Religion: The Cornerstone of Human Society - Essay Sample

Introduction

Religion is the belief and worship of supernatural forces and beings. As broad as that definition seems, that is precisely how broad the subject is. There are many religions in the world, and new beliefs continue to emerge as human society continues to evolve. There are very few features of human society that are bigger than religion. Religion has played an essential role in shaping human society into what it is today. Faith is so ingrained in human culture that it is hard to imagine a world without religion. As a result, religion has been around for almost as long as human society. But while religious beliefs have always been around, the particular religions come and go. As a result, it is essential to understand how religions start through the two most popular religions in the world; Christianity and Islam. Lambrecht seeks to establish whether visionary experiences were "the basis and cause of faith in Jesus' resurrection and thus the impulse behind the emergence of Christianity" (35). Lambrecht traced Christianity's origins back to Christ's resurrection. Korotaev, Klimenko, and Proussakov trace the roots of Islam back to the 6th century AD (243). Korotaev et all attributes the rise of Islam to a series of political events within the Arabian Peninsula that created the ideal conditions for such a religion to emerge. Therefore, the two articles are similar in that they both divert away from the theological perspective and choose to focus on the political, sociological, and environmental factors that led to the rise of the respective religions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

LAMBRECHT's VIEW Lambrecht uses the writing of Paul and other apostles to trace the start of the Christian religion. After Christ's ascendance, there were a lot of disagreements among the formers disciples and apostles who were tasked with spreading the word of God. According to Lambrecht, one of these disagreements stemmed from the issue of the resurrection of the dead soon (36). Paul was always at odds with many Jews and Christians because he rejected that notion. Lambrecht argues for the idea that Christianity did not begin with "the discovery of the empty tomb" (51).

Lambrecht's point of view doesn't assume that the divine, God, is real. His argument is against portraying Christianity as a response to spiritual realities at the time. According to the author, Christianity is not a product of visionary experiences, but rather a continuation of the positive response which historical Jesus had inspired among his followers before his death (Lambrecht 53). The rise of Christianity was a response to Jesus' actions and not because of spiritual interventions, as is indicated in the bible.

Korotaev et al. View

Korotaev et al. use the politics of the region to trace the origin of the religion of Islam. These political events, specifically the destruction of most kingdoms and chiefdoms, led to the rise of

"anti-royal" freedom-loving tribal ethos" (Korotaev et al., 243). One of the theories that the author uses to argue their point is the dominant theory in Soviet Islamology. According to the soviet theory, the origins of Islam is connected to the "crisis and degeneration of clan tribal system in the 6th and 7th century Arabia" (Korotaev et al., 244). Early texts from before the 1st century indicate the existence of clan-tribal systems, which would later be replaced by Arabian Kingdoms in the 1st century. Most of the Arabian Peninsula was controlled by a few Arabian Kingdoms at the beginning of the 6th century. Texts at the beginning of the next century, which also happened to be the start of Muhammad's prophecy, indicate an almost complete disappearance of Arabian kingdoms.

According to Korotaev et al., there were almost no kings left in Arabia by the time the first of Muhammad's prophecies started to surface. But Korotaev et al., the analysis goes beyond the political hemisphere. Korotaev et al. also includes the elements of the physical environment, such as volcanic activity, global climate, and even tectonic activity. However, the author ties these natural calamities to the collapse of Arabian kingdoms, which in turn creates room for Islam to rise. Indeed, Muhammad was more than a prophet, as he held a political position too. He represented a super tribal authority, which was what the Arabs needed (Korotaev et al., 252). By the seventh century, a tribe that would recognize themselves as the subjects of some earthly king had the risk of losing their honour because of the actions of some Arabian kings. However, the same does not apply to a celestial king.

