Judging a Religion

[Rival]

Note to peuple: I don't always 'like' posts because I agree with them lol. A lot of time time it's because I thought the argument was well thought and worth pondering, whether I agree or not.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I judge a scripture or tenents by my interpretation of that book/doctrine. I judge a person's religion by THEIR interpretation of its tenants or scripture. I think there's a critical difference. Judging someone's religion by my interpretation of their doctrine is, imo, putting words in their mouth. I'd rather take the time to learn their view then judge it accordingly then put my own generalization on the term.

 

[ThorirTheHound]

This seems to be big business on RF. How do judge??

In my opinion, a religion (mainly speaking for the 'big' ones here) should be judged by its scriptural teachings, not its adherents, for instance:

If religion A commands violence towards religion B, but none of religion A's followers commit this violence, religion A is still a religion of violence.

Conversely, if religion B commands passivity and tolerance, but all its adherents commit crimes, it is still a religion of peace.

I would just say the followers aren't doing the religion correctly.

Blah blah, your turn.

I agree.

Every single abrahamic religion needs to be done away with and looked at as a history lesson.

People should embrace pagan ideals and practices of natural philosophy and the occult, Satanism (as a scrubber to erase the disgusting abrahamic teachings from your mind) , luciferianism, witchcraft, evolutionary studies, astronomy etc...

 

[paarsurrey]

This seems to be big business on RF. How do judge??
In my opinion, a religion (mainly speaking for the 'big' ones here) should be judged by its scriptural teachings, not its adherents, for instance:
If religion A commands violence towards religion B, but none of religion A's followers commit this violence, religion A is still a religion of violence.
Conversely, if religion B commands passivity and tolerance, but all its adherents commit crimes, it is still a religion of peace.
I would just say the followers aren't doing the religion correctly.
Blah blah, your turn.

I agree with this also. Please
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

Vanakkam,

I don't.

Aum Namah Shivaya

Not religions, but I admit to judging people from their actions. I want to know if I'm being cheated, whether or not a person is reliable to help out, whether they are a net giver or a net taker, whether or not they have a sense of humour, can do small talk, etc. It matters because to me because I get to decide who I associate with. If some guy is a known adulterer, thief, proselytizer, do I want to hang out with him?

 

[Rival]

I agree.

Every single abrahamic religion needs to be done away with and looked at as a history lesson.

People should embrace pagan ideals and practices of natural philosophy and the occult, Satanism (as a scrubber to erase the disgusting abrahamic teachings from your mind) , luciferianism, witchcraft, evolutionary studies, astronomy etc...

Look, if you are just here to bash Abrahamic religions then you will not be here long. Most of the Pagans and Abrahamics on here get along just fine, and you are doing your fellow Pagans a disservice by showing them up in a such a bad light. You don't like my religion, I understand, that's up to you; but spouting on and on about it is not going to make it go away. Maybe go talk with your fellow Pagans in the Paganism DIR or start a blog. Your hatred is unwelcome here.

And just as an aside, I have also been a Luciferian, Norse Pagan, Zoroastrian and Atheist. I think about these things a lot and do a lot of research, so yes I have experience of those other faiths too.

Your faith is on the rise, you're happy about that, good for you. You know what? I like Norse Paganism a lot too; I have a special connexion with Tyr as I was born on Tyr's day; I live in England and this is the faith of my ancestors and I don't like to see it bashed - but nor do I like to see it proclaimed by people like you who seem to want to use it as a vehicle for hatred.

Edit: Also, evolutionary studies? Lol, evolution is taught at school. It's not a problem in the UK.

 

[buddhist]

No, I'd just judge that person's religion with the inclusion of what 1 Esdras says. This is the problem with judging by adherents - they may espouse different views, but what does the religion as a whole say about itself? In this instance if I were judging Christianity I'd judge using the deuterocanon as well. I'd also look at what the official canon is and judge by that. So say if 4 Machabees wasn't in any canon I'd not use it.

"Itself"? What is "official", or the "whole"?

