Religion and scuba

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

My dog has a very limited ability to critically understand what I do. He gets some, but there is much beyond him. It would be foolish for him to therefore conclude I don't exist and do nothing because my acts clash with his expectations/assumptions.

There is much room in Christianity for critical thinking. At some point in or lives we accepted God, and don't waste our time trying to disprove Him. And many of us don't expect everything to make sense to us in the here and now.
 
I really do not know what you mean when you say Muhammad's armies destroyed Greco-Roman civilization because Muslim conquest of Byzantine happened after his death. Muhammad never fought any majjor war against Christianity. His military career was mostly against his own tribe and they were pagan Arabs and in that he was assisted by Christians. Islam's first alliance was with Africa's Christian King Najashi who regarded Koran to be a miracle from God!

One thing you must know about Hagia Sophia's conqueror is that he (Mehmed 2) was actually adopted and raised by a Christian Queen whom he regarded as his mother. Ottoman Sultans had a long tradition of marrying Christian women from European nobility. If we were to make a list of every single Ottoman Queen that ever lived, we will see that some of the most powerful Ottoman queens who ruled over important provinces and even led negotiations on behalf of the Ottoman Empire were in fact Christian. There is a very long list but the three notable Christian queens of the Ottoman empire that we can mention are as follows:

Theodora Khatoon, a Byzantine Princess who married Sultan Urhan in 1346. She was active in supporting the Christians living under Ottoman rule and built a lot of Churches. In 1347 she gave birth to her only son, Şhahzade Halil, who married Princess Irene, the daughter of John V Palaiologos.


Tamara Khatoon, born Kera Temara (Bulgarian: Кера Тамар&#1072:wink: was the daughter of the Bulgarian Emperor Ivan Alexander and his second wife Sarah-Theodora. Tamara was a sister of Ivan Shishman and Ivan Sratsimir. She was born in the 1340s and originates from the Shishman dynasty.


Despina Khatoon, born Mileva Olivera Lazarević, (Serbian Cyrillic: Деспина Оливера Лазаревић; 1372 – after 1444) was the youngest daughter of Lazar of Serbia and Princess Milica and the wife of Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I. After the marriage, she became Despina Hatun (Turkish for "Lady Despina").


Most of the Christian Queens of Ottoman empire followed Orthodox Christianity but some were devoutly Catholic. This meant that the Ottoman courts always hosted rivalries between Sultan’s Catholic wives and Orthodox wives. Catholic queens communicated directly with the Pope and pushed for a foreign policy that would favor the Catholic world. Orthodox queens maintained similar relations with Orthodox Church and were always pushing for an agenda that would favor Russia over Catholic Europe. In both cases they often raised Ottoman Princes and Princesses who were devout Christians. This actually helped the Ottomans because the Christian world did not want to be ruled by Muslims directly. By having Christian children in their families Ottomans were able to place their own Christian family members in important positions in Europe.


The Ottoman Sultan Mehmed (2) who conquered Constantinople is a very well-known historical figure. Yet what most people do not know about him is the fact that he was raised by his step-mother who was an Orthodox Christian queen by the name of Sultana Maria Brankovic or Sultana Mara. She was the daughter of Serbian monarch Đurađ (George) Branković and Eirene Kantakouzene. She married the father of Mehmed II, Sultan Murad II. You will notice that this woman does not carry the usual title of Khatoon (lady) after her last name. She directly entered the Ottoman court as “Emerissa” (Higher queen) and then became “Sultana” (the grand Queen.) In the history of Ottoman Queens very few women ever rose to the ranks of Sultana’s and Maria Brankovic was one of them.


Ottomans were allowed four wives at the same time. Unlike European monarchic order, the rank of a Queen in Ottoman empire came in three categories. Most queens were “Khatoons” who were given provinces as dowry. They held powers of provincial administrators and collected revenue from those provinces. Very few rose to the second rank of Emirissa. This is when the Queen would have influence outside her assigned provinces, would also have battle units and could influence the foreign policy of Ottoman Empire. Final rank was Sultana who would have her own flag, her army and many provinces. She would have most powers of the Sultan on a lesser level. Maria Brankovic came into the court as an Emirissa and became Sultana after a very short time. All her life she campaigned for her favorite stepson Mehmed II to become the next Sultan and after the death of her husband, Mehmed did go on to assume the throne. Right after becoming Sultan he assigned Maria Brankovic as his official advisor.

