Is a Religion Defined By It's Founder and Scriptures Or By It's Followers?

[Tathagata]

ReligiousTolerance defines religion as: "Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview." (Notice it says "belief about deity" not "belief in deity." Basically, any belief either affirming or denying the existence of God or gods.)

And Dictionary.com defines it as: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."

Scripture is defined as: "Scripture is that portion of literature deemed authoritative for establishing instructions within any of a number of specific religious traditions. ...They are often associated with the belief that they were either given directly, or otherwise inspired, by God, or associated with other kinds of direct access to absolute truth." -- Wikipedia

So, do you think the founder and the scriptures define the religion or do it's adherents define it?

(*Assuming that the scripture contains the words of the founder.)


.

 

[Mister Emu]

Both...

 

[Luminous]

Both...

I agree...but mostly the followers.

 

[Skwim]

Both.

L. Ron Hubbard defined the religion he founded, Scientology.

Christianity, founded by ancient Jews, has been defined, redefined, re-redefined, re-re-redefined, re-re-re-redefined, etc, etc, by its followers.

 

[McBell]

I have to say it is the followers who define the religion.
Just look at say Christianity.
I mean, it only has over 38,000 sects...

 

[ChristineES]

Both.

 

[Tathagata]

To those who said "followers."

If Jesus explained Christianity and then his 12 disciples turned around and explained it differently, who's explanation of Christianity are you going to take? Jesus CHRIST's explanation of CHRISTianity or his 12 disciples?

Likewise for Siddhartha Gautama. If he explained the Buddhadharma and later down the line, his followers explain it differently, who's explanation holds more weight? BUDDHA's explanation of BUDDHAdharma or his disciples?


.

 

[McBell]

To those who said "followers."

If Jesus explained Christianity and then his 12 disciples turned around and explained it differently, who's explanation of Christianity are you going to take? Jesus CHRIST's explanation of CHRISTianity or his 12 disciples?

Likewise for Siddhartha Gautama. If he explained the Buddhadharma and later down the line, his followers explain it differently, who's explanation holds more weight? BUDDHA's explanation of BUDDHAdharma or his disciples?


.

If it is the founder that defines the religion, why are there over 38,000 sects of Christianity?

PLease tell me that you are not going to go for a No True Scotsman.

 

[fallingblood]

In many cases, we are not sure about who the founder of a particular religion is. Hinduism and Judaism are very good examples of these. If we look at Christianity, the religion may be based around Jesus, but he wasn't the actual founder.

Looking at scriptures, they are redefined, or reinterpreted from time to time. Even what is considered scripture, or what isn't considered scripture is debated from time to time. Christianity is a very good example of this, as we know that there were various other texts that were considered scripture at one point or another.

Taking those two points into consideration, I have to say that the followers define the religion in most cases. As time goes on, a religion must evolve as society is evolving. If it doesn't, the most likely outcome is failure. So since it is evolving, and we are seeing more interpretations of what scriptures mean, I think it has to be concluded that followers define the religion.

If Jesus explained Christianity and then his 12 disciples turned around and explained it differently, who's explanation of Christianity are you going to take? Jesus CHRIST's explanation of CHRISTianity or his 12 disciples?

I think we would have to take the disciples explanation. Partly, this is because the two versions often get mixed up so one is hard to differentiate from the other. That, and we end up seeing faults in what Jesus taught, and thus revisions have to be made. For Christianity, we see reinterpretations of what Jesus said happen very early on in the religious movement.

 

[Luminous]

To those who said "followers."

If Jesus explained Christianity and then his 12 disciples turned around and explained it differently, who's explanation of Christianity are you going to take? Jesus CHRIST's explanation of CHRISTianity or his 12 disciples?

Likewise for Siddhartha Gautama. If he explained the Buddhadharma and later down the line, his followers explain it differently, who's explanation holds more weight? BUDDHA's explanation of BUDDHAdharma or his disciples?


.

It is clear and present in my view that it is currently the followers who are calling themselfs Christian and followers of the CHRISTianity, as well as the followers calling themselfs Buddhists and follwers of the BUDDHAdharma. Since such things are only titles...than it is obvious that the followers define the religion that was once defined by the creator, being as the original patenter of the title didn't do a very good job of defining and maintaining.

