So is this the situation where everything the Christians value is gone..?
By the standards of Christians living a few hundred years ago (and hardliners living today), the secularisation of Europe must look catastrophic. Hundreds of millions of people doomed to burn in eternal hellfire.
All that (except maybe for the last sentence) sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact, acknowledging that some kids are not Christian—if, in fact, they are not—seems to me like the first step away from insanity.
This is probably because you are not a hardline conservative Christian. To them, the idea that there is an alternative to Christianity is an information hazard far worse then, say, Roko’s Basilisk. The idea that you would present impressionable young children with an idea which, if adopted, results in them burning in hell is pure insanity in their eyes.
Before I read the sequences and understood about ‘beliefs as attire’ and so forth, I was confused as to how any Abraham religion could possibly co-exist with any other religion.
I was confused as to how any Abraham religion could possibly co-exist with any other religion.
Um, you do know that there are major versions of every one of the three major Abrahamic religions that don’t believe in eternal suffering for non-believers? Similar remarks apply for the minor Abrahamic offshoots (although deciding which are their own offshoots is fuzzy). Moreover, there are also variations in at least one of those religions where there’s enough pre-destination that most of this is rendered completely irrelevant.
I’m certainly aware that there are many variants of these religions which believe wildly different things, but it was still my understanding that “eternal suffering for non-believers” was they most mainstream branch.
“Eternal suffering for non-believers” is non-mainstream in Islam. The mainstream position is that righteous Jews, Christians and Sabaeans will be OK. Pagans, however, are right out.
Uhm, this seems like saying that “eternal suffering for non-believers” is the mainstream position… it’s just that People of the Book are not automatically included among the “non-believers”.
That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose. I think “non-believers” normally means “people who don’t believe in that religion.” Remember the original question was—how can an Abrahamic religion co-exist with a different religion? These are clearly different religions. I do think I’m drawing a meaningful distinction in that Christians believe that the only way to heaven is through Jesus (John 14:6, perhaps the most famous verse in the NT) whereas Islam teaches that you don’t have to be a Muslim to go to heaven.
Really? So… out of the Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, the only one which teaches that non-believers burn in hell is the one based on Jesus’ teachings of forgiveness.
In Judaism there is basically no afterlife—neither heaven nor hell.
Christianity introduced the promise of eternal life but made it a carrot-and-stick deal—bask in joy or burn in flames.
Islam essentially went with Christianity’s approach, but wrote in a grandfathering clause for “people of the Book”—Jews and Christians—who are seen as following more or less the right religion, just not the latest most-correct version updated by the final prophet (Muhammad). Pagans and atheists still burn.
My understanding is that mainstream Christians think non-Christians can go to heaven as long as they didn’t have the chance to become Christian—e.g. Moses, or some undiscovered Amazonian tribe—as long as they lived righteously. The mainstream Islamic position, however, is that Islam is really obvious, so even if you never heard of the prophet Mohammed you should still be able to work out most of the stuff based on reason alone (!) so you’ve got no excuse. So while Christians view Moses, Abraham, etc as precursors to Christianity, Islam views them as actually having been Muslim. For Muslims, the first Muslim was Adam (of Adam and Eve fame).
So it’s not that Jews, Christians and Sabaeans get grandfathered in for having the updated version. Rather, it’s that they are still worshipping the right God, even though they’ve distorted his teachings and those of his prophets, which is surely pushing their luck. The “People of the Book” thing is way less tolerant than it sounds.
that Islam is really obvious, so [...] you should still be able to work out most of the stuff based on reason alone
That would be really weird given that so far as I can tell Muslims don’t hold (e.g.) that all the prophets (Moses, Jesus, etc.) were aware of anything like the whole of Islam despite being actually on a mission from God. Does “most of the stuff” here mean something like “what Islam, Judaism and Christianity have in common”?
Muslims believe that the teachings of Moses, Jesus, etc were perverted by the Jews and Christians. In particular they definitely do believe that Moses taught the same things that Mohammed did—this is explicitly stated in the Qu’ran, which repeatedly treats Moses as a parallel for Mohammed. So the fact that the Biblical Moses isn’t a Muslim is irrelevant—you have to go by the Qu’ranic Moses. That’s why Hollywood films about Old Testament prophets are frequently censored in the Middle East, because they are telling ‘inaccurate’ (i.e. non-Qu’ranic) stories about Islamic prophets, see e.g. here and here.
So I knew that Muslims believe that earlier prophets’ teachings were compatible by Islam before they were corrupted by the Jews and Christians. Are you saying, beyond that, that they believe the earlier prophets actually had something like the whole of Muhammad’s message, before Muhammad?
