Sacred Conversations: Words on Divorce from the Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad

Greetings! Continuing with the religious theme of late. This post considers what the Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammed taught about divorce. As you might imagine, the teachings of Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad on divorce vary, and interpretations may differ among different sects and traditions within each religion. Below is a brief overview based on general perspectives within their respective living traditions.

In Buddhism, the Buddha did not explicitly address divorce in the same way that some other religious leaders did. However, he did emphasize the importance of right conduct and ethical behavior. The general principle in Buddhism is to avoid causing harm to oneself and others. In some Buddhist cultures, divorce is accepted in cases where it is deemed necessary for the well-being of the individuals involved.

The primary sources for Buddhist teachings are the Pali Canon and various sutras. Specific references regarding divorce may not be found, as the Buddha's teachings cover a wide range of ethical principles.

In Christianity, particularly within the New Testament, Jesus is reported to have spoken about divorce. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is quoted as saying that divorce is generally not permissible, except in the case of adultery (Matthew 19:9). However, interpretations of this passage may vary among Christian denominations.

Matthew 19:9: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

In Islam, divorce is recognized as a lawful and regulated process. The Quran acknowledges the permissibility of divorce but encourages reconciliation whenever possible. The Quran provides guidance on divorce proceedings, and there are specific conditions and procedures outlined in Islamic law, Sharia.

The Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah (2:229-230): "A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness."

When considering these voices across three major traditions, it's important to note that interpretations of religious texts can vary, and different sects within each religion may have different views on divorce. Additionally, religious teachings are often understood and applied within cultural and historical contexts, which can influence how they are interpreted and practiced. Surely that was the case in the time of the Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, much as divorce is a dynamic issue in our time and place.

All the best,

Tom

Exploring Organized Religion via Marx and Freud

Greetings!  I’m continuing with the religion theme by adding two different voices to the conversation. Organized religion has been a subject of intense scrutiny and analysis throughout history, with thinkers from various disciplines offering their unique perspectives on its role in society. Two influential figures who contributed significantly to the discourse on religion are Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Below is a quick glimpse into their views on organized religion, examining how Marx approached it from an economic and social perspective, while Freud explored its psychological dimensions.

Karl Marx, a 19th-century philosopher, economist, and sociologist, viewed organized religion through the lens of historical materialism. For Marx, religion was not an isolated entity but rather a reflection of the socio-economic structures that governed society. He famously proclaimed that religion is the "opium of the people," suggesting that it serves as a form of escapism for the oppressed masses.

Marx argued that organized religion plays a dual role in society. On one hand, it serves as a mechanism of social control, maintaining the existing power structures by promoting passive acceptance of one's circumstances. On the other hand, it can be seen as a reaction to the inequalities inherent in a capitalist society, providing solace and hope to those facing hardships.

From a Marxist perspective, organized religion functions as an ideological tool, perpetuating the status quo by discouraging critical examination of societal structures. Marx believed that as societies progressed economically, religion's influence would naturally diminish as people gained a deeper understanding of their material conditions.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, approached religion from a psychological standpoint. In his work The Future of an Illusion, Freud argued that religion is a collective neurosis, fulfilling deep-seated psychological needs in individuals. He posited that humans create a concept of a higher power or deity as a projection of their own desires for protection, guidance, and a sense of purpose.

According to Freud, religion provides a comforting illusion of a benevolent and protective father figure – a projection of the individual's unresolved childhood feelings toward their own parents. The concept of God, for Freud, becomes a symbolic representation of the need for security and meaning in a seemingly chaotic world.

Freud acknowledged the social and ethical functions of religion but viewed these as byproducts rather than its primary purpose. He contended that as humanity progressed intellectually and emotionally, the need for religious illusions would diminish, paving the way for a more rational and secular worldview.

In examining organized religion through the perspectives of Marx and Freud, we find two distinct but interconnected analyses. Marx emphasizes the socio-economic functions of religion, portraying it as a tool of oppression and a reflection of material conditions. On the other hand, Freud delves into the psychological underpinnings of religious beliefs, viewing them as manifestations of deep-seated human needs.

While both thinkers had their criticisms of organized religion, their analyses contribute to a richer understanding of the complex role that religion plays in society. Whether as a form of social control or a psychological coping mechanism, organized religion continues to be a fascinating subject that elicits diverse perspectives and interpretations. The work of both theorists has been used to polarize conversation around religion, rather than stimulate the discussion.