Similarities in Perspective

The primary similarity between the two articles is that they both attribute the rise of religion to human actions. Even though religion deals with the divine, the authors make sure to connect supernatural forces or divine intervention, to the start of religion. Lambrecht et al. directly disapprove of the theory of "visionary experiences" (52). Attributing the rise of Christianity to visionary experience would essentially have directed the path of the conversation towards divine intervention. But as Lambrecht puts it, "visionary experiences of Peter and

the other disciples were not Signals from outside human reality" (35). It is important to understand that Lambrecht is not questioning the existence of God, but rather the theory for the rise of Christianity. He sets out to disapprove of another theory that tries to explain the origins and uses visionary experience to explain it.

Just like Lambrecht, Korotaev et al., perspective is devoid of divine intervention. Rather than use the theological perspective, Korotaev et al. look at the correct events that were taking place at the time. The political and physical environment events in particular. According to Korotaev et al., there were human actions that not only motivated but also created the perfect conditions for Islam to emerge. These human actions included the frequent wars between clan-tribal systems and Arabian kingdoms.

Also, just like Lambretch, Korotaev et al. don't try to approve or disapprove the existence of the divine. Neither does he try to disapprove of the legitimacy of Muhammad's prophecies. Instead, they concentrate on the non-supernatural events that led to the rise of Islam religion. The perspective of the authors indicates that religions start as a result of "human" actions or are instigated by human actions. Never the less, there are certain differences in the views exhibited in the two articles.

Differences in Perspective

Lambrecht's viewpoint differs from that of his counterparts because he sees Christianity from a single event or action of a single person. At the same time, Korotaev et al. looks at the origin of Islam from multiple angles. The inspiration that Jesus provided to his followers is responsible for creating Christianity (Lambrecht 49). It is a rather simple viewpoint that focuses on the most important person in Christianity. As for Korotaev et al., they move the focus away from a single person or event and instead look at the subject as a series of events that involve both human and non-human elements. It is important to note that non-human doesn't necessarily refer to divine or supernatural forces. As a result, Korotaev et al., the view is rather complex because of the number of people and factors involved. Therefore, Lambrecht adopts a narrow view of the topic, while Korotaev takes a broader approach.

Also, Lambretcht's approach is one that is set to disapprove another angle or approach to the topic. The approach uses visionary experiences to explain the origins of Christianity. Korotaev et al. aren't interested in disapproving of any other theory. Their approach is to show the origins of Islam from a political and environmental perspective.

Conclusion

The arguments made in the two articles have certain features that enhance their attributes while also suffer from certain flaws, which makes them vulnerable to dispute. The article by Lambrecht's main strength is that it uses one of the arguments raised by the proponents of "visionary experiences" to support its argument. The positive response that Jesus inspired among his followers is something that even the proponents of "visionary experience" agree with. As a result, they cannot discredit the theory without discrediting their theory. As for the article by Korotaev et al., its main strength is the use of historically accurate and verifiable events. As a result, Korotaev et al. don't need to argue on whether there were volcanic eruptions at the time. These are verifiable events that were documented.

On the downside, the two articles suffer from the main problem that plagues other theories related to religion. They don't disapprove of the presence of divine intervention because there is no scientific way to verify it. It is not possible to discuss the origins of religion without crediting or discrediting the legitimacy of the divine, because any conclusion reached is dependent on the answer to the existence of the divine. I think the start of every religion can be explained from a human standpoint, where a series of human actions led to the rise of the religion. However, it is necessary to explain the existence of the divine to reach an overall conclusion on the subject. One can't discuss the origins of Christianity without acknowledging or discrediting the legitimacy of Jesus. On the other hand, it is self-redundant to discuss the origins of Islam without acknowledging or discrediting the legitimacy of Muhammad's prophecies.

Works Cited

Korotaev, Andrey, Vladimir Klimenko, and Dmitry Proussakov. "Origins of Islam: political-anthropological and environmental context." Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (1999): 243-276.

Lambrecht Jan. Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift J. Lambrecht. Vol. 165. Peeters Publishers, 2002.