Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Religion and culture

  1. #21
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,351

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    Discussions in the political section have raised the point of the complex relationship between religion and culture. In the case of a political point, regional cultural practices are used to suggest an entire world-wide religion adopts the same attitude and this made me consider the deeper complexity.

    Where does religion and culture meet and end? How much of our culture is religious and how much of our religion is culture?

    Take the christian concept of "hell" it is not actually from the bible. For a start the closest that the Jewish tradition gets is a place called "Sheol" which is an abyssal emptiness, absent the presence of god.
    The version of hell you refer to is wholly characteristic only to protestant Christianity, which heavily influenced by German local culture. Catholicism started having a similar concept around the 12th-13th century but it was more of a place where God is absent than a fixed place of punishment and it was a metaphysically fluid concept until after the counter-reformation, when a more protestant approach was adopted. Let us not forget that one of the most popular renditions of that vision of hell, the Divine Comedy, was considered a work of fiction at the time.

    Orthodox Christianity on the other hand has a completely distinct version of hell. Basically heaven and hell are the same, being in the presence of God, and it is your conscience/state of your soul which determines whether that presence is a warm and comforting light or a blinding and burning one.


    Anyway, to answer your initial question I think that religion stops nowhere and culture begins nowhere. Religion is a part of culture at an intrinsic level and they cannot be separated anymore than your consciousness and your body. As an example just look at European culture before and after the rise of Christianity. Or observe how even the most atheist of atheists, in Christian countries, still follows Christian morals because the very fabric of that country was built upon them and they are part of the common morality.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; July 17, 2018 at 11:10 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  2. #22
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,057

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    Where does religion and culture meet and end? How much of our culture is religious and how much of our religion is culture?
    Well, they dont "meet" and "end". There is continuum, a constant interplay, an inseparable relationship between them. Religion is an essential layer of culture, affects culture and itself is also affected by culture. In order to understand the complexity of religion, we need to read Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Georg Simmel, among others.


    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    I could write thousands of words, citing hundreds of examples of religion and culture becoming fluid
    In fact, Simmel believed that the tandem religious/cultural beliefs develop from one another. Read below (1),

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    How sure are we of our modern religions,how much of "faith" is merely cultural contamination?
    Don't be afraid (j/k), God protects the cultural dominance of the west,linked to its technological and economic strength (until now...). Some would say that it's also due to the greater perfection of the western principles (democracy/human rights, etc). That's exactly what Atighetchi,an Italian Professor of Bioethics,implicitly admits, when he says,
    There is a cultural evolution which makes some cultures prevail over others, apparently condemned to be absorbed or disappear. In a theological vision of History, this is all part of a divine plan.
    Are you there, Diocle?


    --
    (1)
    In fact, the relationship between religion/culture is apparently symbiotic. I would like to hear our resident anthropologist.
    The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays - IS MU
    Last edited by Ludicus; July 17, 2018 at 12:34 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  3. #23

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    I'd go further and say that, at certain point, religion is necessary part of the culture. However, we're way past that point, at least in most countries, and religion is just a vestige now.

  4. #24
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    I'd go further and say that, at certain point, religion is necessary part of the culture. However, we're way past that point, at least in most countries, and religion is just a vestige now.
    Religion is not a vestige, religion is still one of the most powerful forces moving the masses all over the planet! They are culture, ethics and moral that are vanishing from our (Western) countries.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Religion is not a vestige, religion is still one of the most powerful forces moving the masses all over the planet! They are culture, ethics and moral that are vanishing from our (Western) countries.
    You do not need a religion to have morality or ethics

