Judging a Religion

[mangalavara]

How do you judge a religion as to whether it is good or bad, beneficial or malevolent, helpful or useless, harmless or harmful, fine or problematic? I don’t mean all of these pairs, just one at least (for instance, ‘harmless or harmful’).

For some people, the criteria is the words and actions of the adherents of the religion. For others, it is the scriptural or official teachings of the religion. Others might use some combination or perhaps something else entirely.

When judging a religion as to whether it is beneficial or malevolent, for instance, I don’t mean whether that it is orthodox or heretical or has true teachings or false teachings. What is meant is how the religion affects or is meant to affect human beings, other beings, and the world.

If you wish to participate in this thread, I humbly ask that no religion is singled out and attacked. It would be appreciated greatly if you could simply share with me how you judge religions in general.

Thank you.

 

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, it is mostly an exercise of ethical judgement, and not a particularly unusual one.

If a certain practice encourages or furthers the development of wisdom, empathy, or even just better communication, then it is probably beneficial.

If it stymies those traits, then it is harmful.

While ethical discernment is inherently challenging (and sort of must be), it is not really difficult; it just happens to require as much detail and effort as we can reasonably muster in order to achieve fairness and accuracy.

 

[mangalavara]

If a certain practice encourages or furthers the development of wisdom, empathy, or even just better communication, then it is probably beneficial.

If it stymies those traits, then it is harmful.

I like that way of judging a practice. If what I am doing is making me more and more kind, compassionate, and fair toward others, then what I am doing is obviously beneficial.

It is interesting that you mention a practice rather than a religion itself. Perhaps this is because a religion can have beneficial and harmful practices?

 

[Heyo]

How do you judge a religion as to whether it is good or bad, beneficial or malevolent, helpful or useless, harmless or harmful, fine or problematic? I don’t mean all of these pairs, just one at least (for instance, ‘harmless or harmful’).

For some people, the criteria is the words and actions of the adherents of the religion. For others, it is the scriptural or official teachings of the religion. Others might use some combination or perhaps something else entirely.

When judging a religion as to whether it is beneficial or malevolent, for instance, I don’t mean whether that it is orthodox or heretical or has true teachings or false teachings. What is meant is how the religion affects or is meant to affect human beings, other beings, and the world.

If you wish to participate in this thread, I humbly ask that no religion is singled out and attacked. It would be appreciated greatly if you could simply share with me how you judge religions in general.

Thank you.

I see a religion as the sum of its members and judge it by their actions.
Even if the scriptures are mostly beneficial in my view, it's irrelevant when they don't influence the behaviour of the followers.
It's a principle of moral philosophy that only actions can be moral or immoral, not the ideas that led to the actions.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Two verses from the scripture of the religion I grew up with seem appropriate to this question;

Judge not, lest ye be judged - Matt 7:1, and;

Ye shall know them by their fruits...every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit - Matt 7:16-17

 

[firedragon]

How do you judge a religion as to whether it is good or bad, beneficial or malevolent, helpful or useless, harmless or harmful, fine or problematic? I don’t mean all of these pairs, just one at least (for instance, ‘harmless or harmful’).

For some people, the criteria is the words and actions of the adherents of the religion. For others, it is the scriptural or official teachings of the religion. Others might use some combination or perhaps something else entirely.

When judging a religion as to whether it is beneficial or malevolent, for instance, I don’t mean whether that it is orthodox or heretical or has true teachings or false teachings. What is meant is how the religion affects or is meant to affect human beings, other beings, and the world.

If you wish to participate in this thread, I humbly ask that no religion is singled out and attacked. It would be appreciated greatly if you could simply share with me how you judge religions in general.

Thank you.

The problem with people's judgment is that their biases are so hard strung that they don't see past them. People are convinced of cliche's and bogus scholarship on TV and the internet.

I believe that the theology by itself should be judged by the scripture if any. This should be done with no researcher's bias, no anachronism, or presentism.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I probably tend to judge any religion as to the overall beliefs, behaviours, and actions of any adherents (how I see such in the present and what I have witnessed over my life), and given that most religions are not as one over these there is plenty of room for a spectrum to exist as to them - with such allied to any particular doctrines or dogma. Secondly I mostly try to judge any religion as to how close this is to reality (in my view), reflects such, and mostly how it aims to enhance the lives of all humans without necessarily harming non-human life.

