Judging a Religion

[Smart_Guy]

Agreed. And also people should consider the "if your house is made of glass, don't throw bricks at people" adverb. I think ignoring this proverb helps in misjudging.

 

[Segev Moran]

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 Think a religion should be judged the same as we judge any other claim anyone makes. You need to back it up with sufficient evidence.

For some reason, religion is the only philosophy that people seems to refuse to declare it as one.

All religions are violent... There cannot be a status where one claims he is the "holder" of the truth and everyone else is not that will not be dragged into violence.

As for your suggestion, Judging by the scriptures... its relevant only if your treat the scriptures as tales and not historical facts.
Today it seems that all theist that debate religion go to the argument that the scriptures are misunderstood...
That religion is not presenting a violent God/s rather a scripture that was misunderstood by religious people around the world.
Based on these arguments, it seems like all religions should be combined into one...
But that's not the case, as you don't really have a way of proving that one religion is better than the other or for that matter, that one is truth and the others are not.
So again, if you ask me... religion should be judged as a great literature written by very imaginative and smart people in the old times.

 

[Segev Moran]

If only religious people would keep their religions to themselves. But in so many cases they try to coerce others to agree with them. So, for example, I'm going to be VERY judgmental if anyone wants to impose their misogynistic religious ideas on my daughters. (That could be from Islam or Christianity and other religions as well.)

paarsurrey - Put another way, notice that you're judging that others shouldn't judge!

What is a spiritual anti-theist?
Also.. I Agree.. religion should be something private that one's practices to himself..

Once you add an element of "I know the truth and you are not".. bad things start to happen.. hence.. we are where we are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agreed. And also people should consider the "if your house is made of glass, don't throw bricks at people" adverb. I think ignoring this proverb helps in misjudging.

I'm going to disagree to an extent.

When a religion imposes itself on non-adherents, those non-adherents have every right to judge and criticize the religion being imposed on them, even if their own religion has problems.

 

[icehorse]

What is a spiritual anti-theist?

Hi Segev,

I guess a short answer would be:

spiritual: I think the universe and life are awe-some, and I appreciate the chance to experience them.
anti-theist: I'm an atheist who also thinks most religions have become an out-dated drain on society.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

spiritual: I think the universe and life are awe-some, and I appreciate the chance to experience them.

Why would awe imply spirituality? Does spirituality have some sort of exclusive claim to that emotion?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm going to disagree to an extent.

When a religion imposes itself on non-adherents, those non-adherents have every right to judge and criticize the religion being imposed on them, even if their own religion has problems.

Disagreement accepted. And we agree to disagree.

Religion does not impose itself, people do. Religion is just a set of rules.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion does not impose itself, people do. Religion is just a set of rules.

A religion is defined by the beliefs and actions of its adherents in the name of the religion.

 

[Smart_Guy]

A religion is defined by the beliefs and actions of its adherents in the name of the religion.

But those actions are done by the adherents, and there are certainly other adherents doing those action differently. Why only take the actions of the specific adherents and ignore the others, and at the same time use it to judge religion instead of the specific adherents who do the actions compared to those who do them differently or not at all? I believe a religion should be seen for its bigger picture of itself as a whole in its details connected comprehensively and cohesively instead of being picky with the actions of the adherents. We are also imperfect humans driven by emotions which does not qualify us to judge something as big and complicated as religion, I believe.

 

[Parchment]

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

The same way I judge individuals, to each their own but if you are trying to take something away from me or trying to tell me what I should or shouldn't do according to you then we are going to have a problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But those actions are done by the adherents, and there are certainly other adherents doing those action differently. Why only take the actions of the specific adherents and ignore the others, and at the same time use it to judge religion instead of the specific adherents who do the actions compared to those who do them differently or not at all?

I'm not. They're all part of the religion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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 judge the religion of violence or peace based on its adherents rather than the scripture and beliefs itself. The scripture/beliefs does nothing in and of itself. It's like reading a fiction murder novel, to put it lightly. You can read it to enjoy it or you can follow what it says. If someone is not being violent based on their "violent" religion, although odd, it's not a violent religion because religion is based on the adherents that believe it (say the Apostles who wrote the Bible and Suttas). They don't exist outside the people who wrote and experienced whatever they did.

I mean, a murder mystery would be sectioned as a murder mystery, but why would we ban the book if it's not influencing people to murder? I'd look and judge the actions of adherents rather than judge what they are reading and believing.

If their beliefs are causing them to be violent, then the consequences would be on them not scripture.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm not. They're all part of the religion.

Two of the same beliefs, let's say atheists, one happens to be for a long time with adherents of a religion who only curse and lie, and the other happens to be for a long time too with adherents of that same religion who only show hospitality and kindness. What you say will create a conflict since the first will give bad judgement, according to your provided view, and the other will give a good judgement. Both can't be right since they both give opposite judgements.