  6. #26
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    If one looks at all the religions of the world one can see that each one has consequences that rely on personal experience which when accumulated amounts to morality of some sort driving their environment. It means that along the line each one has something beyond the natural to bring them all to believe in an afterlife. The exception of course being atheism which could well be interpreted as a religion yet one that doesn't have strict ideology saying there is no afterlife remembering that this form of thinking on a large scale is quite new to this planet and is being overturned by the masses that live under it, why? Because many remember a time when they and their fathers did believe in a God and they did have a certain morality within their culture and so many want to return to these days. The strange thing is however that here in the West, considered to be the most religious of peoples, there is a movement to trash religion and take up the format of what has been deemed a failure elsewhere.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    If one looks at all the religions of the world one can see that each one has consequences that rely on personal experience which when accumulated amounts to morality of some sort driving their environment. It means that along the line each one has something beyond the natural to bring them all to believe in an afterlife. The exception of course being atheism which could well be interpreted as a religion yet one that doesn't have strict ideology saying there is no afterlife remembering that this form of thinking on a large scale is quite new to this planet and is being overturned by the masses that live under it, why? Because many remember a time when they and their fathers did believe in a God and they did have a certain morality within their culture and so many want to return to these days. The strange thing is however that here in the West, considered to be the most religious of peoples, there is a movement to trash religion and take up the format of what has been deemed a failure elsewhere.
    Morality is not a fixed constant.

    Let's examine your religion for the moment, christianity.

    In the past, within christian culture, the following things have been considered moral and right: Marital rape (wives did not have to give consent, being property of the husband), inprisonment without charge (only England, with the secular magna carta challenged this belief), confession under torture, execution for witchcraft, execution for homosexuality, rape and genocide as legitmate weapons of war (in fact allowing the rape of the enemy populace was considered a form of payment for soldiers).

    Now what changed? The religion is the same, the morality is different. The fact is, morality and ethics are complicated and subjective concepts that are evolved and changed by many factors. You can not point to one thing, such as a bible or a constitution and declare "from this we have morality".

    Most christians today are fluffly little bunnies compared to their ancestors yet read the same bible that was used to justify rape, genocide, murder, slavery and the wholesale destruction of cultures. Am I saying the bible is evil? No, of course not, but you have to consider how and why this religion changed it's moral compass.

    For this reason I am very wary of people who say "they long for the morality of their fathers". In terms of the UK, the morality of our "fathers" 1950 to 1970 depending on generation is a morality that locked up homosexuals for no reason other than being gay, a morality that trapped women in divorce law that gave men all the power and a morality that made it legal to hang "no dogs, no blacks and no irish" signs in pub and shop windows.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    In the past, within christian culture, the following things have been considered moral and right: Marital rape (wives did not have to give consent, being property of the husband), inprisonment without charge (only England, with the secular magna carta challenged this belief), confession under torture, execution for witchcraft, execution for homosexuality, rape and genocide as legitmate weapons of war (in fact allowing the rape of the enemy populace was considered a form of payment for soldiers).
    The Magna Carta was most certainly not a "secular" document.

    This is the opening of the text in Latin:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Johannes Dei gracia rex Anglie, Dominus Hibernie, dux Normannie, Aquitannie et comes Andegavie, archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus, baronibus, justiciariis, forestariis, vicecomitibus, prepositis, ministris et omnibus ballivis et fidelibus suis salutem. Sciatis nos intuitu Dei et pro salute anime nostre et omnium antecessorum et heredum nostrorum ad honorem Dei et exaltacionem sancte Ecclesie, et emendacionem regi nostri, per consilium venerabilium patrum nostrorum, Stephani Cantuariensis archiepsicopi, tocius Anglie primatis et sancte Romane ecclesie cardinalis, Henrici Dublinensis archiepiscopi, Willelmi Londoniensis, Petri Wintoniensis, Joscelini Bathoniensis et Glastoniensis, Hugonis Lincolniensis, Walteri Wygorniensis, Willelmi Coventriensis, et Benedicti Roffensis, episcoporum; magistri Pandulfi domini pape subdiaconi et familiaris, fratris Aymerici magistri milicie Templi in Anglia; et nobilium virorum Willelmi Mariscalli comitis Penbrocie, Willelmi comitis Sarisberie, Willelmi comitis Warennie, Willelmi comitis Arundellie, Alani de Galewey a constabularii Scocie, Warini filii Geroldi, Petri filii Hereberti, Huberti de Burgo senescalli Pictavie, Hugonis de Nevilla, Mathei filii Hereberti, Thome Basset, Alani Basset, Philippi de Albiniaco, Roberti de Roppel., Johannis Mariscalli, Johannis filii Hugonis et aliorum fidelium nostrum.

