Cultures impact on religion

[Yedi]

I have been thinking and isn't it the culture whom change the religion instead of the opposite? and isn't religion created from the culture in the first place? or is it the opposite, what do you think?

[Rafcio]

Religion is part of culture so not surprisingly it goes both ways.

The process of Christianization of Europe for example, clearly had a huge impact on the culture of the region.
In turn, our current culture is continually transforming this same religion into what it is today. We are modifying the interpretation of the Bible to fit our cultural norms. I wouldn't be too surprised if sometime in the future Catholics will adapt gay marriages and Muslims gradually dropped the strict dress code. After all, until 1920's all Christian women would have 90% of her body covered as well.

[Cane_The9lives]

^Rafcio hit the nail on the head, cultures and religions both conform to eachother overtime due to their complimentary relationship(or perhaps semi complimentary relationship, i wouldnt exactly say religion in culture is a pre-requisite in this day in age, merely historically it has been.)

[Syfer Van Hyden]

I think both religion and culture impact each other. Here's an example that better illustrates, women in Saudi Arabia (most parts) r forced to completely cover themselves (top to bottom), when in Islam that does not apply. Women only need to wear the veil when they reach a certain age. It's because of Arab culture before Islam came into place they had those customs and they still conform to them and claim that Islam told them so.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Pr0fessional_Wesker

I think both religion and culture impact each other. Here's an example that better illustrates, women in Saudi Arabia (most parts) r forced to completely cover themselves (top to bottom), when in Islam that does not apply. Women only need to wear the veil when they reach a certain age. It's because of Arab culture before Islam came into place they had those customs and they still conform to them and claim that Islam told them so.

No, veiling is from Islam now, it is like Christmas is from Christianity even if Christianity may have gotten inspiration of it from pagan religions.

Islam mandates the veil (as you say women need to wear it above a certain age), it is no longer some external culture.

[ACCUNE]

I agree with you on Christianity and Christmas.That's why I am not too big on Christmas.I wondered if it got mixed in during the reign on Constantine,because he was a big mixer of culture and religion.

[Syfer Van Hyden]

Originally Posted by Majin

No, veiling is from Islam now, it is like Christmas is from Christianity even if Christianity may have gotten inspiration of it from pagan religions.

Islam mandates the veil (as you say women need to wear it above a certain age), it is no longer some external culture.

U clearly did not properly read what i said. I said that in Saudi they mandate women to cover everything even their eyes, which is not mandated by the Quran, however the veil is mandated at a certain age. That's what i said.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Pr0fessional_Wesker

U clearly did not properly read what i said. I said that in Saudi they mandate women to cover everything even their eyes, which is not mandated by the Quran, however the veil is mandated at a certain age. That's what i said.

Narrated 'Aisha:

(the wife of the Prophet) 'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah's Apostle "Let your wives be veiled" But he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi.' Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam'a went out and she was a tall woman. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda!" He ('Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes). (See Hadith No. 148, Vol. 1)
USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts

[Syfer Van Hyden]

^R u STILL insisting that im saying that veiling is not mandatory? I clearly said that Saudis make their women ALSO cover their eyes and hands (palm and fingers). Vieling is mandatory but not the eyes or the palm of their hands. That's what im saying. Understand?

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Pr0fessional_Wesker

^R u STILL insisting that im saying that veiling is not mandatory? I clearly said that Saudis make their women ALSO cover their eyes and hands (palm and fingers). Vieling is mandatory but not the eyes or the palm of their hands. That's what im saying. Understand?

I am emphasising my point that the veil comes from Islam now (as in it is the source from which people justify doing it).

Not some 'other culture' anymore.

[Insin]

Religion is indeed tailored to fit the times. In the early 1900's, few Christian sects condoned the use of contraceptives. However, as the century progressed, more and more religions began to change that. The Catholic Church was expected to follow the same route when they released Humanae Vitae, but they shocked the world by clinging to their old dogma.

Many Churches like to advocate absolute principles. For instance, they claim that slavery was always immoral, despite the stance of the Church at the time, and excluding certain biblical passages. It's an easy way to vindicate the mistakes of the Church by claiming universal truth. But it's not that simple. The Catholic Church essentially has a form of birth control called natural family planning. Despite it's supposedly moral means, the ends are the same. They claim fundamental differences, were such differences hardly exist.