[FONT=&amp]
During Sultan Mehmed’s time Maria Brankovic was addressed as Valide Sultan (Queen mother.) Her powers grew to the point where members of the Orthodox Church in Russia could not appoint its members until they were approved by her. She also began negotiating foreign agreements on behalf of the Ottomans and represented the Ottoman empire during the negotiation of the Ottoman-Venetian war. [/FONT]

In the end, just like you can not hold Christianity responsible for American foreign policy, Ottoman politics are also far too complicated to be reduced to a simplistic "ISLAM VS CHRISTIANITY" affair.
I'm aware of the history you describe, and I apologize if I was unclear when I included a bit of Ottoman history in the same post in which I mentioned the original wars of conquest fought by Muhammad's generals.

The flourishing Greco-Roman Christian civilizations that I had in mind that were overrun during early Islam's first century of existence included Egypt, parts of the modern Middle East, and all of North Africa. Muhammad died relatively young, but his generals and the first four Caliphs destroyed North African Christian civilization.

The Ottoman conquests of six and seven centuries later were a very different thing, primarily affecting the Byzantine Greek cultural and religious domination of some of the Middle East and almost all of the Balkans, with Byzantine influence even extending into old Russia. A Byzantine Paleologus princess married into the Russian royal family, allowing the Russian monarchs to style themselves 'Caesar' after the fall of Constantinople: Caesar is 'Tsar' in Russian.

I did not have Ottoman expansion into Greece and the Balkans in mind when I mentioned the early Muslim 'crusades' of conquest that extirpated ancient North African Christian civilization. These Muslim crusades preceeded the European crusades by several centuries, but were in large part responsible for the more famous Crusades.

I enjoyed your elaboration of Ottoman-Byzantine interaction.

It was bad enough to see student's eyes roll back when I taught for a living. You may remember the student criticized for continually checking the time on his watch.

"I was not checking the time. I was trying to see if my watch had stopped."
 
Last edited:
All this proselytizing re: religion? Is it not time just to go back in the water and dive?

Take whatever makes you happy and content. Save it for your already bored wife/husband.
 
Adam & Eve weren't born with a sin nature; they chose sin. Afterward, their offspring were born with a sin nature. I imagine the metaphysical theorizing involved could fill a book I'm not qualified to write.

Imagine you're a parent. You tell your kids not to do something, but they do it anyway ... kids are like that. So you punish them for it. Years later they're grown up and with kids of their own ... you punish your grandchildren because their parents disobeyed you, too. And if you live long enough, you punish your great-grandchildren for that act that their grandparents did many decades before they were born.

That's the fundamental concept of "original sin" ... and it's at odds with everything I could possibly bring myself to believe about a being so all-knowing and powerful as to be able to create the universe. In fact, it seems so petty and ... well, stupid ... it boggles the mind that it's become the cornerstone of religious belief ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

---------- Post added July 16th, 2015 at 12:10 PM ----------

All this history and religion is enjoyable reading-explains a lot about the OP'S.

History is written by the victors. Religion a panacea for the masses. For the rest
we have "reality" TV.

About time for some diving and some good pics by NWGD and others. Have not
been in the ocean for awhile. Diving is always a soothing remedy for whatever else
is going on.

I'm going diving after work tonight. Haven't been in the water since Sunday. Here's a happy face for ya, Michael ... taken at "church" this past Sunday ...

885586_462156183964745_1506952410929619739_o.jpg


... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
I often wonder why it's so hard for some people to answer questions about their own faith (or lack thereof) and accept other peoples answers without it turning into a discussion about the pros and cons of their beliefs.

Why can't we just accept that just like some people like cars and others prefer SUVs, some people prefer not to believe the same thing that we do.

If according to your beliefs I'm going to hell because I don't believe the same thing then that is my problem, not yours. In this day and age everyone has heard each religions tenets and we each make a conscious choice to believe in whatever we want.
Because beliefs are not a matter of opinions or preferences. They're also not a matter of choice. People believe something because they're convinced. You can't simply decide to believe (or unbelieve) something. Something or somebody must convince you. Often this is done by the parents (or other authority figures) and the person never even gets the idea to question what they have been taught.

