• 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!

If the Abrahamic faiths are culturally designated, where do I fit in?

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Assuming we ignore the first 10,000 years or so of American culture I suppose you're right!
Actually the name America came from Amerigo Vespucci, in the 15th century. There was no America or American before then.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Actually the name America came from Amerigo Vespucci, in the 15th century. There was no America or American before then.
There was no such label before then - but the continent with its peoples and cultures existed - and were summarily obliterated by the "American culture" that you so enthusiastically label as "Christian" "from the beginning". My point is that the "American culture" becoming so predominantly "Christian" after just a couple of centuries of western colonization (as it certainly did) is not an achievement that should inspire feelings of pride. It is one of the saddest episodes of cultural arrogance in the history of humanity.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
That was there choice, as it has been for every generation and every people.

We also have that choice.
Their - it was their choice - perhaps - to see Jesus' teachings as a cultural threat - they feared that if too many people became Christians the Romans might become less accommodating of Jewish culture - and guess what...?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You said you 'don't believe Bahaism is culturally designated' and I objected, seeing how it clearly is. This is nothing to do with that I **believe**, just basic Baha'i culture.

It does have to do with what you believe and I disagree. There is no basic Baha'i culture.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
And by "I," I mean those who are inquiring about a particular religion among the Abrahamic umbrella. Realizing that all three faiths including their sub sects all relate to the origin of the people in a particular region of the world, where do I the observer belong considering the doctrinal traditions tends to favor the people of those regions? Some Judeo-Christian traditions say the cradle of civilization began in Ur (although scholars have differing criteria for what they determine to be a civilization). Some say the language of "heaven" is Arabic (some even said Hebrew), more importantly all things are related to the people that existed in that time in those specific regions. With that being said, how does a skeptic approach a supposed universal faith if the faith itself is culturally unrelatable to the individual him/herself?

My point of view is that true religion started with Adam and Eve and we all descend from them. We therefore all share a common cultural and religious heritage. I also believe that the truth of God transcends culture and one will feel welcome and at peace when they find their God, even if most fellow believers come from cultures foreign to our own.
 

Komori

Member
Some say the language of "heaven" is Arabic (some even said Hebrew), more importantly all things are related to the people that existed in that time in those specific regions. With that being said, how does a skeptic approach a supposed universal faith if the faith itself is culturally unrelatable to the individual him/herself?
The emphasis on the Arabic language in Islam isn't just about culture. Anyone who's tried to learn another language knows that the language you speak plays a major part in determining how you think and perceive the world.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
So how can the people of Tetaumatawhakatangihangakoauaotamateaurehaeaturipukapihimaungahoronukupo culturally relate to Christianity as expressed in American culture when the people of Tetaumatawhakatangihangakoauaotamateaurehaeaturipukapihimaungahoronukupo speak an entirely different language, have an entirely different culture, and perhaps an entirely different outlook on the world?

Ask a couple of Mormon missionaries.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
And by "I," I mean those who are inquiring about a particular religion among the Abrahamic umbrella. Realizing that all three faiths including their sub sects all relate to the origin of the people in a particular region of the world, where do I the observer belong considering the doctrinal traditions tends to favor the people of those regions? Some Judeo-Christian traditions say the cradle of civilization began in Ur (although scholars have differing criteria for what they determine to be a civilization). Some say the language of "heaven" is Arabic (some even said Hebrew), more importantly all things are related to the people that existed in that time in those specific regions. With that being said, how does a skeptic approach a supposed universal faith if the faith itself is culturally unrelatable to the individual him/herself?
For Judaism, I think you are conflating two different aspects of the religion. Judaism has two different paths: the specific and universal. You don't need to be Jewish in Judaism to be following the universal path. There are very few doctrinal needs for a non-Jew who follows Judaism and those mostly relate to the 7 Noahide Laws. While some of these Laws may be alien to some cultures, they're also not extremely difficult to understand or require extensive background knowledge. It's not strictly necessary for a non-Jew to know Hebrew or even have more than an awareness of the existence of the Torah. We do not expect the entire world to convert to Judaism at any point in time. So I don't really see a problem with a person of any culture or background relating to Judaism as they are.

For becoming Jewish though, obviously that would require adaptation. Someone who wasn't willing to immerse themselves in one of our cultures, isn't someone who should join us or be accepted as a candidate for conversion in the first place. But again, since it's not required to be Jewish, I don't really see that as a problem.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Their - it was their choice - perhaps - to see Jesus' teachings as a cultural threat - they feared that if too many people became Christians the Romans might become less accommodating of Jewish culture - and guess what...?

Such is life, Luckily we can learn from all those mistakes.

We should now not make the same mistake and it will be easy to see ourselves as one human race.

Regards Tony
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
We all need to distinguish between the universal and culturally specific teachings of both our own cultures and the faiths we investigate. When a community is unable to distinguish between these two fundamental types of teachings and insists the traditions that belong to a bygone era are universal, then renewal is necessary. An prophet or enlightened soul may be essential to the process of positive transformation.
I think what we should start with is recognizing when we are placing our personal arbitrary requirements of what constitutes an acceptable teaching and then move on to consider why we think a culture would lend our personal requirements any importance.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Such is life, Luckily we can learn from all those mistakes.

We should now not make the same mistake and it will be easy to see ourselves as one human race.
If you mean the mistake of assuming that an obviously culturally-determined and culturally-delineated religious outlook can possibly become a genuinely "universal" force for unity, I agree - its a preposterous idea - and surely we can see (or at least imagine) ourselves as one human family (better word than 'race' IMO) without insisting that we all believe the same things about God and/or religion? Can't we? Indeed, given the human propensity for making such "mistakes", don't you think its about time we tried "no religion" as a force for unity instead?