That seems a little unlikely to me. (E.g., for sure Moses didn’t have the Qur’an, and I wouldn’t expect “There are vitally important things in the Qur’an that weren’t known before it” to be controversial among Muslims. But I’m very willing to be corrected.)
Are you saying, beyond that, that they believe the earlier prophets actually had something like the whole of Muhammad’s message, before Muhammad? That seems a little unlikely to me. (E.g., for sure Moses didn’t have the Qur’an)
I don’t know exactly what the man-in-the-street believes, but yes, Islam teaches that they had something like the whole of the message. It also teaches that all of the prophets had the Torah, and indeed that the Torah and other earlier revealed scriptures talk about Mohammed. The special thing about the Qu’ran isn’t that it’s a unique account of God’s word—supposedly God gave his word to mankind over and over, but mankind kept polluting it. The special thing about the Qu’ran is that it’s the final and incorruptible version.
You’re right that it is an obviously silly belief, but I am not an expert as to how the contradictions are worked out. For example, did Adam teach the necessity of Hajj? Surely no, because Abraham built the Ka’aba, and he came later. But if Adam’s religion was missing one of the pillars of Islam, then how was he a Muslim? But really it’s no sillier than any manner of Christian doctrines that no-one remarks on.
Surely no, because Abraham built the Ka’aba, and he came later. But if Adam’s religion was missing one of the pillars of Islam, then how was he a Muslim?
My understanding is that mainstream Christians think non-Christians can go to heaven as long as they didn’t have the chance to become Christian—e.g. Moses, or some undiscovered Amazonian tribe—as long as they lived righteously.
Well, Dante put the righteous pagans in Limbo (the 1st circle of hell). As for Isrealites, they got to heaven because they were followers of G-d after all.
In Judaism there is basically no afterlife—neither heaven nor hell.
That’s not really accurate. There are versions of Judaism which have no afterlife, but many classical forms of Judaism do have an afterlife. Part of the idea that Judaism doesn’t have an afterlife is due to Christian misunderstandings because in Judaism the afterlife is just really, really not important. It is a much more this world focused religion. But most forms of Orthodox Judaism definitely believe in an afterlife where while the details may be fuzzy, there’s a definite reward for the righteous and punishment for sin.
Can you provide some links? There is Sheol, sure, but I was under the impression that it’s just a grey place where shades slowly wither away to nothing. But punishment for sinners and rewards for the righteous—which branches believe in them? And is it a late Christian influence?
Sure. See this summary of traditional beliefs. Note that some movements or subsects are more explicit. For example, Chabad and most of the Chassidic sects have a much more “Christian” view of the afterlife, as you can see here.
There is Sheol, sure, but I was under the impression that it’s just a grey place where shades slowly wither away to nothing.
Sheol as depicted in the oldest parts of the Bible is something like that. It would however be a mistake to interpret the Old Testament/Tanach as having the same role in Judaism as the Bible does for Christianity. In many ways the Talmud is more important as a set of documents when it comes to theology.
But punishment for sinners and rewards for the righteous—which branches believe in them?
Almost all Orthodox Jews believe this in some form, and this does date back to the early sections of the Talmud (200-300 CEish). But the nature of such reward and punishment can vary, ranging from simple oblivion for the wicked, to a “heaven” like reward and a long purgatory, as well as possible reincarnation as a punishment for the wicked. Among Reform and Conservative movements there’s much less of a belief in an afterlife, although individual beliefs may vary.
And is it a late Christian influence?
Difficult to say. A lot of these ideas were floating around in the late Second Temple period so it is hard to tell exactly who was influencing whom and to what extent. Moreover, a lot of the written sources date to 200 CE or so which is already a lot later.
I am not sure what is the point that you are making. There is a pretty diverse set of people commonly called extremists who think that the contemporary society is a catastrophe and is horribly bad. If such people decide to withdraw from the society, sure, no problems. If they decide to change, that is, “save” the society, they shouldn’t be surprised to encounter resistance.
I’m not complaining. I think secularisation is a good thing. If anything, I’m trying to convey just how much values have changed, and I’m a little concerned about how they might change in the future, either by moving back to past religious values or by moving forward in some bizarre direction.
You know the ideological turing test and the idea that you should only be able to argue against a position if you truly understand their point of view? Well, I think I can see these sort of issues from both an extreme libertarian and an extreme social conservative viewpoint and the contradiction is doing strange things to my brain.
