Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by KnowSelf, Jan 9, 2020.
A fine example of where cultural tradition overthrows religious tradition ...
Politicians use any opportunity to convince the public God is on their side and in doing this politicians receive blinded support from the masses. In some sense politicians shepherd their flock to carryout their bidding. Jesus was a shepherd, politicians are shepherds and so are church leaders.
The masses are conditioned to follow charismatic people perhaps because we need someone to lead the way sometimes to our own demise.
As pointed out.
I agree, my generation had their day of change, now the torch is passed. I hope they choose wisely and with much vigor.
Moved to 'Hate' thread
Scripture comes first, though in some cases it is oral scripture. In my religion scripture was written down right away. In the case of Islam it was not collected until a couple of decades later, but before that it was written down on various things and memorized, so what we have is very close to what was revealed.
What you said first was right about Buddhist scripture. It was not first written down until 400 years later in the Theraveda school. Mahayana was written down later.
"The Pāli canon was written down during the 1st century BCE to preserve the teaching in a time of war and famine."
The Pali Canon was first written down in the south of India, or Sri Lanka, by a very conservative school who held on to oral transmission for a long time. In the north, there was writing already, and the schools there were less ossified, but did not survive into our time, with the exception of Mahayana, whose early scriptures are considered contemporary with the Pali Canon.
And in some cases, scripture was retrofitted, such as when Vergil decided Roman religion needed an epic like the Hellenistic one did.
In other cases, the oral tradition was only recorded after a religion had died out more or less, as with the Icelandic sagas.
Examples of recent "scripture first" religions would be Thelema, and Scientology. They both show the design process plainly.
I always considered it an interesting fact that the Baha'i scripturrs were translated so late, compared to the date when the religion was started. Or the Bab's writings, which are hardly translated at all. An example of "scripture last, tradition first"?
Well we get into a chicken-and-egg situation here ... who learns the Scripture, and from whom ... so it's passed on, and that is the tradition. The tradition determines what's Scripture and what isn't.
The Hebrew sages compiled their Scriptures from various oral traditions and source materials, determining what's the canon and what's not in the process. It's the Tradition that determines the Canon.
The Christian scribes, furthermore, were addressing specific audiences when they wrote their letters or gospels, the earliest canonical documents date from around 50AD, and there were already communities by then.
The Moslem sages compiled the canonical Q'ran from a number of sources, so the Tradition determined the Canon.
I think that's the general pattern.
There are the counter-examples I mentioned: the Babi and Baha'i religions, Thelema, Scientology... Maybe it's a modern thing? Technology enables the "scripture comes first" paradigm?
I think so. We cannot exclude marketing from that list? Syncretism begins to figure largely here, Scientology being something of a 'left field' entry. The Latter Day Saints follows the later 'scripture first' pattern?
I've never heard of Thelema, I consider Scientology to be a con game to get money started by a science-fiction writer. It may help some people, but for some people it has been a nightmare.
There were very few Baha'is to translate for early. Early American Baha'is didn't come about until the 1890's. Scripture was translated then, but you don't see any of those translations today. A lot of what the Baha'is understood also came from personal letters from Abdu'l-Baha. Authorative translation didn't come about until Shoghi Effendi in the 1930's. Later authoritive translation came from a group of scholars under the UHJ. There are also provisional translations one can see online, but most Baha'is don't bother with them. We've always known enough. We don't need voluminous translations to understand what the Baha'i Faith is about. The Bab's Writings. are most of them designed for learned Muslims audiences, it's hard for Western Baha'is to understand them. In Baha'u'llah's Writings of course most of the references are to Muslim sources and understanding Islam helps, but not to the extent of the Bab's Writings. Baha'u'llah's writings are more universal in character.
Scripture was definitely first regardless of when it was translated anyway.
I think you're misinformed. All of it originally came from Muhammad. It was written down in unorthodox materials and/or memorized. It was a caliph that directed the compilation of the Qur'an from those that had memorized it. I think there were a few differences from the memorizers, but the Caliph chose one version of all of it, and burned the rest. I recognize that passages from different occasions run together in the suras.