And, given that I don't believe the monotheistic religions come directly from some God, I have to gauge the problems that some might bring along with such beliefs - as to simply being the truth and damn all other beliefs. Given that many seem so tied to a particular religious text - no room for movement since this might impinge on the 'truthfulness' of their beliefs - we often have a dilemma as to accepting one belief (or claim) over another, and which almost inevitably leads to conflict and has done so since religions emerged.

Given we haven't proper provenance over most religious texts I think it is merely claiming authority and authenticity, and which just adds to the likelihood of conflict occurring. But how could this ever change due to the nature of many religions - being based in some past that we cannot prove as to the veracity of such?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I probably tend to judge any religion as to the overall beliefs, behaviours, and actions of any adherents (how I see such in the present and what I have witnessed over my life), and given that most religions are not as one over these there is plenty of room for a spectrum to exist as to them - with such allied to any particular doctrines or dogma. Secondly I mostly try to judge any religion as to how close this is to reality (in my view), reflects such, and mostly how it aims to enhance the lives of all humans without necessarily harming non-human life.

And, given that I don't believe the monotheistic religions come directly from some God, I have to gauge the problems that some might bring along with such beliefs - as to simply being the truth and damn all other beliefs. Given that many seem so tied to a particular religious text - no room for movement since this might impinge on the 'truthfulness' of their beliefs - we often have a dilemma as to accepting one belief (or claim) over another, and which almost inevitably leads to conflict and has done so since religions emerged.

Given we haven't proper provenance over most religious texts I think it is merely claiming authority and authenticity, and which just adds to the likelihood of conflict occurring. But how could this ever change due to the nature of religions - being based in some past that we cannot prove as to the veracity of such?

Have you read any of these religious texts yourself? And if so, did you find anything at all that appealed to you? Just curious...

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't see a need to judge any religion. I'm not aware of any religions in and of themselves that are bad, malevolent, useless, harmful, or problematic.

It's people's interpretation of religions' teachings and their actions based on those interpretations that have the potential to be bad, malevolent, useless, harmful, or problematic, and it's actions, not religions, that warrant one's judgment.

 

[firedragon]

I don't see a need to judge any religion. I'm not aware of any religions in and of themselves that are bad, malevolent, useless, harmful, or problematic.

It's people's interpretation of religions' teachings and their actions based on those interpretations that have the potential to be bad, malevolent, useless, harmful, or problematic, and it's actions, not religions, that warrant one's judgment.

There are many instances where people have intentionally concocted new meanings in scripture to deceive people into stupid and murderous things. It's the intent that counts. If people intend to be honest, they will be. Cheers.

 

[GoodAttention]

How do you judge a religion as to whether it is good or bad, beneficial or malevolent, helpful or useless, harmless or harmful, fine or problematic? I don’t mean all of these pairs, just one at least (for instance, ‘harmless or harmful’).

For some people, the criteria is the words and actions of the adherents of the religion. For others, it is the scriptural or official teachings of the religion. Others might use some combination or perhaps something else entirely.

When judging a religion as to whether it is beneficial or malevolent, for instance, I don’t mean whether that it is orthodox or heretical or has true teachings or false teachings. What is meant is how the religion affects or is meant to affect human beings, other beings, and the world.

If you wish to participate in this thread, I humbly ask that no religion is singled out and attacked. It would be appreciated greatly if you could simply share with me how you judge religions in general.

Thank you.

Pick up any history book, particularly those describing legal decrees, and you can see objectively the malevolence, harm, and unhelpful consequences of religious doctrine.

You don't need to debate scripture to judge religion, our own past allows us to do that any time.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There are many instances where people have intentionally concocted new meanings in scripture to deceive people into stupid and murderous things. It's the intent that counts. If people intend to be honest, they will be. Cheers.

There is also the problem of indoctrination of these concocted new meanings into those that don't have a working knowledge of said scripture. A child will tend to believe what they are told by parents and other religious authorities...at least for a time...regardless of the accuracy of what they are being told.

