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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Here's the test for me:

- can you have a religion without scriptures?
- can you have a religion without adherents?

From my point of view, the answer is rather obvious.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that's the definition of "religion." I've never seen a definition of religion that said "a group of believers." It's usually defined as a system or set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the Universe as well as codes of ethics and conduct.

A religion is a community of shared beliefs. This implies a group of believers in two ways: first to form the community, and second to share the beliefs.

 

[McBell]

But that's the definition of "religion." I've never seen a definition of religion that said "a group of believers." It's usually defined as a system or set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the Universe as well as codes of ethics and conduct.


.

Where did you get get that definition?

 

[McBell]

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

You do realize that those sects are redefinitions of Christianity by the "new" founders?

I'm saying that followers can't define the doctrines that the founder of their religion laid out..

Are you serious?
What exactly did Calvin do?
What exactly did Luther do?
Answer:

They redefined , let me say it again, REDEFINED, Christianity.
​

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

In both cases, it comes to adherents to pick and choose among diverging beliefs on their own merits. If it turns out that one of the actual founders diverges from his own followers, then so be it, the choice shall still be made in much the same way; the naming can get tricky, but that is it.

I happen to firmly believe that it is not only possible, but indeed necessary for followers to improve on the Dharma they receive. Even and perhaps even more so in non-Dharmic religions such as Christianity.

 

[Engyo]

The Buddha himself said: "I shall not pass into the final Nirvana, O Evil One,
until there be not only brethren and sisters of an Order,
but also lay-disciples of both sexes,
who shall have become true hearers, wise, well-trained, ready and learned,
versed in the scriptures, fulfilling all the greater and lesser duties,
correct in life, walking according to the precepts -
until they, having thus themselves learned the doctrine,
shall be able to give information to others concerning it, preach it, make it known, establish it, open it, minutely explain it, and make it clear-until they, when others start vain doctrines, shall be able to vanquish and refute them, and so to spread the wonderworking truth abroad. I shall not die until the pure religion of truth shall have become successful, prosperous, widespread, and popular in all its full extent-until, in a word, it shall have been well proclaimed among men!" [Mahaparinibanna Sutta]


There you have it, straight from the Exalted One!


.

Remember, that these are not directly "straight from the Exalted One"; but rather originally recorded in Ananda's memory ("Thus I heard") and then passed down through oral tradition for some length of time before being written down. The amount of potential changes between the Tathagatha's spoken words and what we currently know as the oldest written copies remains a matter of opinion at this point.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Seeing that every generation, and, in fact, every new individual, will perceive and interpret a set of beliefs differently that those who came before, there are no fixed, static sets of beliefs to begin with. However simply and objectively written something seems to be, people will invariably interpret them differently in the context of their own lives, time, culture, history, environment, etc. This being the case, the only current measure of what a religion is, is what a group of adherents claim it to be, and the actions they take because of it.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

That assumption is incorrect though. We know that Jesus wasn't the actual founder (even though the religion is built up around him). We know that much of the scriptures represent the teachings of Paul as well as others. So I think that really has to be taken in.

Christianity, we know, was defined by the followers. Over time, we have seen it redefined over and over again. What Jesus was teaching, which was in the confines of Judaism, is very different from what the followers of Christianity teach/follow.

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.

Christianity existed prior to the canonization of the Bible. We are aware that other sects of Christianity had their own canons. Even after the Bible was canonized, we still see differences. Various sects today even have different books in their canons.

We have even seen, in relatively modern times, different leaders trying to add or subtract from the Bible. Martin Luther attempted to remove various books out of the New Testament.

It wasn't until relatively recently, the late 1600's, that the Greek Orthodox closed their canon. Between the 1500's and 1600's, we finally see various canons being closed, such as the Roman Catholics.

The canonization of the Bible is a very complicated issue. It started around 140 C.E. and lasted over a thousand years. And even after that, we still see new interpretations of what the scriptures supposedly say. So I do think that it is relevant.

Appeal to consequences fallacy.

I don't believe it is. Especially since we are seeing new interpretations of what the Bible says. That is evidence that the religion is being defined by the followers. The founder/s are long dead, so they can't redefine what the religion is or reinterpret what they once said. Since we are seeing this going on, the logical conclusion is that the followers are defining what the religion is.

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


.

It's an incorrect assumption though. And even if we assume that what the Gospels states Jesus said to be accurate, they do not cover even a majority of the beliefs of Christians. We still have the writings of Paul, and the other epistle writers. Really, Paul gives us much more information about the beliefs of Christians than Jesus ever did. So even from the beginning, we see the followers defining the religion.

 

[fallingblood]

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

I can't speak for Calvinism, but I know that for Lutheranism, it really isn't based on the ideas of Martin Luther. What Lutheranism teaches and what Martin Luther taught differ quite greatly.

Also, most sects aren't named after a founder. Catholicism, Greek Orthodox (or the other Orthodox sects), Baptists, Pentecostal, etc. There are only a handful of denominations that take on the name of the founder.

 

[Arav]

Religion should be defined by its Founder, but somewhere along the lines in a few religions the Followers mess with it. Thats not true of all religions, or even the whole of any particular religion, but only parts.

 

[Storm]

So, who defines religions whose founders have been lost to time, or religions that have no scripture?

 

[Arav]

So, who defines religions whose founders have been lost to time, or religions that have no scripture?

Then the religion should go by the info they have or the Religion will naturally die on its own.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.)


.

Obviously the founder defines a religion and scriptures, yet its adherents and followers can refine it and at times re-defines over the passage of time to where a founder is symbolic. -NM-

 

[Cypress]

Founder & Scriptures define the theory (how it should be), followers the practice (how it is in everyday life).

 

[Storm]

Founder & Scriptures define the theory (how it should be), followers the practice (how it is in everyday life).

Well said.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

I would say this. Religion is founded by its Founder and scripture and is defined by its members.