But you know, I kinda know how you feel. Adherents do give "impression" about their religion, and one's impression of a religion would be taken by the adherents because they are the ones delivering it by action, and I honestly cannot blame who gets bad impressions this way. That's why, for example, I understand and feel for those having bad impression about my religion. If you've said it that way, I would've agreed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Two of the same beliefs, let's say atheists, one happens to be for a long time with adherents of a religion who only curse and lie, and the other happens to be for a long time too with adherents of that same religion who only show hospitality and kindness. What you say will create a conflict since the first will give bad judgement, according to your provided view, and the other will give a good judgement. Both can't be right since they both give opposite judgements.

Except that atheism isn't a religion any more than theism is. Belief or non-belief in gods is just one (often small) part of a person's worldview or a religion.

But you know, I kinda know how you feel. Adherents do give "impression" about their religion, and one's impression of a religion would be taken by the adherents because they are the ones delivering it by action, and I honestly cannot blame who gets bad impressions this way. That's why, for example, I understand and feel for those having bad impression about my religion. If you've said it that way, I would've agreed.

Maybe a different way of explaining it will help you understand my position:

Say some people have bad practices and beliefs that they call "Islam". They do have a religion; maybe you don't think they should call their religion "Islam", but they do have a religion.

When they're acting in the name of their religion and that negatively impacts me, I'm entitled to speak out with how I feel about how they're treating me and about the beliefs that led them to treat me the way they did.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Except that atheism isn't a religion any more than theism is. Belief or non-belief in gods is just one (often small) part of a person's worldview or a religion.


Maybe a different way of explaining it will help you understand my position:

Say some people have bad practices and beliefs that they call "Islam". They do have a religion; maybe you don't think they should call their religion "Islam", but they do have a religion.

When they're acting in the name of their religion and that negatively impacts me, I'm entitled to speak out with how I feel about how they're treating me and about the beliefs that led them to treat me the way they did.

I guess you're right, one is entitled to judge how they want. But does that mean their judgement is certainly right, absolute, perfect and in place? People always judged many times in their lives and ended up finding they misjudged some things. I'm not saying one is not entitled to, I'm saying judgement of something this complicated and big is not something to think of easily and that judgement is not something to take for granted and/or impose.

 

[icehorse]

Why would awe imply spirituality? Does spirituality have some sort of exclusive claim to that emotion?

Well it does to me, and no exclusive claim, AND I'm open to hearing other definitions of spirituality.

That said, the definition of spirituality that I'm most apt to take issue with, would be the argument that spirituality should be under religion's sway. It strikes me that religion has tried to somehow co-opt spirituality and that co-opting makes no sense to me.

 

[Segev Moran]

Hi Segev,

I guess a short answer would be:

spiritual: I think the universe and life are awe-some, and I appreciate the chance to experience them.
anti-theist: I'm an atheist who also thinks most religions have become an out-dated drain on society.

Thanks for explaining... You know.. I'm an Atheist.. and I also think the universe and life are marvelous..
I too appreciate the chance i was given to exist in that time... but i don't think its spiritual

 

[icehorse]

Thanks for explaining... You know.. I'm an Atheist.. and I also think the universe and life are marvelous..
I too appreciate the chance i was given to exist in that time... but i don't think its spiritual

I think "spiritual" is one of the tougher ideas to define and gain consensus on. How would you define it?

(might be good fodder for a new thread)

 

[Segev Moran]

I think "spiritual" is one of the tougher ideas to define and gain consensus on. How would you define it?

(might be good fodder for a new thread)

That's indeed a though question..
I think that spiritual is like saying unknown...

As we learn more and more, things that used to be spiritual became something that we understand, thus becoming natural...
Take meditation for example...
It used to be a very spiritual thing..
these days its only partly spiritual (if at all)
We today understand the way our brain works much better than before, and we can understand that specific areas in the brain produce different response or feeling etc..
And it is becoming more and more clear how we can activate parts of our brain... and mediation, for being a spiritual way, becomes more and more a natural way to develop our brain ( or blood stream or whatever )

Same goes for almost everything that was considered spiritual along our entire history (starting with fire and up to weather, disease, stars, moon and endlessly more)

So if one sais he had a "spiritual" feeling... he actually means he had an experience he can't understand.. that he lacks knowledge about what it is.

Like one of the hardest thing to debate, a mothers love to her son... I can't claim it doesn't exist... but I know its not spiritual.. i know it derives from a need to protect the "youngs" no matter what..

I Have 2 kids ( amazing kids btw ) and i will give my life to save them in a heartbeat or less.. and of course its one of the things that keeps amazing me... It is a wonder and a feeling that intrigues me...
and understanding that this is not a spiritual thing but rather a natural thing... makes zero difference to me.. it only makes it more unique

 

[icehorse]

Hey Segev,

Again, I'm not claiming the "correct" definition, just swapping ideas: if I understand you, you're saying that an aspect of spiritual is that it's unexplainable? That's not the case for me. How about if I said something like "peak moments" are spiritual for me? Peak moments could come while skiing, or star gazing, or conversing...