The problem is that Catholicism suffers from hanging onto its old roots. Priests in other religions can marry, and sex scandals are therefore much rarer. Additionally, those religions that can adapt to the times usually prosper more than stoic ones. Catholicism is suffering from decreased membership and dissent across its members. I have probably met a couple hundred Catholics, and I would say that only 5 or so of them actually followed the tenants of their religion to the letter. Everyone else claims to be "an unusual" Catholic. I have heard that phrase dozens of times, it is silly considering that everyone says it.

Because Religion is a social construct, those religions that ignore society are obviously going to suffer. There is really relativism where absolutism is claimed. Certain things may not change or vary much, but other components are just too historically based, so they change frequently. After all, without a society to exist in, religion would not exist.

[PC Chris]

I think religion can have a very positive impact on society.

Egypt at least in ancient times, had this philosophy of Ma'at which was a principle of law and order, everyone was held accountable. Interesting thing about this is, you don't see a lot of up rises in Egyptian history in that time. (maybe in the middle kingdom lol)

Egyptians generally liked their kings, whether this is because the kings were generally nice and easy going guys, or they were afraid of death when Anubis would eat their heart if it was heavier then the feather of truth.

Religion in this case was very beneficial with out that incentive to be lawful and just, kings probably would have been completely tyrannical.

[Rafcio]

Getting called to do your stacking-giant-blocks-of-stone-in-a-pile duty must have sucked though.

[PC Chris]

Originally Posted by Rafcio

Getting called to do your stacking-giant-blocks-of-stone-in-a-pile duty must have sucked though.

Not really because Egyptians volunteered to do that. despite popular belief it they weren't built by slaves.

Slaves are foreign meaning they don't share your ideas, creating a pyramid which is a holy monument to Egyptians would have been blasphemous.

So they were usually built by volunteers.

[Rafcio]

LOL. Why would thousands volunteer for such hard and dangerous work?

As far as I know every Egyptian (so yeah, it wasn't slave labour) were required to work. If you were rich you simply used your money to pay your dues.

[PC Chris]

Originally Posted by Rafcio

LOL. Why would thousands volunteer for such hard and dangerous work?

You're thinking about this from a secularist view and not form a religious view like these men would be thinking. Pretty sure since their kings were considered 100% god, and doing a good deed for your god would likely be favorable to you, it isn't hard to believe it was volunteered.

Furthermore they had nothing else better to do, Pyramid building took place during the flooding season of the Nile where farming wasn't possible.

Most Egyptians were farmers too.

As far as I know every Egyptian (so yeah, it wasn't slave labour) were required to work. If you were rich you simply used your money to pay your dues.

It's actually the opposite, there are virtually no accounts for forced labor of any kind.

[Rafcio]

I don't mean forced as in slavishly forced. I meant to say that work on the pyramids was a societal expectation, so saying that it was voluntary is somewhat misleading since it wasn't much of a choice.



This is where I got the idea of societal expectation from.
Who Built the Pyramids? (July-August 2003)

If not slaves, then who were these workers? Lehner's friend Zahi Hawass, secretary general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, who has been excavating a "workers' cemetery" just above Lehner's city on the plateau, sees forensic evidence in the remains of those buried there that pyramid building was hazardous business. Why would anyone choose to perform such hard labor? The answer, says Lehner, lies in understanding obligatory labor in the premodern world. "People were not atomized, separate, individuals with the political and economic freedom that we take for granted. Obligatory labor ranges from slavery all the way to, say, the Amish, where you have elders and a strong sense of community obligations, and a barn raising is a religious event and a feasting event. If you are a young man in a traditional setting like that, you may not have a choice." Plug that into the pyramid context, says Lehner, "and you have to say, 'This is a hell of a barn!'"

Lehner currently thinks Egyptian society was organized somewhat like a feudal system, in which almost everyone owed service to a lord. The Egyptians called this "bak." Everybody owed bak of some kind to people above them in the social hierarchy. "But it doesn't really work as a word for slavery," he says. "Even the highest officials owed bak."

[PC Chris]

He makes it sound like this is something they wouldn't want to be doing, sure it may have been forced but the fact remains there probably wasn't much of a fight from either side to build them or not.

Maybe and this is a pretty big maybe here it was more of an issue during the middle and new kingdoms, but the old kingdom? Not so much.

Chances are during the old Kingdom they would have been eager to build a pyramid for their god.

[Insin]

People can be eager for something, and still not enjoy it. Fasting is a good example. Many people look forward to the idea of fasting for a religious cause they believe in, but do not enjoy the process of fasting on a more objective level. It can be a rewarding or fulfilling experience, but that doesn't mean that the process of fasting is actually enjoyable.