    In primis concessisse Deo et hac presenti carta nostra confirmasse, pro nobis et heredibus nostris in perpetuum quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit, et habeat jura sua integra, et libertates suas illesas; et ita volumus observari; quod apparet ex eo quod libertatem electionum, que maxima et magis necessaria reputatur Ecclesie Anglicane, mera et spontanea voluntate, ante discordiam inter nos et barones nostros motam, concessimus et carta nostra [illa carta data 21É novembris anno Domini 1214; confirmatio papae Innocentii tertii 30É martii anno Domini 1215] confirmavimus, et eam obtinuimus a domino papa Innocentio tercio confirmari; quam et nos observabimus et ab heredibus nostris in perpetuum bona fide volumus observari. Concessimus eciam omnibus liberis hominibus regni nostri, pro nobis et heredibus nostri in perpetuum, omnes libertates subscriptas, habendas et tenendas eis et heredibus suis, de nobis et heredibus nostris
    .


    And in English:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.

    KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin fitz Gerald, Peter fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

    FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity
    .


    You don't get to claim that a text is secular out of convenience.

    Now what changed? The religion is the same, the morality is different.
    The Roman Catholic church of the high middle ages is not the same as the Protestant churches of the early modern era onward.

    The fact is, morality and ethics are complicated and subjective concepts that are evolved and changed by many factors. You can not point to one thing, such as a bible or a constitution and declare "from this we have morality
    Even according to this standard, a person can subjectively claim objective moral truth from any source. Others are free to reject any such claim.

    Am I saying the bible is evil? No, of course not
    You have condemned it as "vile" very recently.

    but you have to consider how and why this religion changed it's moral compass.
    Reform within the church is manifest: the theological perspectives and institutional practices of Christianity's churches have been a work in progress since before Nicaea. It has long been recognized that a) biblical interpretation is incomplete and imperfect b) the institution of the Church bears the imperfections of humanity. From Vatican II:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    "12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

    To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

    But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)"
    Last edited by Cope; July 19, 2018 at 08:07 AM.



  9. #29

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post

    You have condemned it as "vile" very recently.

    Vile and evil are two different things. The bible saying that it's ok to sell your daughter into slavery or killing homosexuals is vile. Locking jews in the synagogue of jerusalem before setting it on fire and yelling "deus vult" is evil.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post

    The Roman Catholic church of the high middle ages is not the same as the Protestant churches of the early modern era onward.
    Are you sugesting there is a difference? That the early modern protestants where more moral than the catholics?

    I'm not sure the native americans, colonial slaves, aborigines of australia, scottish highlanders or the irish would be inclined to agree.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    Vile and evil are two different things. The bible saying that it's ok to sell your daughter into slavery or killing homosexuals is vile. Locking jews in the synagogue of jerusalem before setting it on fire and yelling "deus vult" is evil.
    This ham-fisted attempt to draw a semantic distinction between "vile" and "evil" to paper over your contradictory statements isn't convincing. In one breath you claim that the bible encourages acts of genocide and slavery, but that this is self-evidently not evil, it is instead only "vile". In the next breath you argue that acts of genocide and slavery perpetrated in accordance with, and inspired by, what you believe to be scriptural law, are in fact evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    Are you sugesting there is a difference?
    Yes. There are evident differences between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. That's why we categorize them differently.

    That the early modern protestants where more moral than the catholics?
    You have already conceded that the "morality is different". The fallacious claim was that the religion was the "same".