What may be "official" for you may not be "official" for me. E.g. The Eastern Orthodox church might be the "official" definer of "Christianity" for you, but perhaps Protestantism might be more "official" for me.

 

[Talmai]

In my opinion, a religion (mainly speaking for the 'big' ones here) should be judged by its scriptural teachings, not its adherents, for instance:

If religion A commands violence towards religion B, but none of religion A's followers commit this violence, religion A is still a religion of violence.

Conversely, if religion B commands passivity and tolerance, but all its adherents commit crimes, it is still a religion of peace.

I would just say the followers aren't doing the religion correctly.

I judge a religion according to the orthodox interpretation of its own scriptures and its prescribed rites. It can be either a world religion or a very new religion. However, if it has no orthodoxy (as is the case with contemporary Pagan ones) or is an offshoot of another religion, I would judge it according to other things such as reason, my conscience, my beliefs, or its fruits.

 

[ThorirTheHound]

Look, if you are just here to bash Abrahamic religions then you will not be here long. Most of the Pagans and Abrahamics on here get along just fine, and you are doing your fellow Pagans a disservice by showing them up in a such a bad light. You don't like my religion, I understand, that's up to you; but spouting on and on about it is not going to make it go away. Maybe go talk with your fellow Pagans in the Paganism DIR or start a blog. Your hatred is unwelcome here.

And just as an aside, I have also been a Luciferian, Norse Pagan, Zoroastrian and Atheist. I think about these things a lot and do a lot of research, so yes I have experience of those other faiths too.

Your faith is on the rise, you're happy about that, good for you. You know what? I like Norse Paganism a lot too; I have a special connexion with Tyr as I was born on Tyr's day; I live in England and this is the faith of my ancestors and I don't like to see it bashed - but nor do I like to see it proclaimed by people like you who seem to want to use it as a vehicle for hatred.

Edit: Also, evolutionary studies? Lol, evolution is taught in school. It's not a problem in the UK.

I didn't mean to come off as hateful. I just believe that these religions are dangerous and should be looked at as a history lesson.. They've gotten less dominating since the inquisitions but that's because society has gotten more civilized and the only way for the religions of Abraham to survive are to adapt to social norms.

Just trying to have an open discussion, I am a very blunt person and can come off as rude and I apologize for being so brash with my words.

 

[Rival]

"Itself"? What is "official", or the "whole"?

What may be "official" for you may not be "official" for me. E.g. The Eastern Orthodox church might be the "official" definer of "Christianity" for you, but perhaps Protestantism might be more "official" for me.

I would judge the 3 as separate entities. If we were talking broadly of 'Christianity' I would take the New Testament, which is the same for all. Official here is what the Church decided. Long ago the Church decided upon dogmas it would follow, I would base my judgement on these dogmas. The text is 'itself' of course, why go so deep? This is simple. The Gospel of Mark speaks for itself, as does 1 John and so on. The Church has commentary on these (Church Fathers) so I would judge by the Fathers' writings too.

 

[buddhist]

I would judge the 3 as separate entities. If we were talking broadly of 'Christianity' I would take the New Testament, which is the same for all. Official here is what the Church decided. Long ago the Church decided upon dogmas it would follow, I would base my judgement on these dogmas. The text is 'itself' of course, why go so deep? This is simple. The Gospel of Mark speaks for itself, as does 1 John and so on. The Church has commentary on these (Church Fathers) so I would judge by the Fathers' writings too.

That's fine, and I respect the fact that you define "Christianity" as the New Testament + Church Fathers + etc. as you indicated.

What if I define "Christianity" more broadly, to include the Gnostics, Essenes, and their texts and adherents?

Your definition is correct - for you. My definition is correct - for me.

 

[Talmai]

People should embrace pagan ideals and practices of natural philosophy and the occult, Satanism (as a scrubber to erase the disgusting abrahamic teachings from your mind) , luciferianism, witchcraft, evolutionary studies, astronomy etc...

Stating that "people should embrace" certain religious ideals and practices just doesn't sound right. What if Pagan ideals go against somebody's conscience?