Religious moderation (or moderate religion) is certainly better than fundamentalism or extremism, and Western society has certainly come a long way in fostering this moderation and gradually replacing fundamentalism. But it wasn't the religions (or its adherents) that figured out that maybe they should take a step back. It was the secular society that forced them to. If it wasn't for the secular society putting a damper on religious insanity, we'd still be burning witches at the stake.

But fundamentalism still exists in our (Western) society today. Why is religious fundamentalism a problem? Because of the fundamentals of the religion. So how do the moderates play into this? Well, moderates are moderates because they're moderate in their faith. This is the same faith, the same tenets of the same religion, which forms the foundation for the fundamentalists. Take a religious moderate and have his or her faith grow, so strong that they're fully convinced of every word of it, and you get a fundamentalist. This is why fundamentalism won't just disappear, because this transitions keeps happening.

For an atheist or an agnostic, it's difficult to imagine what effect such a strong faith can have on a person. Put yourself in, say, Fred Phelps' shoes (may he rot in a non-existing hell). Imagine that you believe, really believe, that a solder died in the war because his home country endorses homosexuality. Imagine that you're fully convinced, without a doubt, that one directly caused the other, that god himself was instrumental in killing this soldier because of what's going on in his country. Because this is what your holy book says god does. He kills people by the millions, out of vengeance. Imagine further that you're fully convinced that the end of the world is near and that the messiah's return to pass judgment on the world is imminent. Would you not feel compelled to try to do something about it, maybe try to tell the world about this (to you completely obvious) connection? And if it's not about saving others, then maybe just to save yourself.

I'm not making this up. This is really what they believe (among other equally insane things) and without a doubt in their minds. It's not something they chose to believe. They're fully convinced of it and they can't just decide to unbelieve it. And their actions are a direct result of that. It's not because they're just homophobic a-holes and use this as an excuse to act out on it. (This might be true for some of them, but for the majority it's the other way around.) People who have left the church say so themselves. They fully believed every word of it and they did what they did because they thought it was the right thing to do. And this is just one of many examples.

Religion makes good people do bad things. Sure, sometimes religion also makes people do good things. But if you try to make a list of instances where this was the case, you will end up with a very short list. Furthermore, you would find that in each case, religion wasn't really a necessary requirement. OTOH you'll have no problem filling many pages with instances of religion having caused people to do horrible things, which certainly would not have happened if it hadn't been for religious fundamentalism. (Obviously some religions are better than others. Buddhist fundamentalism isn't much a problem, but even Buddhists have been known to resort to violence for purely religious reasons.)
 
Regarding original sin, it's the sin nature, not the sin, they inherit and their own sins they'll be punished for. Your grand kids are sinful by nature, being descended from you.
 
... that's where I part ways with your religious beliefs. Most kids are not "sinful by nature" ... they have to be taught how to sin ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
Regarding original sin, it's the sin nature, not the sin, they inherit and their own sins they'll be punished for. Your grand kids are sinful by nature, being descended from you.

So, is this suggesting that sin was created by "the creator" who can punish it later?
 
... that's where I part ways with your religious beliefs. Most kids are not "sinful by nature" ... they have to be taught how to sin ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I'm not to sure Rich is explaining this properly... my understanding is that there is duality in man, before Eve ate the fruit and Adam followed man only knew how to do good and be good... being tricked by the devil they now know both good and evil. That is what is in everybody, the ability to do good and the ability to do evil... constantly fighting... a child is innocent by nature but as soon as they reach the age of reason that is when they begin to choose between good and evil, constantly striving to resist on or the other. People can become corrupted based on their experience and on the other hand they can be the greatest examples of all that is good.
 
Dfx, could you clarify your statement about religion making people do good things would be a short list? To start that list I'll mention the 26% of the world's health care that is run by the Catholic church. Or is that not what you meant? I don't mean to be snarky at all, it's an honest question because social welfare globally is by large run by religious organizations.
 

Back
Top Bottom