- Pharisee:
- Etymology:
- Middle English pharise, from Old English farise, from Late Latin pharisaeus, from Greek pharisaios, from Aramaic pĕrīshayyā, plural of pĕrīshā, literally, separated
No single system of beliefs has survived intact over a long time.
=> How should a religious system keep itself?
5 comments:
What do you mean by a single system of beliefs, and how long is a long time?
Single system: Islam
Long time: Hinduism
And you would call Hinduism a "single system" in the same way that Islam is a single system?
By your definitions, Zoroastrianism and Judasim are both single systems that have been around a long time. Furthermore, neither Christianity nor Islam show any signs of ending any time soon.
I realize that my comment wasn't very clear. Sorry.
Here's the original statement:
"No single system of beliefs has survived intact over a long time."
Islam typifies the focus of a "system of beliefs." I would also argue that it has remained reasonably intact (i.e. no doctrinal changes) since its inception. However, in accord with my original statement, it's birthday is relatively recent.
Hinduism typifies a religion which has been around for a "long time." However, Hinduism is so generalized that you can use it as a lifestyle platform which can justify monotheism, atheism, and pantheism. Hence, I would argue that Hinduism is not a "system of beliefs ... intact" as Islam is.
Zoroastrianism comes very close to invalidating my statement... I would argue, however, that it cannot be considered an "intact" religion because of the tremendous loss of religious texts held to be sacred [The Denkard, a Zoroastrian religious compendium, states that Alexanders troops destroyed a variety of religious texts in the burning of the royal library in Persepolis] , i.e., it seems highly unlikely that modern Zoroastrianism is comparable to Ancient Zoroastrianism if a portion of their sacred scriptures have been lost in the time which intervenes.
Judaism has abandoned the sacrificial system, and is not, therefore, "intact."
Christianity is overwhelmingly sectarian, which wouldn't be a problem, except that the various sects believe that their distinctive doctrine is foundational to Christianity as a whole. Christianity, (besides being relatively young) is therefore not a satisfactory "System of beliefs."
If i am right, chalk it up to a stretching of definitions to accommodate a generalized statement. If i am wrong, chalk it up to a limited knowledge of world religions. The question is: How should a religious system keep itself?
Islam is sectarian just like Christianity. Consider the Shia, Sunni, Sufi, and Ahmadiyya, to name just a few. True, Islam has fewer sects than Christianity, but enough to invalidate the claim that is truly a "single" system of beleifs, as you seem to be defining it.
I guess the definition of a single system is where we differ. I like how CS Lewis defines Mere Christianity. That's a single system in my book.
But to finally answer your question, framed with your definitions, I would say extreme fundamentalism coupled with an injunction to have big families would be the best way for a single system to keep itself.
Post a Comment