All the best,

Tom

Enkidu and John the Baptist: Powerful Parallels

 Greetings! Across the vast tapestry of ancient literature and sacred scriptures, emerge two enigmatic figures who, despite being separated by millennia and vastly different cultural landscapes, share striking similarities. Enkidu, the wild man from the Epic of Gilgamesh, and John the Baptist, the fiery preacher of the New Testament, stand as compelling figures who herald change and challenge societal norms. Though their contexts and purposes diverge, their shared roles as harbingers, their connection to the natural world, and their ultimate sacrifice paint a fascinating portrait of two iconic characters.

Both figures maintain a deep connection to the natural world. Enkidu, raised by animals, embodies the untamed wilderness. His strength and ferocity are honed in the wild, making him a formidable match for Gilgamesh. John the Baptist, too, finds solace in the desert, his simple attire and austere lifestyle reflecting his immersion in the natural world. His baptism of many, including Jesus, in the Jordan River, symbolizes not only spiritual cleansing but also a merging with the primal forces of nature.

Both Enkidu and John the Baptist arrived on their respective scenes as harbingers of profound change. Enkidu, crafted from clay by the goddess Aruru, was sent to challenge Gilgamesh, the tyrannical king of Uruk. Enkidu’s emergence from the wild disrupts the established order, forcing Gilgamesh to confront his own mortality and limitations. Similarly, John the Baptist emerged from the Judean wilderness, his ascetic lifestyle and impassioned pronouncements heralding the imminent arrival of the Messiah. John called for repentance and a radical transformation of hearts and minds, preparing the way for Jesus's ministry.

Despite their transformative roles, both Enkidu and John the Baptist meet tragic ends. Enkidu, after his escapades with Gilgamesh, succumbs to an illness born of the gods. His death left Gilgamesh heartbroken and grappling with his own mortality. John the Baptist, too, faced a brutal death, beheaded at the behest of King Herod’s daughter, Salome. Yet, their deaths were not in vain. Enkidu's friendship tempered Gilgamesh's arrogance and set him on a quest for meaning. John the Baptist's martyrdom paved the way for Jesus's ministry and became a powerful symbol of unwavering faith.

Though separated by time and culture, I find it most interesting to consider the unexpected parallels between Enkidu and John the Baptist. They offer a thought-provoking lens through which to view these iconic figures. By recognizing their shared roles as harbingers, their connection to the natural world, and their ultimate sacrifice, we gain a deeper appreciation for their enduring impact on mythology and scripture. Their stories serve as a testament to the enduring power of wildness, the importance of challenging the status quo, and the legacy of those who dare to pave the way for change.

All the best,

Tom

Ptolemy's Serapis: Religious Syncretism and Solidarity

Greetings! In the coming weeks, the posts will be related to world religions. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud both had great concerns about religion being used as a tool to manipulate people. This first post provides fodder for the concerns of the philosopher and psychoanalyst. Ptolemy I Soter, one of Alexander the Great's generals, played a crucial role in the formation of the Hellenistic Kingdom of Egypt after Alexander’s death. A significant aspect of Ptolemy I's reign was his creation of the deity Serapis, a unique and syncretic god that symbolized the fusion of Greek and Egyptian religious beliefs. The story of Ptolemy I creating Serapis is a testament to the strategic and cultural adaptability of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt.

Ptolemy I recognized the importance of uniting the diverse population of Egypt, which included both Greeks and Egyptians, to ensure the stability and prosperity of his kingdom. To achieve this, he embarked on a project to create a deity that could bridge the gap between the two cultures. Serapis was conceived as a composite deity, drawing from elements of both Greek and Egyptian pantheons. He combined the Greek god Zeus and the Egyptian god Apis, resulting in a deity with a distinct, multicultural identity.

The creation of Serapis served as a unifying force in Ptolemaic Egypt, as it allowed people from different cultural backgrounds to find common ground in their religious beliefs. Serapis was depicted with Greek and Egyptian attributes, such as a Greek-style beard and Egyptian headdress, which further emphasized the blending of these two traditions. The Serapeum, a temple dedicated to Serapis in Alexandria, became a central hub for this new deity's worship, attracting devotees from various backgrounds.

Ptolemy I's creation of Serapis not only demonstrated his political acumen in maintaining stability in his multicultural kingdom but also reflected the adaptability and open-mindedness of the Hellenistic world. Serapis continued to be revered not only in Egypt but also in various parts of the Mediterranean world, even extending into the Roman Empire. The story of Ptolemy I's creation of Serapis remains a testament to the power of religion in shaping the cultural and social dynamics of the ancient world, as well as the enduring legacy of Ptolemaic Egypt's cultural fusion.

All the best,

Tom