islamic theology, not secular scholarship:

The life of Muhammad is known as the Sira and was lived in the full light of history. Everything he did and said was recorded. Because he could not read and write himself, he was constantly served by a group of 45 scribes who wrote down his sayings, instructions, and his activities. Muhammad himself insisted on documenting his important decisions. Nearly three hundred of his documents have come down to us, including political treaties, military enlistments, assignments of officials, and state correspondence written on tanned leather. We thus know his life to the minutest details: how he spoke, sat, slept (sic), dressed, walked; his behavior as a husband, father, nephew; his attitudes toward women, children, animals; his business transactions and stance toward the poor and the oppressed

Which of the above do you agree with and find has support?

 

[RestlessSoul]

The “true” religion would be quite good at this, right?

What is the “true” religion?

 

[Rival]

When considering the Histories or Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars we are moving into Roman historical records that are first person accounts' 0e history that have been confirmed by archaeology and other references which are considered more accurate like historical records. Roman government records in general are considered more accurately reflect history.

As noted before Chinese and Egyptian written historical records tend to be more accurate then those in the Torah which lacks provenance for history before ~600 BCE.

The issue is not whether any one source is accurate history, but by degree different sources vary in their historical accuracy based on comparing with different sources and archaeology

You realise Josephus was a Romanised Jew, yes?

In any case, yes. I fully agree that these accounts are not as reliable as we would like, no account from Antiquity or even up to the Victorian Era will be as reliable as we would prefer; even modern history books are biased one way or another.

People still use Josephus' works, and the Greco-Roman historians' and other books from Antiquity because we read them knowing their biases, cultural contexts, preferred writing styles, loyalties and sympathies. We use archaeology, other ancient texts, geology and so on together with the reading of the texts to better inform us. This doesn't mean those texts aren't history. You also show your biases in for some reason thinking much of the Islamic traditions about Muhammad are right, 200-300 years after the fact, but that the Gospels, written within the lifetime of Jesus' followers are somehow unreliable. The Gospels themselves are written within the Greco-Roman tradition in the Roman world, so if you agree that the Romans wrote better histories then you ought to include Luke, Mark and Paul, as all three were Romans.

 

[shunyadragon]

You realise Josephus was a Romanised Jew, yes?

Yes! So what?!?!?

In any case, yes. I fully agree that these accounts are not as reliable as we would like, no account from Antiquity or even up to the Victorian Era will be as reliable as we would prefer; even modern history books are biased one way or another.

The Victorian standards are not the standards of contemporary academics. They *****ed the translation of Bronze Age poetry written by women and described them 'as if written by women. I re translated them and published them describing them as written by women. The oldest woman's literature in the world.

People still use Josephus' works, and the Greco-Roman historians' and other books from Antiquity because we read them knowing their biases, cultural contexts, preferred writing styles, loyalties and sympathies. We use archaeology, other ancient texts, geology and so on together with the reading of the texts to better inform us. This doesn't mean those texts aren't history. You also show your biases in for some reason thinking much of the Islamic traditions about Muhammad are right, 200-300 years after the fact, but that the Gospels, written within the lifetime of Jesus' followers are somehow unreliable. The Gospels themselves are written within the Greco-Roman tradition in the Roman world, so if you agree that the Romans wrote better histories then you ought to include Luke, Mark and Paul, as all three were Romans.

The bold reflects your religious bias. The gospels were not written in its final form within the lifetime of the followers of Jesus alive at the time. The gospels are unreliable. What we have are compiled, edited and redacted texts 200-300 years after the life of Jesus. Absolutely nothing exists from during the life of Jesus and fifty years after his death. The Greco-Roman tradition of of literature is not of itself reliable. What is common to virtually all ancient religious texts the world over is they exaggerate and glorify the religious founders, and add miracles and supernatural events and characteristics to the texts, The text of the Pentateuch is the most unreliable for history before 600 BCE.

I did give examples of reliable historical texts from Egypt like the Amarna letters, which are simply communications from appointed Egyptian government officials and leaders in Egyptian occupied Canaan, and letters from kingdoms around the Levant. We have similar records from ancient China. There were similar rather mundane records in the Ugarit, Phoenician, and Canaanite texts found in their libraries. Including in these libraries are ancient non-factual texts that are narratives set in history like Creation myths.

It does mean the works are NOT history including the Bible They are narratives set in the culture of the time and culture. Academic History is the result of interdisiplinary research, archaeology, geology, ancient texts and comparative historical sources, and the knowledge changes over time with new information.

I do not buy the generalization that historical texts today are biased as a generalization. I do not believe there is no bias and controversy, but like in science today the more academic books are subject skeptical review and revision over time to correct, error, bias, and consider new information.

You are right Caesar exaggerated his kills, but the battles and chronology are accurate.

 

[Rival]

The bold reflects your religious bias. The gospels were not written in its final form within the lifetime of the followers of Jesus alive at the time. The gospels are unreliable.

This is actually from my second year university course. So take this up with my lecturers.

The Gospels were written in the same century Jesus lived, that's a fact; that we don't have the manuscripts is not our main concern. The hadith were not written until 200-300 years after Muhammad's death, in their first form. We have thousands of NT manuscripts and we can reconstruct based on those, which we do. We have Paul's letters. We have the Book of Acts. We know what was going on far better than when it comes to Islam. Yet you take the Islamic narratives about Muhammad as basically historical?

