On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 04:23:58 pm Duncan wrote: > That I know. What I don't know is whether there's a "salvation by > faith" parallel that can be claimed (if only by some relatively minor > sect) for Islam or most other religions.
Of course there is, in some form, although Islam does include a much stronger emphasis on good works and righteous behaviour. It's not enough to merely have faith, you actually have to do good deeds and follow the rituals as well. But without faith and submission to God's will), good deeds and behaviour is meaningless. Whether their idea of "salvation by faith" is exactly the same as what you mean by it is unlikely, but then if you take a Catholic, a Mormon, an Anglican and a Baptist, I doubt that they would precisely agree either. > > As Richard Dawkins points out, it would be the strangest thing if > > people referred to small children or even new-born babies as > > "Republican" or "Democrat", but all over the world people think > > nothing of talking about "Jewish babies" and "Catholic babies" or > > "Hindu babies". It is ridiculous and wicked. > > I'm aware of infant baptism in Catholicism, [...] I'm not merely talking about baptism, although of course many religions do practice early baptism (or the equivalent). I'm talking about the practice of describing religion as something you inherit from your ancestors, like blood type or eye colour, or ethnicity/race. If your parents are Druze, you are Druze, and if not, you can't be. If your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew, no ifs buts or maybes. You might be a non-practicing Jew, or a lapsed Jew, or even an atheist or a Christian Jew(!), but you're still a Jew. And if your mother isn't a Jew, then you aren't Jewish -- even if you convert, which most rabbis don't allow and even those who do make it very difficult, you'll always be a Jew by conversion and not a "real" Jew. I don't mean to pick on the Jews. The Sikhs are similar, as are many other groups, and even in secular Western states, the default assumption is that children have the same religion as their parents. Even if they're not formally baptised. Nobody ever asks a small child what religion they want to join when they grow up. It would be a shocking thing to say in most of the world (and might even get you killed), and a bizarre and unusual thing in much of the rest. E.g.: "Is a Baptized Jewish Baby Still Considered Jewish?" http://judaism.about.com/od/asktherabbi/p/all_baptism.htm "THOUSANDS of Muslim babies in Scotland have been injected with a derivative of pork contained in a major child vaccine..." http://www.sweenytod.com/rno/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=644 "Sikh babies were significantly longer and heavier than Moslem and Hindu babies..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1777447/ I was especially amused (in the sad, angry way) by the number of websites publishing the supposed "Protocols for Hindu Leaders", which include this little gem: "Sexual relationships with Muslim women to be encouraged to ensure the production of Hindu babies within Muslim communities." http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.politics.misc/2008-04/msg00074.html It's enough to make me despair for humanity, stupid apes that we are. [...] > > 0.01% chance that you have converted to significantly different > > branch of Christianity (say, Greek Orthodox) or an offshoot like > > Mormonism or Unitarianism. > > Actually, I did study with the JWs and only recently decided it > wasn't for me. Ha, funny about that, I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. Don't worry, I got better :) > And I'd assume given the Dawkins reference that you're likely either > atheist or at least agnostic? Atheist. -- Steven D'Aprano _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
