Judging a Religion

[muhammad_isa]

A party in that is context is literally an organized group. I do not understand your complaint.

Oh? Who organized them?
There are scores of different organized groups in Christianity alone.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There's several groups which practice a religion which include the qualities you referred to.

The one that came to mind immediately are a branch of LHP'ers. They practice what they call energy-vampirsm.



Those of us who prefer not to be energetic food for leeches.

You mean Colin Robinson is actually a thing? Wow, who knew?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I judge a religion by;
A) Any non-demonstrable claims it demands we accept as truth
B) The demonstrable harm that its beliefs inspire in its adherents.

Well, since in one version "non-demonstrable claims it demands we accept as truth" applies to morality in effect as morality is not with evidence and truth, it doesn't apply to just religions. It applies to all human behaviour regarding in effect for what matters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

In general I judge any human behaviour and not just limited to religions on what is believed to matter and then I compare to what matters to me.
That is the base of it.

So even as non-religious I don't care about religion or not. I concern myself with how it makes sense to me and take it from there.

 

[RestlessSoul]

We need a reformation, but on our terms and quest for truth, not to appease the west.

But you’re British, right? You live in the West?

We all have to practice tolerance and make adjustments, if we are to live together in a world which is increasingly globalised.

 

[ppp]

Oh? Who organized them?
There are scores of different organized groups in Christianity alone.

Are you just irritated and want to grump about it? Because that is all you are communicating.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religions are organized groups. That is how I can tell a Wiccan from a Muslim.


A party in that is context is literally an organized group. I do not understand your complaint.

Well, it depends on the defintion of religion. At least for one as "an understanding of what matters and has value" then I am religious, but not a member of an organized religion.
It is taken from this defintion of religion:
"Religion is the most intensive and comprehensive method of valuing that is experienced by humankind."
Frederick Ferre in his Basic Modern Philosophy of Religion

In effect for what is versus what we ought to do about that, the first can be done by science and the the second one is not science, but religion, philosophy, politics, morality and so on.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are you just irritated and want to grump about it? Because that is all you are communicating.

Nonsense .. there is a difference between "a religion" and an organized group.
If people ask what their religion is, they will answer Christian/Muslim etc.

..but you seek to tar everybody with the same brush .. your choice, but it is not
reasonable to judge a religion without knowing its tenets .. it's disingenuous .. unenlightened.

There are many psychological reasons why people might do that.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

"Religion" is like an industry group...similar to Manufacturing, Retail, Entertainment, etc. An industry as such acquires resources from the economic and social environment, and produces goods and services to the economic and social environment. There is no one organization that represents an entire industry. And, there are a number of sub-groups within the industry group: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, etc., etc.

The sects, denominations, congregations and etc., are all examples of the "industry" of Religion...but no one of them is representative of the entire industry.

Many of the criticisms and accolades advanced in this thread seem to be aimed at individual sects, denominations or congregations, while others seem to be aimed at one or more of the subgroups, or even the industry-group level.

 

[ppp]

Nonsense .. there is a difference between "a religion" and an organized group.

Yes, you are writing nonsense. Literally. You keep asserting that there is a difference, but you patently refuse to define that difference. Don't give me examples. Give me a definition of religion that both encompasses all of the major religions and does not fall under the definition of an organized group.

Don't give me examples. Don't give me your feelings. Don't give me your epithets. Provide a coherent, thoughtful differentiation that supports your claim that religions are not organized groups.

 

[ppp]

"Religion" is like an industry group...similar to Manufacturing, Retail, Entertainment, etc. An industry as such acquires resources from the economic and social environment, and produces goods and services to the economic and social environment. There is no one organization that represents an entire industry. And, there are a number of sub-groups within the industry group: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, etc., etc.

A religion is more like a political party mixed in with a social club. A given religion/party/club has a set of beliefs and standards that define its goals and ethos. As that given religion/party/club grows it spawns chapters or other subdivisions with (sometimes conflicting) variations in a subset of those beliefs and standards.

Those subdivisions - whatever their admixture of good and bad - are still the product of the founding standards. Of the religions that you mentioned, only Wicca has the stones to acknowledge that fact.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Provide a coherent, thoughtful differentiation that supports your claim that religions are not organized groups.

Nope .. I've already explained .. judging a religion by "what people do" is a bad way of understanding
or judging a religion.

People can behave badly, regardless of religion .. or it maybe that a tribe (who belong to a certain religion) are being oppressed, and then people point at their religion as being the cause of their aggressive behaviour.
It's not a reasonable way of judging .. and G-d knows the intention behind all we say and do.

 

[ppp]

I've already explained

You haven't even made an attempt. And we both know it. Even I could have done a better job of crafting an defense for your position.

judging a religion by "what people do" is a bad way of understanding
or judging a religion.

What I said was, "Primarily, by the real world product and social impact of the religion as expressed through the deeds and words of the people who claim to follow that religion. By how fervently the adherents attempt to distance the feces produced by their religion from the religion itself. Same way I would judge any other organization. "

People can behave badly, regardless of religion .. or it maybe that a tribe (who belong to a certain religion) are being oppressed, and then people point at their religion as being the cause of their aggressive behaviour.

Look, you are just annoyed that I do not treat religion as though it were a special case. There is nothing the nature of any religion that sets it apart from any other social or political organization.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Look, you are just annoyed that I do not treat religion as though it were a special case..

You are good that, aren't you? Telling other people how they think or feel?

There is nothing the nature of any religion that sets it apart from any other social or political organization.

..in your opinion. That is because you deny Divine authority, and turn away from truth.
It's your choice.

 

[ppp]

You are good that, aren't you? Telling other people how they think or feel?

Right back atcha.

..in your opinion.

No freaking duh. The OP directly solicited our opinions. And I answered with my opinion. You are literally fussing about my responding with the information that was asked. Sheesh!

 

[muhammad_isa]

The OP directly solicited our opinions. And I answered with my opinion..

Correct .. and it is a discussion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Judging a Religion

I don't agree with the title of the thread, we humans cannot judge a religion, right?
It is G-d who is to judge us, right?

Regards
___________________
1:4
(Allah is) Master of the Day of Judgment.


مٰلِکِ یَوۡمِ الدِّیۡنِ ؕ﴿۴

 

[ppp]

Judging a Religion

I don't agree with the title of the thread, we humans cannot judge a religion, right?
It is G-d who is to judge us, right?

Regards
___________________
1:4
(Allah is) Master of the Day of Judgment.
مٰلِکِ یَوۡمِ الدِّیۡنِ ؕ﴿۴

I can judge anything. As far as I can tell every other human being is capable of making judgments as well. I mean seriously. How do you intend to stop me from judging?

 

[Koldo]

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

Curiously, calling a fruit good or evil is a judgment.

 

[Madsaac]

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.

Has the religion achieved what it wanted to achieve and how has it done or doing that? For example, scare the cripes out of people.

What are the various approaches to between between Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism?

What is the religions relevance, considering many of them refer to texts written thousands of years a go? And most people don't actually seam to read the texts.

Obviously depending on what your criteria is, it may be possible to measure a religions success?

Massive job and could be discussed until the cows come home but how can things be improved if they are not assessed.