Can Religion Do No Wrong?

[Rolling_Stone]

I hope you don't mind a couple of quotes from The URANTIA Book that I think may be appropriate here:

Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct. Evil is a transgression of law, not a violation of the rules of conduct pertaining to life, which is the law. Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth. The creation of new pictures out of old facts, the restatement of parental life in the lives of offspring--these are the artistic triumphs of truth. The shadow of a hair's turning, premeditated for an untrue purpose, the slightest twisting or perversion of that which is principle--these constitute falseness. But the fetish of factualized truth, fossilized truth, the iron band of so-called unchanging truth, holds one blindly in a closed circle of cold fact. One can be technically right as to fact and everlastingly wrong in the truth.

and

In olden times the fetish word of authority was a fear-inspiring doctrine, the most terrible of all tyrants which enslave men. A doctrinal fetish will lead mortal man to betray himself into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism, superstition, intolerance, and the most atrocious of barbarous cruelties. Modern respect for wisdom and truth is but the recent escape from the fetish-making tendency up to the higher levels of thinking and reasoning. Concerning the accumulated fetish writings which various religionists hold as sacred books, it is not only believed that what is in the book is true, but also that every truth is contained in the book. If one of these sacred books happens to speak of the earth as being flat, then, for long generations, otherwise sane men and women will refuse to accept positive evidence that the planet is round.

 

[Revasser]

I agree that we should not really judge a purely intellectual idealogy (religious or not) by the actions of its adherents. Ideas must be judged on their merits and people by how they take that idea and use it.

But when speaking of religion, what about those where the "religion" is not simply the ideas? Using for example, Roman Catholicism, (as I understand it. Victor et al, please correct me if I'm wrong) it is not a religion made up ideas that can be disconnected from the institution. You can roughly follow the teachings and tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, but you are not "a Catholic" if you are completely uninvolved with the Church (ie. not baptised and confirmed). The institution is an integral part of the religion and you cannot really separate the two. So are we still to judge the ideas of the religion separately from the institution of the Church even when, idealogically speaking, there isn't a distinction between the two?

 

[lilithu]

If a peaceful and generous person is following a religion that condones and promotes violence, I see nothing wrong with pointing out to them that the religion they are following is at odds with their nature.

If you'll remember my first post, we are dealing with a religion that condones/promotes violence in some parts of its scripture and condones/promotes peace in other parts.

So many people believe that Christianity condones/promotes violence. And indeed it has spawned a lot of violence. Yet would you have pointed out to Mother Teresa that her religion is at odds with her nature?

That's misleading. I have not advocated violating anyone's conscience unless you take recommending a different religion to someone to be a violation of their conscience.

In general, I do. It's true that you aren't forcing anyone to convert, but when people tell me that I should** accept Christ, it feels like an imposition on my conscience, even tho there is no force, and I'm sure they think they know what's best for me. (**which is very different from someone asking if I've heard about Christ)

If someone is peacefully and generously practicing their religion, on what grounds do you tell them to believe something else?

 

[Sunstone]

If you'll remember my first post, we are dealing with a religion that condones/promotes violence in some parts of its scripture and condones/promotes peace in other parts.

So many people believe that Christianity condones/promotes violence. And indeed it has spawned a lot of violence. Yet would you have pointed out to Mother Teresa that her religion is at odds with her nature?

Allow me to start with a meaningless qubble. I don't think Mother Teresa was anywhere near to being a saint, contrary to everyone else in this world. Now, that I've gotten that off my chest, I'm willing to pretend that she was a perfectly pacific saint for the sake of the argument you're making.

Yes, I would have pointed out to Mother Teresa that her religion is at odds with her nature (assuming her nature is as you yourself believe it to be).

In general, I do. It's true that you aren't forcing anyone to convert, but when people tell me that I should** accept Christ, it feels like an imposition on my conscience, even tho there is no force, and I'm sure they think they know what's best for me. (**which is very different from someone asking if I've heard about Christ)

Well, my loose use of language is misleading you here. I wouldn't go out on a street corner and preach to strangers about what religion they should adopt. But if someone came to me, told me about their religion and about themselves, and I felt I knew both well enough to make a call, I would tell them my opinion that their religion was not the best fit for them.

If someone is peacefully and generously practicing their religion, on what grounds do you tell them to believe something else?

Heavens, Dear! I would tell them on the same grounds that I would tell someone who wanted to loose weight, but was eating ice cream, that ice cream was fattening. I would tell them on the same grounds that I would tell someone who wanted to have a shoe that fit them, but was wearing a size too big for them, that their shoe didn't fit.

