The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

See? Hardwood floors are just better.

IT KEEPS HAPPENING!

edited 28th Jan '16 1:50:29 PM by TheHandle

You are too late, Handle. I already made that joke.

You are jeromy.

The Marrakesh Declaration in the wake of the International Summit for the Protection of Religious Minorities in Islamic Countries.

So what's in the Charter of Medina then?

The Charter of Medina or of Yathrib (Arabic: صحيفة المدينة‎, Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīnah; or: ميثاق المدينة, Mīthāq al-Madīnah), also known as the Constitution of Medina or of Yathrib (دستور المدينة, Dastūr al-Madīnah), was drafted by the Islamic prophet Muhammad shortly after his arrival at Medina (then known as Yathrib) in 622 CE[1] (or 1 AH), following the Hijra from Mecca. This was the first written constitution in the history of the world.[2]

The preamble declares the document to be "a book [kitab] of the prophet Muhammad to operate between the believers [mu'minin] and Muslims from the Quraysh tribe and from Yathrib and those who may be under them and wage war in their company" declaring them to constitute "one nation [ummah wāḥidah] separate from all peoples". The constitution established the collective responsibility of nine constituent tribes for their members actions, specifically emphasising blood money and ransom payment. The first constituent group mentioned are the Qurayshi migrants, and then eight other tribes. Eight Jewish groups are recognized as part of the Yathrib community, and their religious separation from Muslims is established. The Jewish Banu Ash shutbah tribe are inserted as one of the Jewish groups, rather than with the nine tribes mentioned earlier in the document. The constitution also established Muhammad as the mediating authority between groups and forbids the waging of war without his authorization.

The constitution formed the basis of a multi-religious Islamic state in Medina.[3][4][5][6]

The constitution was created to end the bitter intertribal fighting between the rival clans of Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj in Medina,[6] and to maintain peace and cooperation among all Medinan groups. Establishing the role of Muhammad as the mediating authority between these two groups and all others in Medina was central to the ending of Medinan internal violence and was an essential feature of the constitution. The document ensured freedom of religious beliefs and practices for all citizens who "follow the believers". It assured that representatives of all parties, Muslim or non-Muslim, should be present when consultation occurs or in cases of negotiation with foreign states. It declared "a woman will only be given protection with the consent of her family", and imposed a tax system for supporting the community in times of conflict. It declared the role of Medina as a ḥaram (حرم, "sacred place"), where no blood of the peoples included in the pact can be spilled.

edited 29th Jan '16 4:07:26 AM by TheHandle

So thoughtful today...

Heaven is supposed to be that perfect place where you'll be happy for eternity.

But what about your loved ones who are evil and sent down to be tortured forever in Hell? Do you just forget them? Does your righteousness overtake your pity and you find joy in their punishment? If you spend the rest of your afterlife regretful that you couldn't win them over to good, that's not a very happy post-existence.

They make a idealized copy of your loved ones who are in torment while you live in an ignorant bliss about their suffering?

That argument's old enough that it probably has a name.

That sounds plausible.

Though if they were really terrible, you'd have to question why they would be up there with you...

Maybe you just wouldn't think about it.

I think the assumption here is, you would even be a completely concious entity in heaven. Rather just light floating around, blissfully unaware of everything else.

In another scenario, could be that you'd be filled with a driving need to save them due to your compassion for them, but you don't suffer from regrets or other forms of suffering, say like a bodhisattva.

edited 10th Feb '16 11:17:35 AM by TerminusEst

Well your body decays after you die...maybe your soul is part of your breath and when it evaporates it floats in the air with the rest of Heaven.

My view on Hell is that it's cessation of existence rather than eternal torment per say, but either way I'd argue that people won't forget the people they knew but will just sort of get on with their afterlives after a while. Simply be thankful for the memories you've had with them, because that's the part of them that you get to take to heaven with you.

So by the blissful state of being in heaven sounds a lot like: you're doped out of your mind.

So meanwhile in heaven.

Isn't Hell technically just the knowledge that you aren't in Heaven,or that you don't have God's grace or something?Or is that one of the interpetations?

edited 10th Feb '16 11:49:58 AM by alekos23

Then eternal agony must be either metaphorical or just emotional.

Technically at least in its catholic conception, hell is the absence of god, so maybe hell is not so much "You get to suffer for eternity" as it is "You dont get to be happy for eternity while knowing you had the chance to"

According to what i've been told, the popular conception of Hell as a place of fiery brimstone and eternal suffering in christianity doesn't have much biblical basis. There is a reference to a lake of fire but not anything indicating eternal torment after death. In fact, there are a few denominations like the Jehova's Witnesses that espouse that it's basically a state of non-existence. The conception of hell as FIRE AND BRIMSTONE is from Divine Comedy and I think Paradise Lost.

The idea is that the love of god is a essential part of your personal happiness and joy; that those in hell are withheld that love that they have touched for their whole lifetime. So it's essentially like learning how if feels to suffocate- just spiritually and forever.

Classical Hindu Naraka makes Dante look like cotton candy.

I don't believe in traditional Naraka, though. It's more of a metaphysical state to me.

Whoever came up with that severely underestimated the power of meaningless material pursuits.

You think I need God to be happy? I don't need shit.

But you need TO shit. Otherwise, you might not be happy with all that pain and. You know. Shit.

edited 10th Feb '16 1:13:12 PM by Aszur

Actually the way I've seen it presented a lot of the time is less that Dante's Divine Comedy created the ideas and more that Dante wrote down and to an extent codified what was common belief about the nature of the afterlife that existed at the time (as well as grinding a few political axes along the way). Nothing as concrete as Church doctrine, but just common folk belief among the laity of the day.

Pope, patriarch urge Christian unity at historic talks