Also, I’m defending a statement Azeroth123 made (schools are encouraging kids to be gay—although I’m not so sure about this now) while not endorsing his conclusions, which also might make what I have written seem confusing or even contradictory.
Similarly, I’ve mostly criticised the school inspectors, and yet I think its good that their actions are undermining Christian fundmentalism. This might make what I’ve written sound confusing, but at least I’ve defeated the halo effect.
By the standards of Christians living a few hundred years ago (and hardliners living today), the secularisation of Europe must look catastrophic. Hundreds of millions of people doomed to burn in eternal hellfire.
This is probably because you are not a hardline conservative Christian. To them, the idea that there is an alternative to Christianity is an information hazard far worse then, say, Roko’s Basilisk. The idea that you would present impressionable young children with an idea which, if adopted, results in them burning in hell is pure insanity in their eyes.
Before I read the sequences and understood about ‘beliefs as attire’ and so forth, I was confused as to how any Abraham religion could possibly co-exist with any other religion.
Um, you do know that there are major versions of every one of the three major Abrahamic religions that don’t believe in eternal suffering for non-believers? Similar remarks apply for the minor Abrahamic offshoots (although deciding which are their own offshoots is fuzzy). Moreover, there are also variations in at least one of those religions where there’s enough pre-destination that most of this is rendered completely irrelevant.
I’m certainly aware that there are many variants of these religions which believe wildly different things, but it was still my understanding that “eternal suffering for non-believers” was they most mainstream branch.
“Eternal suffering for non-believers” is non-mainstream in Islam. The mainstream position is that righteous Jews, Christians and Sabaeans will be OK. Pagans, however, are right out.
Uhm, this seems like saying that “eternal suffering for non-believers” is the mainstream position… it’s just that People of the Book are not automatically included among the “non-believers”.
That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose. I think “non-believers” normally means “people who don’t believe in that religion.” Remember the original question was—how can an Abrahamic religion co-exist with a different religion? These are clearly different religions. I do think I’m drawing a meaningful distinction in that Christians believe that the only way to heaven is through Jesus (John 14:6, perhaps the most famous verse in the NT) whereas Islam teaches that you don’t have to be a Muslim to go to heaven.
Really? So… out of the Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, the only one which teaches that non-believers burn in hell is the one based on Jesus’ teachings of forgiveness.
Why am I not that surprised.
It’s a bit more complicated.
In Judaism there is basically no afterlife—neither heaven nor hell.
Christianity introduced the promise of eternal life but made it a carrot-and-stick deal—bask in joy or burn in flames.
Islam essentially went with Christianity’s approach, but wrote in a grandfathering clause for “people of the Book”—Jews and Christians—who are seen as following more or less the right religion, just not the latest most-correct version updated by the final prophet (Muhammad). Pagans and atheists still burn.
My understanding is that mainstream Christians think non-Christians can go to heaven as long as they didn’t have the chance to become Christian—e.g. Moses, or some undiscovered Amazonian tribe—as long as they lived righteously. The mainstream Islamic position, however, is that Islam is really obvious, so even if you never heard of the prophet Mohammed you should still be able to work out most of the stuff based on reason alone (!) so you’ve got no excuse. So while Christians view Moses, Abraham, etc as precursors to Christianity, Islam views them as actually having been Muslim. For Muslims, the first Muslim was Adam (of Adam and Eve fame).
So it’s not that Jews, Christians and Sabaeans get grandfathered in for having the updated version. Rather, it’s that they are still worshipping the right God, even though they’ve distorted his teachings and those of his prophets, which is surely pushing their luck. The “People of the Book” thing is way less tolerant than it sounds.
That would be really weird given that so far as I can tell Muslims don’t hold (e.g.) that all the prophets (Moses, Jesus, etc.) were aware of anything like the whole of Islam despite being actually on a mission from God. Does “most of the stuff” here mean something like “what Islam, Judaism and Christianity have in common”?
Muslims believe that the teachings of Moses, Jesus, etc were perverted by the Jews and Christians. In particular they definitely do believe that Moses taught the same things that Mohammed did—this is explicitly stated in the Qu’ran, which repeatedly treats Moses as a parallel for Mohammed. So the fact that the Biblical Moses isn’t a Muslim is irrelevant—you have to go by the Qu’ranic Moses. That’s why Hollywood films about Old Testament prophets are frequently censored in the Middle East, because they are telling ‘inaccurate’ (i.e. non-Qu’ranic) stories about Islamic prophets, see e.g. here and here.