"If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it..." ~ Abdu'l Baha
 
Last edited:

Gandalf

Horn Tooter
This is my main contempt against paganism which I was going to write about today but oh well. You will funny enough find that the works of the religious philosophers and theologians is far more significantly practical and intriguing than the actual scripture of the religion! I am very found of the Abrahamic scripture but nonetheless find them lacking in every conceivable way.

If God wanted his word to be known to all of man there are a million better ways for a being that creates whole cosmoses. I mean literally the most scammy, illogical and most hokey method gets used apparently and none of them make sense in the modern era.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I think what we should start with is recognizing when we are placing our personal arbitrary requirements of what constitutes an acceptable teaching and then move on to consider why we think a culture would lend our personal requirements any importance.

As humans we all have some capacity to know right from wrong, truth from error. If we have no capacity for discerning truth, whatever investigation we initiate will be fruitless.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
And by "I," I mean those who are inquiring about a particular religion among the Abrahamic umbrella. Realizing that all three faiths including their sub sects all relate to the origin of the people in a particular region of the world, where do I the observer belong considering the doctrinal traditions tends to favor the people of those regions? Some Judeo-Christian traditions say the cradle of civilization began in Ur (although scholars have differing criteria for what they determine to be a civilization). Some say the language of "heaven" is Arabic (some even said Hebrew), more importantly all things are related to the people that existed in that time in those specific regions. With that being said, how does a skeptic approach a supposed universal faith if the faith itself is culturally unrelatable to the individual him/herself?

Being a skeptic, I consider the tight link between geographic location, culture and religion as being evidence of the idea that all religions are born out of human imagination.

This is why we don't see law different laws of physics in India as opposed to in China or the west or anywhere else.

Because the laws of physics aren't born out of human imagination. They are rather born out of carefull examination of the facts of reality.


That being said, I don't know where YOU fit in.
Also note that none of the above means that you can't find former hindu's converting to budhism or former catholics converting to islam or mormonism, or any other kind of conversion.

The vast majority of people however, tend to stick to the religion they were brought up in by their parents. And in the majority of cases, the religion of the parents will be the dominant religion of the geographic region they happen to find themselves in.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
For Judaism, I think you are conflating two different aspects of the religion. Judaism has two different paths: the specific and universal. You don't need to be Jewish in Judaism to be following the universal path. There are very few doctrinal needs for a non-Jew who follows Judaism and those mostly relate to the 7 Noahide Laws. While some of these Laws may be alien to some cultures, they're also not extremely difficult to understand or require extensive background knowledge. It's not strictly necessary for a non-Jew to know Hebrew or even have more than an awareness of the existence of the Torah. We do not expect the entire world to convert to Judaism at any point in time. So I don't really see a problem with a person of any culture or background relating to Judaism as they are.

For becoming Jewish though, obviously that would require adaptation. Someone who wasn't willing to immerse themselves in one of our cultures, isn't someone who should join us or be accepted as a candidate for conversion in the first place. But again, since it's not required to be Jewish, I don't really see that as a problem.

. . . therefore Judaism is culturally designated.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
And by "I," I mean those who are inquiring about a particular religion among the Abrahamic umbrella. Realizing that all three faiths including their sub sects all relate to the origin of the people in a particular region of the world, where do I the observer belong considering the doctrinal traditions tends to favor the people of those regions? Some Judeo-Christian traditions say the cradle of civilization began in Ur (although scholars have differing criteria for what they determine to be a civilization). Some say the language of "heaven" is Arabic (some even said Hebrew), more importantly all things are related to the people that existed in that time in those specific regions. With that being said, how does a skeptic approach a supposed universal faith if the faith itself is culturally unrelatable to the individual him/herself?

The same way hundreds of millions of others converted from variant traditions/cultures--exploration, revelation, activation!
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
There was no such label before then - but the continent with its peoples and cultures existed - and were summarily obliterated by the "American culture" that you so enthusiastically label as "Christian" "from the beginning". My point is that the "American culture" becoming so predominantly "Christian" after just a couple of centuries of western colonization (as it certainly did) is not an achievement that should inspire feelings of pride. It is one of the saddest episodes of cultural arrogance in the history of humanity.
Cultural arrogance, an interesting term. Lets put the discussion of Christianity on hold for a moment and discuss the issue, cultural arrogance.

Sadly, human history has demonstrated one trait consistently, the strong dominate the weak.

Applied to the North and South America before contact with Europe, the same trait played out.

Continuous tribal warfare, one culture against another. Civilizations destroyed by other civilizations.

Europeans following the same pattern with superior technology took what others could not defend and keep.

If the native Americans, or native Australians, or native Africans had the superior technology, they would most likely have invaded Europe, and would have displayed ¨cultural¨ arrogance.

Is any of this right ? Of course not, especially by 21śt century standards.

So, you extrapolated from my comments regarding American Christianity that I was in some form advocating for colonialism, not true.

I was simply stating that the religion of the citizens of the United States of America, from itś beginning, has been Christianity.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The same way hundreds of millions of others converted from variant traditions/cultures--exploration, revelation, activation!

The same way hundreds of millions converted to Islam. It remains culturally designated in Roman, Greek and European culture as Islam is culturally designated in Arabic culture, and Judaism in Hebrew culture.
 
Top