 

[shunyadragon]

This is actually from my second year university course. So take this up with my lecturers.

The Gospels were written in the same century Jesus lived, that's a fact; that we don't have the manuscripts is not our main concern. The hadith were not written until 200-300 years after Muhammad's death, in their first form. We have thousands of NT manuscripts and we can reconstruct based on those, which we do. We have Paul's letters. We have the Book of Acts. We know what was going on far better than when it comes to Islam. Yet you take the Islamic narratives about Muhammad as basically historical?

This does not change the historical facts of the history of the gospels. There is no evidence that the claim the gospels in their present form were written in their present form within century of the life of Jesus. Actually there is no known text existing from within a century of the life of Jesus. I believe there there was something written over time after the life of Jesus, but absolutely nothing exists as to what texts existed. The best guess is simpler gospel like Q, and sayings of Jesus existed early in Christian history, but that involves some conjecture.

The reality remains the gospels and letters in their present form in cluding the Book of Acts did not exist in their present form until 90 to 120 years after the death of Jesus.

Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Acts and the Gospel of Luke make up a two-part work, Luke–Acts, by the same anonymous author.[4] Traditionally, the author is believed to be Luke the Evangelist, a doctor who travelled with Paul the Apostle. It is usually dated to around 80–90 AD, although some scholars suggest 110–120 AD.

There is too much speculation, conjecture and religious bias, and lack of evidence to consider the gospels and ACts as they are dating to within 100 years of the death of Jesus

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What is the “true” religion?

In my humble opinion, a true religion would accurately reflect reality and promote maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. I have yet to find one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In my humble opinion, a true religion would accurately reflect reality and promote maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. I have yet to find one.

So a religion has to be perfect before it is beneficial? I just don't see that.

 

[metis]

So a religion has to be perfect before it is beneficial? I just don't see that.

I fully agree with you on this. Looking at religions objectively, who can really prove their religion is correct an all others are false? How would go about even trying to do that objectively?

As you're probably aware of, I switched religions, not that one was wrong and the other was right but because I felt I could do more good with the Catholicism that my wife was brought up in and attends weekly at the nearby parish we've belonged to for 50 years. I have helped with preparing food baskets for the poor and have taught theology to those thinking about possibly joining.

IOW, "religious correctness" just ain't my thing.

 

[Rival]

a true religion would accurately reflect reality and promote maximum benefit for the maximum number of people.

I'm not sure these two can work together. Either religions reflects reality, which is usually horrible, or it promotes ideals for us to live up to that we can in fact live up to. The Torah lived up to its reality by allowing, in some ways, slavery, and people criticise it for this.

Secondly, what reality? Whose reality?

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure these two can work together. Either religions reflects reality, which is usually horrible, or it promotes ideals for us to live up to that we can in fact live up to. The Torah lived up to its reality by allowing, in some ways, slavery, and people criticise it for this.

Secondly, what reality? Whose reality?

Yes, the Torah, is often criticized for slavery, but this is misplaced objections. There are many, many problems with the ancient text of the older religions. ALL ancient cultures practiced some sort of slavery, and even the New Testament nor the Quran does not address the issue well. Science suffers, because of the lack of standards for believers to consistently accept science. The problem is perpetuating the ancient tribal scripture as the spiritual and moral standard for the contemporary world. They fail to do this and perpetuate the tribal conflicts and wars we see now in the Middle East, and throughout history. The root of anti-semitism and other movements against believers of other religions is deeply rooted in ancient religious scripture and beliefs.

Second, the reality of the contemporary is beyond those clinging to ancient tribal religions. There are many moral and spiritual standards that address the contemporary world like the Baha'i Faith, the United Nations charter. I believe the Universalist philosophy (not UU) I promote is the evolved philosophies that began in Enlightenment movements that began in Europe in the 17th-18th centuries.

As far as benefits this is too vague. Do the reality of ancient religions provide moral guidelines for the equal social treatment of all people regardless of religion, sex, race or ethnic origin. The answer is no.

 

[shunyadragon]

So a religion has to be perfect before it is beneficial? I just don't see that.

Perfection is of course beyond the realm of fallible human capabilities. There are more relevant problems with ancient religions without appeals to illusive standards of perfection.

 

[shunyadragon]

I fully agree with you on this. Looking at religions objectively, who can really prove their religion is correct an all others are false? How would go about even trying to do that objectively?

As you're probably aware of, I switched religions, not that one was wrong and the other was right but because I felt I could do more good with the Catholicism that my wife was brought up in and attends weekly at the nearby parish we've belonged to for 50 years. I have helped with preparing food baskets for the poor and have taught theology to those thinking about possibly joining.

IOW, "religious correctness" just ain't my thing.

This is unfortunately a dangerous pragmatism common in ancient religion believers and perpetuates clinging to the ancient past.

There are folk stories about sheep who follow goats sometimes to slaughter.

Nonetheless a standard of rejecting the odd "political correctness?" is a poor motive do any ;thing.;

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually there are not so many 'so called' extremes in Disbelief, as there are extremes in religious beliefs, and the extremes of religious beliefs today are dangerous and deadly.