So I knew that Muslims believe that earlier prophets’ teachings were compatible by Islam before they were corrupted by the Jews and Christians. Are you saying, beyond that, that they believe the earlier prophets actually had something like the whole of Muhammad’s message, before Muhammad?
That seems a little unlikely to me. (E.g., for sure Moses didn’t have the Qur’an, and I wouldn’t expect “There are vitally important things in the Qur’an that weren’t known before it” to be controversial among Muslims. But I’m very willing to be corrected.)
I don’t know exactly what the man-in-the-street believes, but yes, Islam teaches that they had something like the whole of the message. It also teaches that all of the prophets had the Torah, and indeed that the Torah and other earlier revealed scriptures talk about Mohammed. The special thing about the Qu’ran isn’t that it’s a unique account of God’s word—supposedly God gave his word to mankind over and over, but mankind kept polluting it. The special thing about the Qu’ran is that it’s the final and incorruptible version.
You’re right that it is an obviously silly belief, but I am not an expert as to how the contradictions are worked out. For example, did Adam teach the necessity of Hajj? Surely no, because Abraham built the Ka’aba, and he came later. But if Adam’s religion was missing one of the pillars of Islam, then how was he a Muslim? But really it’s no sillier than any manner of Christian doctrines that no-one remarks on.
Well, according to this article:
Well, Dante put the righteous pagans in Limbo (the 1st circle of hell). As for Isrealites, they got to heaven because they were followers of G-d after all.
That’s not really accurate. There are versions of Judaism which have no afterlife, but many classical forms of Judaism do have an afterlife. Part of the idea that Judaism doesn’t have an afterlife is due to Christian misunderstandings because in Judaism the afterlife is just really, really not important. It is a much more this world focused religion. But most forms of Orthodox Judaism definitely believe in an afterlife where while the details may be fuzzy, there’s a definite reward for the righteous and punishment for sin.
Can you provide some links? There is Sheol, sure, but I was under the impression that it’s just a grey place where shades slowly wither away to nothing. But punishment for sinners and rewards for the righteous—which branches believe in them? And is it a late Christian influence?
Sure. See this summary of traditional beliefs. Note that some movements or subsects are more explicit. For example, Chabad and most of the Chassidic sects have a much more “Christian” view of the afterlife, as you can see here.
Sheol as depicted in the oldest parts of the Bible is something like that. It would however be a mistake to interpret the Old Testament/Tanach as having the same role in Judaism as the Bible does for Christianity. In many ways the Talmud is more important as a set of documents when it comes to theology.
Almost all Orthodox Jews believe this in some form, and this does date back to the early sections of the Talmud (200-300 CEish). But the nature of such reward and punishment can vary, ranging from simple oblivion for the wicked, to a “heaven” like reward and a long purgatory, as well as possible reincarnation as a punishment for the wicked. Among Reform and Conservative movements there’s much less of a belief in an afterlife, although individual beliefs may vary.
Difficult to say. A lot of these ideas were floating around in the late Second Temple period so it is hard to tell exactly who was influencing whom and to what extent. Moreover, a lot of the written sources date to 200 CE or so which is already a lot later.
Hm, interesting, updating… :-) Thanks for the links.
Certainly not for Judaism, even stringent forms of Orthodox Judaism. And not for the Bahai either. For the others the situation is more complicated.
Ok, well I know more about Christianity than Judaism and I assumed it was similar, but thanks for enlightening me.
I am not sure what is the point that you are making. There is a pretty diverse set of people commonly called extremists who think that the contemporary society is a catastrophe and is horribly bad. If such people decide to withdraw from the society, sure, no problems. If they decide to change, that is, “save” the society, they shouldn’t be surprised to encounter resistance.
What is it that you are complaining about?
I’m not complaining. I think secularisation is a good thing. If anything, I’m trying to convey just how much values have changed, and I’m a little concerned about how they might change in the future, either by moving back to past religious values or by moving forward in some bizarre direction.
You know the ideological turing test and the idea that you should only be able to argue against a position if you truly understand their point of view? Well, I think I can see these sort of issues from both an extreme libertarian and an extreme social conservative viewpoint and the contradiction is doing strange things to my brain.
Also, I’m defending a statement Azeroth123 made (schools are encouraging kids to be gay—although I’m not so sure about this now) while not endorsing his conclusions, which also might make what I have written seem confusing or even contradictory.
Similarly, I’ve mostly criticised the school inspectors, and yet I think its good that their actions are undermining Christian fundmentalism. This might make what I’ve written sound confusing, but at least I’ve defeated the halo effect.