Umm ... don't think so?
Well all of it came from sources who had recorded the Prophet's words. There's nothing from his own hand. We take it on faith and, I'm assured, its inspired genius.
But those recorders are already making decisions about what to record and what not. What's important and what's incidental. What's from the Angel. What's from Mohammed. All that's dependent upon how they view who he is, who they are, what's going on ... all before the idea of Scripture has taken shape. That's the formation of a Tradition.
Quite. There's the evidence of the tradition, recording and memorising. Someone decided something was worth recording. That's not necessary proof that what was recorded was 'Scripture', although in Islam's case there were precedents.
So there you have it, the Tradition determined the Scripture?
For centuries bards and shamans preserved the history of their people in long rhyming poems and songs. The rhyme and tune made them easier to remember and they were strictly trained. Mistakes were not to be encouraged.
Read 'Indaba my Children' by Credo Mutwa. https://canongate.co.uk/contributors/5136-vusamazulu-credo-mutwa/
They were highly revered as they travelled around, reminding the people of their history. Often kings would have to travel to them. They were a protected species, because to kill a bard was like destroying a library.
Then writing came along. So oral tradition is the inevitable precusor to ancient scripture, imo. How could it be otherwise?
No .. the Qur'an is not "tradition" .. that would be the "hadith", of which there are 1000's.
The Qur'an is a recording of word-for-word recitations of Prophet Muhammad. It is still recited daily and memorised to this day.
Has it been changed at any time? I think not.
As an aside, somebody explained to me recently that they saw a documenatary about how the kiblah (direction of prayer) was changed by the Saudi Arabs to Macca at some point .. and that Muhammad was actually from Egypt.
It would be politics and envy that cause people to make ridiculous statements like that, imo.
..same as these other conspiracy theories such as "lunar-landing was in tv studio" or "US bombed itself" etc. etc.
But isn't this saying: 'The scripture is true because the scripture says it is true?' And don't all religions say that?
Christians are taught not to so much look or entertain the idea there is anything other than Christianity. Therefore considering any variation of faith or belief is literally a betrayal of one's faith. I view this concept as a means to retain and remain faithful membership
Well we're getting into technicalities here, and it's no big deal for me, but just for fun ...
In the Christian Tradition, the contributions begin with the Fathers.
As I understand it, when Caliph Uthman established what is now the orthodox version (Uthman's codex), it ironed out discrepancies?
But prior to this — Mohammed could have been regarded as a madman or a deceiver, but he was believed by his immediate followers, and there is the foundation of what I mean by Tradition. They chose to believe him, others did not. Subsequently they chose to write down or memorise what he said.
Not sure what you're referring to here?
No, I wouldn't say so. I doubt whether I would have become a Muslim if it hadn't confirmed what I already knew..
i.e what I was familiar with .. the Bible and my nation
..and why do I trust what I was raised as?
Given that my instinct was to believe that there MUST be something responsible for my existence,
and my experiences with the church/Christians .. my community in fact ..
..and what I learnt in my very fortunate grammar-school education [ praise God! ]
Life is a journey .. why stop learning .. why limit knowledge?
..so no. I would say that it is true, because Almighty God does not speak lies
i.e. I haven't spotted any non-sense in the Qur'an
OK .. I see tradition as being cultural rather than religious.
eg. what clothes people wear .. suit and tie etc. or bread-eating, rice eating etc.
Yes .. I choose to believe Muhammad, peace be with him.
I belong to Almighty God and will surely return to Him
And I say God gave me a brain and the right/obligation to use it and any human being who tells me what I may read or think and that I must believe what he says because he says it, or else I am a betrayer -- is far from my friend or my fellow or my teacher.
If I judge a person or scripture wise, I will listen because that is my choice -- not because I am ordered . I will listen and discern. and if he needs to try to force his views on me, I will ask myself why.
God responds to sincere prayer, any time, any place, any faith, imo. God meets us where we are.
Separate names with a comma.