 

[Comprehend]

Heavens, Dear! I would tell them on the same grounds that I would tell someone who wanted to loose weight, but was eating ice cream, that ice cream was fattening. I would tell them on the same grounds that I would tell someone who wanted to have a shoe that fit them, but was wearing a size too big for them, that their shoe didn't fit.

LOL. I almost woke up the children laughing....

BLAST! and I'm out of frubals!

 

[PureX]

I agree that we should not really judge a purely intellectual ideology (religious or not) by the actions of its adherents. Ideas must be judged on their merits and people by how they take that idea and use it.

But when speaking of religion, what about those where the "religion" is not simply the ideas? Using for example, Roman Catholicism, (as I understand it. Victor et al, please correct me if I'm wrong) it is not a religion made up ideas that can be disconnected from the institution. You can roughly follow the teachings and tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, but you are not "a Catholic" if you are completely uninvolved with the Church (ie. not baptized and confirmed). The institution is an integral part of the religion and you cannot really separate the two. So are we still to judge the ideas of the religion separately from the institution of the Church even when, ideologically speaking, there isn't a distinction between the two?

You make a very important point. Religion is more than ideology. It's the way people practice their theological ideology. The ideology may not specifically promote prejudice or hate, but often times the religious traditions, tenets, and practice of that ideology does. And in that sense, religion is very much responsible for the behavior of it's adherents. A great deal of prejudice and hate has come directly from the pulpits of churches, mosques, and synagogues.

 

[Scuba Pete]

SOMETIMES religion is more than an ideology. There are pleny of people who through laziness or indifference only give their religion lip service. Often people in their zeal exceed the limits of a religion.

Like any thread here on RF, just look at the OP. What are THEY like. Who is the founder of the religion. Were they violent? Do their adherents seem to match the master's walk?

 

[Quiddity]

I agree that we should not really judge a purely intellectual idealogy (religious or not) by the actions of its adherents. Ideas must be judged on their merits and people by how they take that idea and use it.

But when speaking of religion, what about those where the "religion" is not simply the ideas? Using for example, Roman Catholicism, (as I understand it. Victor et al, please correct me if I'm wrong) it is not a religion made up ideas that can be disconnected from the institution. You can roughly follow the teachings and tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, but you are not "a Catholic" if you are completely uninvolved with the Church (ie. not baptised and confirmed). The institution is an integral part of the religion and you cannot really separate the two. So are we still to judge the ideas of the religion separately from the institution of the Church even when, idealogically speaking, there isn't a distinction between the two?

The distinction is still there. The institution is a system designed as a filter of dogma and a guide toward purity. One is protected from error and the other is not. Although actions are an integral part of our faith, the Church can’t guarantee it will produce good results in all its members, irregardless of their position in the Church. How could they? Dogma on the other hand is protected from error and the Church is designed to have everything thrown at her (politics, corruption, social pressures. etc.) with consistent truth flowing from her.

Let me know if that answered your question.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'd add to this there is the possibility that a religious teaching that was beneficial in the past might be harmful today.

Well said!! :yes:

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

I would say that religion AS REVEALED can do no wrong!

But unfortunately, human meddling often distorts and screws up religion so that the result both can and does indeed do wrong--sometimes, plenty of it!

Seems to be a regrettable habit of ours . . .

Peace,

Bruce

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings!
I would say that religion AS REVEALED can do no wrong!

But unfortunately, human meddling often distorts and screws up religion so that the result both can and does indeed do wrong--sometimes, plenty of it!
Seems to be a regrettable habit of ours . . .

Peace,
Bruce

Greetings Bruce. My thoughts are in agreement with your post, thanks. I guess one can respond to the OP only from one's own perspective on religion. And, in my view the heart, source and goal of religion is the same - union/reunion with God. That union results in one with all, also, and is only good - love - and 'can do no wrong.' Humans manifest the differences, perterbations, and perversions, some of which cause problems for humans.

 

[Ozzie]

Harm from wrong is strictly a consequences of human action. Religion is an idea. Any religion that promotes harm from wrong as a consequence of human action is clearly "doing wrong". Otherwise it is in the clear.

 

[Random]

I don't think the question applies to negative actions @ all. Human beings impute their belief systems with their own prejudices: but can only persist in believing if they deny the truth of the matter that contradicts them.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not so sure religion can do no wrong. The Biblical injunctions against homosexuality have caused, at the very least, a great deal of callousness towards homosexuals and a marked tendency to devalue their rights as humans. Isn't that a wrong that can be laid at religion's door? What do you think?