 

[LuisDantas]

I like that way of judging a practice. If what I am doing is making me more and more kind, compassionate, and fair toward others, then what I am doing is obviously beneficial.

It is interesting that you mention a practice rather than a religion itself. Perhaps this is because a religion can have beneficial and harmful practices?

That is certainly true, but it is mostly because I avoid talking about religion without a lot of qualifiers. The word has become ambiguous IMO.

Also because to me personally "religion" is something that is very, very different from Abrahamic-styled creeds, while most people tend to assume that it is mainly those creeds.

Finally, because I do not recommend reliance on either scriptures or god-beliefs for anyone.

 

[firedragon]

There is also the problem of indoctrination of these concocted new meanings into those that don't have a working knowledge of said scripture

That's precisely the problem. You are absolutely right.

A child will tend to believe what they are told by parents and other religious authorities...at least for a time...regardless of the accuracy of what they are being told.

Not only religions my friend. This applies to all. But what you said is true.

 

[firedragon]

I like that way of judging a practice. If what I am doing is making me more and more kind, compassionate, and fair toward others, then what I am doing is obviously beneficial.

It is interesting that you mention a practice rather than a religion itself. Perhaps this is because a religion can have beneficial and harmful practices?

Are you Buddhist or Hindu brother? If you think the question is irrelevant you don't have to answer k. And there are no followup questions.

 

[osgart]

If the religion is highly conditional on doctrine and paints an obviously false picture of reality then it stigmatizes the out groups and is no good for society. It lives in a fixed, isolated vacuum.

If they presume to know people personally and their true moral nature they are a false religion.

Awful enough some of these religions are prevalent in the world today.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How do you judge a religion as to whether it is good or bad, beneficial or malevolent, helpful or useless, harmless or harmful, fine or problematic? I don’t mean all of these pairs, just one at least (for instance, ‘harmless or harmful’).

For some people, the criteria is the words and actions of the adherents of the religion. For others, it is the scriptural or official teachings of the religion. Others might use some combination or perhaps something else entirely.

When judging a religion as to whether it is beneficial or malevolent, for instance, I don’t mean whether that it is orthodox or heretical or has true teachings or false teachings. What is meant is how the religion affects or is meant to affect human beings, other beings, and the world.

If you wish to participate in this thread, I humbly ask that no religion is singled out and attacked. It would be appreciated greatly if you could simply share with me how you judge religions in general.

Thank you.

I judge a religion by its effectiveness and ability to work for a person and how it relates and fits in with reality.

I don't have a high regard for a religion that puts undue stress on a person with things like punishments that are made up , or imagined promises that will not pass creating undue expectations and fears on a person that are completely unnecessary and unwarranted.

 

[mangalavara]

Are you Buddhist or Hindu brother? If you think the question is irrelevant you don't have to answer k. And there are no followup questions.

I am Hindu.

I appreciate it that you call me ‘brother.’ Vasudhaiva kuṭumbakam.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't (or aim not to), except within the context of whether it would be suitable for me, personally. Wrote a thread on that some years ago about practicing the wrong religion for yourself that more or less summarized that up - one's religion needs to be an authentic extension of who one is, more or less. Otherwise it isn't really your religion, it's a mask one is wearing for appearances that covers up the authentic self. It isn't up to me to determine what someone else's authentic self is, or to tell them to be anyone other than who they must be and are. As such, there's not much purpose to making those kinds of assessments and projecting them onto others; others must be who they are as I must be who I am.

What is important to assess is relationships that emerge between oneself and the countless others one shares the world with. You will want to have some idea if you will be cooperators or competitors but this is not the same as then going "those who compete with me are bad or harmful." We don't have to tell the story in that way and instead just recognize that different natures will inevitably end up having different relations that are mutually beneficial or mutually destructive. It just... is. And it doesn't mean that everything in that category will end up having the same relationship with you or others.

 

[JustGeorge]

I try not to judge other's religions. Generally pretty good with it, too.

There are a few things that make me uncomfortable, though.

Cults of living personalities that require the giving of one's money or sexuality, groups that appropriate teachings of another religion without due credit, or teachings that encourage the destruction of other people are all things I poo-poo.