 

[Skwim]

To those who said "followers."

If Jesus explained Christianity and then his 12 disciples turned around and explained it differently, who's explanation of Christianity are you going to take? Jesus CHRIST's explanation of CHRISTianity or his 12 disciples?

.

Jesus just did and said some stuff, which others took to form a religion around him. It's followers created creeds such as the Nicene and Apostle's creeds, which established proper beliefs. They set forth customs like baptism and confession of sins. And they prescribed various rules of behavior and customs of worship. All of these go into defining the religion Christianity, but were not set forth by Jesus.

 

[darkendless]

Followers represent their religion so they are the ones that define it.

It sickens me how its all too easy for religions to isolate people who draw negative attention to them instead of tackling the issues.

 

[Tathagata]

If it is the founder that defines the religion, why are there over 38,000 sects of Christianity?

You do realize that those sects are many times named after the founder? lol. Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc.

PLease tell me that you are not going to go for a No True Scotsman.

No, this is not a No True Scotsman fallacy. I'm not saying that followers aren't true followers of their faith, I'm saying that followers can't define the doctrines that the founder of their religion laid out.


.

 

[darkendless]

Take away followers and religion cease to exist.

 

[Tathagata]

In many cases, we are not sure about who the founder of a particular religion is. Hinduism and Judaism are very good examples of these. If we look at Christianity, the religion may be based around Jesus, but he wasn't the actual founder.

This is besides the point. My original post is under the assumption that Jesus is the actual founder of Christianity and that the scriptures accurately represent his teachings.

Looking at scriptures, they are redefined, or reinterpreted from time to time. Even what is considered scripture, or what isn't considered scripture is debated from time to time. Christianity is a very good example of this, as we know that there were various other texts that were considered scripture at one point or another.

I don't think the Bible has been changed since its canonization except for being reinterpreted several times. Though, I will concede that during it's canonization, many things were altered, changed, and left out, however, this is irrelevant because the canonized Bible is the foundation of Christianity.

Taking those two points into consideration, I have to say that the followers define the religion in most cases. As time goes on, a religion must evolve as society is evolving. If it doesn't, the most likely outcome is failure. So since it is evolving, and we are seeing more interpretations of what scriptures mean, I think it has to be concluded that followers define the religion.

Appeal to consequences fallacy.

I think we would have to take the disciples explanation. Partly, this is because the two versions often get mixed up so one is hard to differentiate from the other. That, and we end up seeing faults in what Jesus taught, and thus revisions have to be made. For Christianity, we see reinterpretations of what Jesus said happen very early on in the religious movement.

Again, assuming that Jesus' words were clear and are marked in scripture (which most Christians hold to be inerrant, infallible).


.

 

[Tathagata]

Take away followers and religion cease to exist.

Ok, let's take all of Nietzsche's admirers away, does the philosophy of Nietzsche no longer exist??

How about Ayn Rand's Objectivism? Take away all the Objectivists, does that mean Rand's Objectivism no longer exists?



.

 

[Luminous]

Ok, let's take all of Nietzsche's admirers away, does the philosophy of Nietzsche no longer exist??

How about Ayn Rand's Objectivism? Take away all the Objectivists, does that mean Rand's Objectivism no longer exists?



.

That means its no longer a religion...

 

[Tathagata]

That means its no longer a religion...

A religion is a set of beliefs. Just because people cease to believe them, doesn't mean the set of beliefs disappear.


.

 

[darkendless]

A religion is a set of beliefs. Just because people cease to believe them, doesn't mean the set of beliefs disappear.


.

What good are beliefs i no one believes them?

 

[blackout]

Ok, let's take all of Nietzsche's admirers away, does the philosophy of Nietzsche no longer exist??

How about Ayn Rand's Objectivism? Take away all the Objectivists, does that mean Rand's Objectivism no longer exists?



.

But Nietzsche's "Religion" is Nietzsche,
and Ayn Rand's Objectivism
belongs to Ayn Rand.
ie... UltraViolet's Objectivism
would be... UltraViolet's Objectivism.
(not Ayn Rand's)