 

[Ozzie]

I'm not so sure religion can do no wrong. The Biblical injunctions against homosexuality have caused, at the very least, a great deal of callousness towards homosexuals and a marked tendency to devalue their rights as humans. Isn't that a wrong that can be laid at religion's door? What do you think?

Clearly proscription of homosexuality is well laid at certain religious doors. More worthwhile to think of this as religion in context particularly nowdays. Continue the struggle, the bigots are thinning in numbers.

 

[Revasser]

If religion can do no wrong, can then religion also do no right?

If one cannot lay blame for the negative things adherents do at the feet of the religion itself, then also any positive adherents do must also be divorced from the religion, yes? Is a religion, therefore, necessarily a completely neutral entity?

There are many people who will extol the virtues of their religion and push credit onto it for whatever good its followers do, but these same often seem to be very quick to tell us to look to the followers as individuals and not to the religion itself when it comes to aportioning blame for the bad. Am I the only one who has noticed that inconsistency?

 

[Ozzie]

If religion can do no wrong, can then religion also do no right?

If one cannot lay blame for the negative things adherents do at the feet of the religion itself, then also any positive adherents do must also be divorced from the religion, yes? Is a religion, therefore, necessarily a completely neutral entity?

There are many people who will extol the virtues of their religion and push credit onto it for whatever good its followers do, but these same often seem to be very quick to tell us to look to the followers as individuals and not to the religion itself when it comes to aportioning blame for the bad. Am I the only one who has noticed that inconsistency?

Religion is an idea. Good and bad judgment of human and natural occurences might be linked to religion, maybe not. Religion is a heuristic device utilised by some to interpret such events. Someone having a God centred view of reality will naturally interprete events as they unfold in heuristic fashion to conform. Negative interpretations that may conflict will necessarily be less likely to attract religious attention.

 

[Sunstone]

If religion can do no wrong, can then religion also do no right?

If one cannot lay blame for the negative things adherents do at the feet of the religion itself, then also any positive adherents do must also be divorced from the religion, yes? Is a religion, therefore, necessarily a completely neutral entity?

There are many people who will extol the virtues of their religion and push credit onto it for whatever good its followers do, but these same often seem to be very quick to tell us to look to the followers as individuals and not to the religion itself when it comes to aportioning blame for the bad. Am I the only one who has noticed that inconsistency?

You're not the only one who's noticed that inconsistency. One sees it all the time --- or at least hears it all the time --- on bimbo talk shows here in the States. A bimbo talk show host will easily say, as if it were the proven truth, that religion has been responsible for all the good that's come to America --- and in the next breath discount any evil coming of religion as the work of individuals who did not follow their professed faith.

 

[YmirGF]

You're not the only one who's noticed that inconsistency. One sees it all the time --- or at least hears it all the time --- on bimbo talk shows here in the States. A bimbo talk show host will easily say, as if it were the proven truth, that religion has been responsible for all the good that's come to America --- and in the next breath discount any evil coming of religion as the work of individuals who did not follow their professed faith.

I see it as a self-fulfilling fantasy Phil. Heck the Republicans do it to, but in a slightly different way. There is always a fall guy who didn't follow policy. I dunno, for everything religion has got right, there are at least an equal number of things religion has got wrong.

 

[Baerly]

It seems to me that everytime a religion gets criticized for promoting some wrong in the world, many of us (myself included, often enough) jump to defend the religion by pointing out that "It's not the religion that has caused the evil, but rather evil people hiding behind the religion who have caused the evil." But is this always true? Can a religion do no wrong?

Under what circumstances, if any, do we blame a religion for a wrong, and not just the followers of the religion?

If religion X said in it's teachings, "Pick the wings off flys whenever ye shall catch them.", and if many or most of the followers of religion X did just that, would we not hold religion X responsible for promoting cruelity to flys?

But what if religion X didn't actually tell anyone to do any particular thing about flys, but merely said something along the lines of "Flys are an abomination unto the Lord". Could we still hold religion X responsible for promoting cruelity to flys if many or most of its followers interpreted that passage to mean they should treat flys cruelly?

You have made a very good point. The problem is that to prove a particular religion WRONG,there must first be (A) STANDARD. When there is an absolute standard,then we can tell who is straying from that standard. It is sad but most seem to think there is no such standard. I strongly disagree.

Our Lord gave us a standard and it is the bible (John 12:48).

Jesus was the only person who lived upon this earth who actually claimed to BE TRUTH (John 14:6).

His words were recorded in a book called the bible (John 14:26 ;16:13) (Jude3) (2Peter 1:3).

If we do what is asked of us in the bible we will never fall (2Peter 1:5-10).

in love Baerly