I just believe that these religions are dangerous and should be looked at as a history lesson..

Isn't Satanism a dangerous religion? With all the indulgence, vengeance, cursings, and right of might, I would think it is dangerous.

 

[Rival]

That's fine, and I respect the fact that you define "Christianity" as the New Testament + Church Fathers + etc. as you indicated.

What if I define "Christianity" more broadly, to include the Gnostics, Essenes, and their texts and adherents?

Your definition is correct - for you. My definition is correct - for me.

I would say that's not Christianity because the gnostics and essenes have entirely different beliefs to the NT that they are incompatible. I call those people heretic.

 

[buddhist]

I would say that's not Christianity because the gnostics and essenes have entirely different beliefs to the NT that they are incompatible. I call those people heretic.

I can understand that.

And, likewise, they might call you heretic and incompatible with their "true Christianity"

 

[ThorirTheHound]

Stating that "people should embrace" certain religious ideals and practices just doesn't sound right. What if Pagan ideals go against somebody's conscience?



Isn't Satanism a dangerous religion? With all the indulgence, vengeance, cursings, and right of might, I would think it is dangerous.

Satanism is more of a philosophy, I think it should be used as an introduction after leaving Christianity. Believe me I disagree with Lavey on a lot but his ideals make more sense than Christianity in my opinion. I don't think anyone should try and stay as a practicing satanist for very long. Its meant to help you build your own path.

I'd like to point out that the God of the Bible is a vengeful, angry and spiteful God masked with this illusion of love and compassion. Destruction is a big theme in the Bible.

Also, your conscious is what you make of it. Abrhamic religion, with respect, is more focused on control and submission to the rule. While the left hand path you embody every decision you make this is a key because it forces you to take responsibility for your actions. As a pagan, If I do something wrong I don't just pray for forgiveness I seek to do good to balance out my mistake.

 

[Rival]

I can understand that.

And, likewise, they might call you heretic and incompatible with their "true Christianity"

I would debate with them until they lost Nah, I fail to see how it could be true Christianity that deviates so much from the Apostolic Faith.

Anyways I'm laid in bed with my teddy bear. It's goodnight from me.

 

[buddhist]

I would debate with them until they lost Nah, I fail to see how it could be true Christianity that deviates so much from the Apostolic Faith.

Anyways I'm laid in bed with my teddy bear. It's goodnight from me.

I've read some material from their tradition and I can see how they can also claim that they're preserving the Apostolic Faith.

 

[Quintessence]

This seems to be big business on RF. How do judge??

Could you expand upon what you mean by judging? What is the purpose of this judging? Does the judging stay within the self alone, for the purposes of developing one's own path or way of life? Do the judgements get projected onto others, and impact how one treats them? Is there a sense of total self-righteousness, crusading against the judged? What?

 

[DawudTalut]

This seems to be big business on RF. How do judge??

In my opinion, a religion (mainly speaking for the 'big' ones here) should be judged by its scriptural teachings, not its adherents, for instance:

If religion A commands violence towards religion B, but none of religion A's followers commit this violence, religion A is still a religion of violence.

Conversely, if religion B commands passivity and tolerance, but all its adherents commit crimes, it is still a religion of peace.

I would just say the followers aren't doing the religion correctly.

Blah blah, your turn.

Peace be on you.
A true religion contain two things:
1=Its teaching should be pure and there should be no objection of human intelligence or conscience against the teaching.

2=Secondly, there should be attached to it a system of heavenly support (for the follower) so that through it, a person may recognise God and be able to witness all of God's attributes so that he is protected against sin.......The means should be present which pull the person towards God with certainty.

3=No true religion commands violence against any other religion as source of all revealed religions is the same God. If seen anywhere, it may be due to wrong understandings or else, and there is need of reformation in understanding.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I feel that if a religion claims to be peaceful and yet its adherents are not, the religion should not be judged ... UNLESS ... that religion ALSO states that joining it changes the person for the better (said morality of peace). If there is really no difference in a person whether they join that religion or not, then clearly THAT particular statement is full of crap.