Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey
I don't want to step on toes regarding religion here, I'm really not trying to be disrespectful; it just seems that most major organized religions believe in fundamentally the same thing if you look at the big picture. There are a ton of specific smaller differences, but from what I know of them (admittedly not a whole lot, I'm no expert) they all believe in one omnipotent, omniscient God who created everything, and an afterlife with the division of heaven/hell. That makes them all sound pretty similar to me, especially when compared with an eastern belief like Taoism, which seems more like semi-organized agnosticism with no "The One God" and no concrete "reward/punishment" system at the end of life.
|
Yeah, this is always a tough topic, so I'll only make one post. Not smacking anyone here, just throwing out some observations for thought.
I think the parallels that many folk draw between major religions in these PC/one world/peace/love/everyone's OK/etc - crazed days are misleading. To the eye of the average Joe (including me) who gets all his information on religion through the TV or discussions with similarly-informed peers, "organized religion" can all seem the same at the bottom line. I feel that is a phenomenon caused by the emphasis on commonality (in both the informational origins and mediums) rather than emphasis on actual practices. If you look at anything hard enough, you can infer commonality (ASP.NET and Java are both OOP types, but while one might save you, the other will send you to hell
).
My point here is that "major organized religions" can appear to be similar due to 1) Overly-simplistic views taken by both educators and media; 2) The fact that "they" are all comprised of people, thus homogenizing the observed basic-level structure; 3) Inner desires of the observer for everyone to "just get along".
So, where then are the differences? Besides the obvious and always-argued details (critical, but not immediately convincing to the casual, aloof non-stakeholder), look at the real-world, long-term, observed effects upon entire populations and civilizations. The proof is in the pudding, I was always told. I'll be going on the assumption that there are universally recognizable conditions that can be labeled "good" and "bad" in regards to people's lives and welfare.
With just the limited facts we get "reported" to us by the media, National Geographic, and the occasional History prof, contrast the overall living conditions for the common family in Muslim-, Eastern-, Tribal-, and Christian-religion-based cultures. Specifically, treatment of women (and children), development of society, and contribution to world development and betterment. Yes, I know, there are always highlighted examples of horrible things done by individuals from all religions, but just like many would say that GW Bush doesn't truly represent Americans in all aspects you can say the same of those various examples. I'm talking about the overall trend at the level of the commoner here.
This is a huge topic that has an infinite amount of levels on which to explore and argue, so I'm just raising the inital questions.
Like it or not, Western culture had it's origins deeply rooted in Christianity. If a culture is developed slowly over centuries by the combined actions of each little participant in that culture, and that the majority of the populations of Western culture have been driven/heavily-influenced/directed by Christian morals/values/practices, then one may conclude that, in fact, Christianity is what gives us (men & women) the freedom, quality of life, and comfort we have today. That's observation.
I liken it to what I do with tree-ring studies: in a given region, long-term forest growth is determined by climate trends. Each tree forms one ring per year, and the size of that ring is determined by growing conditions for that tree. Sample just a few trees, pool the data, and you get a little bit of the climate trend, but mostly statistical "noise" generated by other influences (soil, competition, disturbance, etc). Sample hundreds of trees in many locations, and you get a clear, common signal showing the climate trend for hundreds of years over the whole region.
Same goes for the previous argument: look at just a few people, and you get a lot of random noise. Look at the entire population over many generations over a long period of time, and you see the overall trends. Religion, especially when organized (meaning hierarchically regulated in real-time) at the regional or global level, can be used by the organizers to the detriment of the commoners. The perfect example of this is the pre-Reformation era in Western civilization.
Anyways, I'll shut up now.