    I'm not sure the native americans, colonial slaves, aborigines of australia, scottish highlanders or the irish would be inclined to agree.
    I can only assume that you are unaware that the English, Scottish and Irish spent hundreds of years fighting, not only each other, but also themselves, over the differences between Roman Catholicism and various Protestant denominations. Somehow, I doubt they'd be "inclined to agree" that there is no difference between Christian sects.
    Last edited by Cope; July 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM.



  12. #32
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    95thrifleman,

    Can I begin by saying that Christianity was never meant to be a large conglomerate in any generation so many things done in its name by religion was certainly not Christian. Christianity is a faith, a gift, given by God to His and His only and the requisite for that is that a person must be born again of the Spirit of God. A person must be brought to repentance through conviction revealing to them the sin in them that separates them from God so that they can be born again. If we look at the so-called Christian religions of the world we can see that these by-pass repentance by baptising babies and calling them Christian which of course makes up their numbers. Water does not save anyone spiritually.

    So, whatever was done in Christ's name in the past as well as now has no part of Him at all as He already pointed out when He had John write down all that he was given to see when taken into heaven. For sure some believers had to protect themselves because the alternative was abhorrent as history shows. Men, women and children literally butchered because they would not conform to whatever religious system was demanding of them. Today we face more opposition than ever before because in what we consider to be free societies Christianity has or is becoming a dirty word not to be expressed lest it offends someone and these someones are becoming more powerful in the land that I call home.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Can I begin by saying that Christianity was never meant to be a large conglomerate in any generation so many things done in its name by religion was certainly not Christian. Christianity is a faith, a gift, given by God to His and His only and the requisite for that is that a person must be born again of the Spirit of God. A person must be brought to repentance through conviction revealing to them the sin in them that separates them from God so that they can be born again. If we look at the so-called Christian religions of the world we can see that these by-pass repentance by baptising babies and calling them Christian which of course makes up their numbers. Water does not save anyone spiritually.
    How very sectarian of you...Yeah, sorry, but "born again" is still a rather new idea with regards to Christianity. I highly doubt that the Christians of the past who weren't born again were any more sinful, and any less Christian, than any born-again Christian is. Moreover, it's both surprising and offensive for someone of your ilk to be denigrating the extremely sacred(to Christians) practice of baptism, as if your own questionable religious ideology of being born again is somehow more Christian than those who were cleansed of sin by baptism.

    The canonical Gospels report that Jesus was baptized.[4][5][6][7] Baptism has been called a holy sacrament and an ordinance of Jesus Christ. In some denominations, baptism is also called christening,[8][9] but for others the word "christening" is reserved for the baptism of infants.[10] Baptism has also given its name to the Baptist churches and denominations.
    Churches of Christ consistently teach that in baptism a believer surrenders his life in faith and obedience to God, and that God "by the merits of Christ's blood, cleanses one from sin and truly changes the state of the person from an alien to a citizen of God's kingdom. Baptism is not a human work; it is the place where God does the work that only God can do."[114]:p.66 Thus, they see baptism as a passive act of faith rather than a meritorious work; it "is a confession that a person has nothing to offer God".[115]:p.112
    The liturgy of baptism for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist makes clear reference to baptism as not only a symbolic burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation, one that draws parallels to the experience of Noah and the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea divided by Moses. Thus, baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Christ. Catholics believe baptism is necessary to cleanse the taint of original sin, and so commonly baptise infants. The Eastern Churches (Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy) also baptize infants on the basis of texts, such as Matthew 19:14, which are interpreted as supporting full Church membership for children. In these denominations, baptism is immediately followed by Chrismation and Communion at the next Divine Liturgy, regardless of age. Orthodox likewise believe that baptism removes what they call the ancestral sin of Adam.[117] Anglicans believe that Baptism is also the entry into the Church and therefore allows them access to all rights and responsibilities as full members, including the privilege to receive Holy Communion. Most Methodists and Anglicans agree that it also cleanses the taint of what in the West is called original sin, in the East ancestral si
    The theological claim that only being born again can cleanse you of sin and save you spiritually is quite frankly a fringe opinion in terms of Christianity. Overwhelmingly, Christians of the world believe that baptism cleanses one of sin. Who the hell are you to say your own born again ideology is more Christian than theirs??? Quite frankly, I think that you yourself are committing the deadly sin of Pride by this belittling of baptism in favor of being born again--you naturally assume, for some inane reason, that being born again is superior in terms of spiritual salvation to the EXTREMELY canonical practice of spiritual salvation by baptism. Yeah well, sorry, but most Christians throughout history and in the modern world would strongly disagree with you. I mean, I'm an Atheist-agnostic and even I agree that what you're saying is totally wrong-headed--and I don't even believe in spiritual salvation.

