A text that serves as the axiomatic rock behind a culture’s ideology cannot be corrupted, but yeah any human institution will allow for human mistakes. Having said that, there’s no Christian religion in let’s say Trump’s America or Islam in the upper echelons of Emirati society, since they think and behave in ways that are diametrically opposed to the message of Jesus and Muhammad, and the prophets they referred to. These people believe in A, as evidenced by their actions, but say they believe in B. One can lie about their beliefs, but it cannot be used as a condemnation of the belief they’re lying about, right?
I ain’t a Christian! But the Bible is a collection of books and correspondence, with many many authors (usually they say who they are in the first few lines of the book/letter), not just one book. And of course everything past the Old Testament can be more than iffy because Christianity/Catholicism was a tool for social control put together by the imperial power of the time to ride the wave and not get overwhelmed by it. Anything Paul says sounds like a fed cosplaying a believer, lol, and besides the additions, who knows what exactly had been modified? It must be read with discernment, basically.
Ecclesiastes is one book, for instance, upon which one could rely entirely to believe in God and do good deeds… but the Qur’an is also one book, more comprehensive and, at least for many of us, the word of God itself!
I referred to christianity from your comment and bible because my knowledge about islam is way less than about christianity. I had read Quran but i was not impressed at all, though it was more consistent than bible at least. Though i seem to remember there was nearly 15 centuries of various people writing interpretations of it, of which some was even enforced.
Also we seem to shift the topic, the foundation of society is not any text or another, it’s the mode of production. And the shifting of holy texts and religious canons excellently illustrates that they are not any rock but the cover (base and superstructure, remember), as you mentioned yourself with how the bible was used.
That’s difficult to answer, because both groups use the social shield of religious identity (or more accurately conflating their views with religion to their followers) as a method to both deflect criticism from within their bases and to appeal as a legitimate representative to all who practice the faith (even if their appeal is hypocritical and baseless).
I agree with you that those abuses don’t undermine the concepts and values placed forward by the root faith (as mentioned in my prior comment, religion can serve beneficial/personal value components within a society), but a leader’s ability to wield religion within the halls of governance taints the religion’s “purity” among the populace as a whole. As the lies are perpetuated through generations, some concepts preached by these bad influences can become accepted or even indoctrinated as true values.
So again, tricky question to answer. In my personal opinion, the only way to disarm this particular scenario is to maintain a secular form of governance and keep religion only as a personal or communal liberty away from any decision made at a government level (appeal to empirical evidence or logical conclusions instead), but there are holes in that idea as well. Dang.
A text that serves as the axiomatic rock behind a culture’s ideology cannot be corrupted, but yeah any human institution will allow for human mistakes. Having said that, there’s no Christian religion in let’s say Trump’s America or Islam in the upper echelons of Emirati society, since they think and behave in ways that are diametrically opposed to the message of Jesus and Muhammad, and the prophets they referred to. These people believe in A, as evidenced by their actions, but say they believe in B. One can lie about their beliefs, but it cannot be used as a condemnation of the belief they’re lying about, right?
Not true christians!
I could hardly find a text that went through more and bigger revisions than bible.
I ain’t a Christian! But the Bible is a collection of books and correspondence, with many many authors (usually they say who they are in the first few lines of the book/letter), not just one book. And of course everything past the Old Testament can be more than iffy because Christianity/Catholicism was a tool for social control put together by the imperial power of the time to ride the wave and not get overwhelmed by it. Anything Paul says sounds like a fed cosplaying a believer, lol, and besides the additions, who knows what exactly had been modified? It must be read with discernment, basically.
Ecclesiastes is one book, for instance, upon which one could rely entirely to believe in God and do good deeds… but the Qur’an is also one book, more comprehensive and, at least for many of us, the word of God itself!
I referred to christianity from your comment and bible because my knowledge about islam is way less than about christianity. I had read Quran but i was not impressed at all, though it was more consistent than bible at least. Though i seem to remember there was nearly 15 centuries of various people writing interpretations of it, of which some was even enforced.
Also we seem to shift the topic, the foundation of society is not any text or another, it’s the mode of production. And the shifting of holy texts and religious canons excellently illustrates that they are not any rock but the cover (base and superstructure, remember), as you mentioned yourself with how the bible was used.
That’s difficult to answer, because both groups use the social shield of religious identity (or more accurately conflating their views with religion to their followers) as a method to both deflect criticism from within their bases and to appeal as a legitimate representative to all who practice the faith (even if their appeal is hypocritical and baseless).
I agree with you that those abuses don’t undermine the concepts and values placed forward by the root faith (as mentioned in my prior comment, religion can serve beneficial/personal value components within a society), but a leader’s ability to wield religion within the halls of governance taints the religion’s “purity” among the populace as a whole. As the lies are perpetuated through generations, some concepts preached by these bad influences can become accepted or even indoctrinated as true values.
So again, tricky question to answer. In my personal opinion, the only way to disarm this particular scenario is to maintain a secular form of governance and keep religion only as a personal or communal liberty away from any decision made at a government level (appeal to empirical evidence or logical conclusions instead), but there are holes in that idea as well. Dang.
I really enjoyed your post and have little to add, so thanks and sorry. And dang, indeed! 😅