shmogie
Well-Known Member
Actually the name America came from Amerigo Vespucci, in the 15th century. There was no America or American before then.Assuming we ignore the first 10,000 years or so of American culture I suppose you're right!
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Actually the name America came from Amerigo Vespucci, in the 15th century. There was no America or American before then.Assuming we ignore the first 10,000 years or so of American culture I suppose you're right!
The Pharisees didn't see it that way - e.g. John 11:48
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.Actually the name America came from Amerigo Vespucci, in the 15th century. There was no America or American before then.
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...?That was there choice, as it has been for every generation and every people.
We also have that choice.
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.
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 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.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?
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?
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.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?
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...?
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.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.
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?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.
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.
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.
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?
Cultural arrogance, an interesting term. Lets put the discussion of Christianity on hold for a moment and discuss the issue, cultural arrogance.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.
The same way hundreds of millions of others converted from variant traditions/cultures--exploration, revelation, activation!
Half of it is, yes.. . . therefore Judaism is culturally designated.