    You really need to get off your religious high horse. Your version of Christianity is NOT the be-all end-all of spiritual salvation. It's offensive and sectarian of you to say otherwise.
    Last edited by Genghis Skahn; July 20, 2018 at 09:46 AM.

  14. #34

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    This debate is fertile exactly because the exclusivity of the two categories is totally mistaken and contrived. The definition of both ‘religion’ and ‘culture’ easily accommodate a given practice, tradition, or belief being both cultural and/or religious. It’s because of a common inclination, as human beings, to create mythologies, that many community practices and aspects of community knowledge appear equally religious and cultural.

    The allegedly practical dilemmas which result from the interplay of culture and religion, are almost never usefully examined from the starting assumption of religious and cultural exclusivity. To the contrary, the mistaken assumption convolutes perfectly simple and well-apparent explanations for case studies of human social organization. If every Muslim man on Earth magically had his knowledge of religion erased tomorrow, it would in no way affect the status of women in Islamist countries. Just the same as, if every Saudi had their explicit cultural knowledge totally annihilated all at once, that too would have almost no meaningful effect on the status of women in Saudi Arabia. These beliefs and practices are all FUNCTIONAL, above and beyond all else – they figure into a Saudi man’s daily life as part of what he wants to experience on a daily basis, and like most all human knowledge, they originate from education and derive justification from logic, but they’re used because of the role they play in structuring basic daily relationships between two or more human beings.

    Why is the status of women such as it is, in many Muslim countries? It’s just cause. But operatively, it exists as it does because of human learning – whether the education of the child on this matter derives from domestic observation, community instruction, religious study, or personal experience, does not affect the consistent and singular method of transmission: each person in their critical development period adapts a set of life practices based on what’s ‘marketed’ to them one day at a time.

    If you want to improve the status of women in Muslim countries, you don’t need to come at it from a cultural or a religious-focused angle, and I don’t know why you would. It’s a marketing problem, like anything else, and what would really do the most good, is to find the best possible way to make gender equality the better ‘product’ in the hearts and minds of young Muslim boys.

  15. #35

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    What the islamc world needs is a Martin Luther style reformation that takes the religion out of the hands of powerful imams and toxic, extremist interpretation.

    That will not happen any time soon because both the west and russia keep poking the ants nest in their continuation of the cold war.

  16. #36

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    That will not happen any time soon because both the west and russia keep poking the ants nest in their continuation of the cold war.
    Nah, that's not the reason. The rivalry between major world powers hasn't been able to stir up much unrest in Saudi Arabia, and it's hardly a beacon of liberal progress. This is the actual reason it's unlikely (same Shadi Hamid article I've posted in other threads for those who have already read it).

    There have however been major modern reform movements in Islam that are growing in popularity. In fact Saudi Arabia is a major center and source of one of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  17. #37

    Default Re: Religion and culture

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Well, they dont "meet" and "end". There is continuum, a constant interplay, an inseparable relationship between them. Religion is an essential layer of culture, affects culture and itself is also affected by culture. In order to understand the complexity of religion, we need to read Marx,
    Following a materialistic-rationalist minded author to understand the nuances of a spiritual-emotional movement isn't ideal.

    Anything from that amalgama of emotion and spirituality that is not explainable by materialism/rationalism worldview will either be ignored or rationalized under cognitive dissonance.
    Last edited by fkizz; July 21, 2018 at 05:49 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •