Judging a Religion

[SalixIncendium]

Yes. Obviously.



Please refer to your own question for context. You are asking me, who could benefit from a negative role-model of a malevolent group.

Dude, that's a stupid question.



Dude, thats a stupid question. Are you serious? You're going arround in circles asking stupid questions?

Maybe they appear to you to be "stupid questions" because the suggestion that "they" are "negative role-models" was an unfounded, poorly-worded, and sophomoric statement.

Are you trolling?

To summarize, you make an absurd and poorly worded statement, and when you are asked questions about that statement for which you are unable to provide a sensible response, you call the questions stupid and suggest that another is trolling. Bad form.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Uh between suck and zap? You are asking stupid questions today? Is this a new hobby?

Uh...

lighting goes ZAP.

black hole goes SUCK.

Here's an educational video:

Thanks.

 

[Tomef]

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 quality of the writing is one thing. Some parts of the bible are well written and raise interesting philosophical/sociological (etc) questions, the problem comes in when people take parts of it literally. Compare that with the oddness of something like the Book of Mormon, and you have a good metric for evaluating whether something is worth taking seriously or not, as part of the overall development of human thought and behaviour.

 

[I Am Hugh]

I personally judge a religion first by its original teachings, and then, as much as possible, by how it has been corrupted through the appeal of the masses. Shinto, for example, I judge the best in the latter sense because it has been the least corrupted over time. Taoism, Judaism and Christianity have fared very poorly on that scale, in my opinion. So, I usually have respect for the origins and very little for the corrupted eventuality.

 

[dybmh]

a practice, not a religion.

^^ incomplete definition of religion ^^

Incomplete seems to be the on-going theme of your arguments lately. See #2. an observance = a practice

Definition of RELIGION

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; the service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

By what it motivates / makes people do, both directly and indirectly.
And by what it demands of its followers.

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.

How something is "meant" to affect humans, is in general of no consequence to me. More important is how it actually DOES affect humans in practice.

For example, I really don't care whatever muslim tells me about how shariah law is "meant" to work or how it is "supposed" to be implemented.
What matters to me is that everywhere in the world I look, is that whenever shariah is implemented, misery, oppression and suffering follows.

I don't care if it is "supposed" to turn the society into some utopian world of peace and love. In practice, it only ever accomplishes the opposite. So that's what I judge it on.

If you wish to participate in this thread, I humbly ask that no religion is singled out and attacked.

Not that that was not my intent with bringing up Shariah / islam. It was just an example to make my point clear. I could use other religions to make the same point, but it's just the first one that came to mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that the theology by itself should be judged by the scripture if any.

So, with confirmation bias?

If every religion is to be judged by its own scriptures, then every religion will be le creme de la creme of ethical living.


Judging the Aztec practices of sacrificing virgins to the weather gods would thus become an ethical practice, justified by the religion itself.
I shouldn't have to explain how wrong that is.

Necessarily, the standard to judge a religion should NOT come from the religion itself.

 

[dybmh]

Taoism, Judaism and Christianity have fared very poorly on that scale

I agree with what you wrote, however, as a Jew, I object to a small degree. What are some examples of the corruption you've seen in Judaism? It could be what you're observing is not corruption at all, but is part of the system brought down by Moses from the divine. Judaism is an adaptive practice, a living tradition with a few core principles. One of which is best written as an axiom: "There's always another way." This means that what might be considered a corruption is actually just one of those "other-ways".

The verse I usually point to in order to support this comes from Deuteronomy 17: "If there is a matter too difficult for you ... go to the priests and judges of the day... " There is a divine law, but there are human checks and balances in place as part of the divine system. These human checks and balances naturally produce various ways of living a Jewish way of life. Those various ways might appear to be a corruption to the outsider, but, they're might be in perfect harmony with the divine intention. The only way to tell is by case-by-case evaluation. That's why I asked from examples. You don't need to provide any, I'm just trying to make a point. We don't need to argue about it unless you'd like to.

The same can be said of Daoism. Similar to Judaism ( "There's always another way" ), Doaism is the no-way, way. It's a path which embraces all paths; That's a path which is simultaneously all and none. I'm not sure how that can become corrupted unless Daoism suddenly becomes dogmatic about anything other than its own lack of dogma.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

The other way round also happens.
Where people intentionally concocted new meanings in scriptures to deceive people that it is in fact NOT stupid and calling for murderous things or alike. While in reality it is exactly that.

And then these same people will accuse others of "concocting new meanings into scripture" when they point out how the scriptures in fact are stupid and murderous and alike.

 

[Vinayaka]

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 am far more likely to judge behaviour than religion. Of course that overlaps into religion when you notice that most people displaying a certain behaviour are of a certain religion. I've met wonderful people from many religions, and also a few not so likable from many religions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't care if it is "supposed" to turn the society into some utopian world of peace and love. In practice, it only ever accomplishes the opposite. So that's what I judge it on.

That's a blind way of evaluating the world.. i.e. on what is happening right now

Hopefully, more politicians will be well-educated, and can see further than their nose.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

I judge the religions by the kinds of people they generate. And I learn much of what that is here on RF, where one can canvass a large number of religious and irreligious people. You've asked that we not evaluate individual religions, so I won't be able to report my findings to you.

As an individual who read the Qur'an more than once, read a collection of ahadith, heard much about the personal character of Muhammad, and read some Sufi poetry, I saw Islam as something very, very different from what I was hearing from my parents and the media that they followed. I concluded that the terroristic sorts were not following Islam as it is meant to be followed. So, I had to judge those sorts as bad people, not the religion.

My only interface with Muslims apart from RF was professionally. I knew a few Muslim physicians, but we didn't socialize. That wasn't my choice.

And I have no incentive to read the kinds of things you've read about Islam. Instead, I evaluate the Muslim posters here. That along with the news is all I want to know, which is true for all religions.

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.

Agree.

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.

Agree.

There it is. Complete negligence of the founder's intentions or what is written in the founding documents.

That was your response to Heyo's comment above. Yes. Indifference. You seem offended. Why should he or I care about that? Because you do? It's simply irrelevant and uninteresting to many people.

 

[I Am Hugh]

I agree with what you wrote, however, as a Jew, I object to a small degree. What are some examples of the corruption you've seen in Judaism?

What follows is the way I see it. My opinion. I typically am not conversant with modern day Jewish or Christian traditions unless they are introduced to me as I see them conflicting with the Bible.

In 332 BCE Alexander the Great was taking over his known world and when he got to Jerusalem the Jews welcomed him into the gates, showing him the prophecy in their scrolls.

(Alexander the Great in the Temple of Jerusalem, by Sebastiano Conca: 1736 - See Daniel 8:1-27; Jewish Encyclopedia)

Pagan (outside of, i.e. Biblical) Greek religion and philosophy began to infiltrate every aspect of the lives of Jews, including their religion. As it continues to do today. The immortal soul of Socrates and the Trinity of Plato [1], (Ezekiel 18:4; Deuteronomy 6:4) They were so misguided by the traditions of men that they expected God to rescue them from their oppressors, the Romans and was expecting the long-awaited messiah to be their military leader. Not unlike King David. So, when Jesus arrived, exactly when it was foretold, he would, they rejected him and hung him on a stake. They killed their own messiah, the Son of God.

In 325 CE the pagan Pontifex Maximus, chief of the pagan religions, did the same with Christianity as Alexander had done with the Jews. Apostate Christianity adopted the same pagan teachings, plus the cross, a Roman phallic symbol the Bible referred to as a filthy idol from Tammuz and Constantine, Christmas which was Saturnalia, and Easter which was named for Astarte the pagan queen of heaven and consort of Baal. Satan's bride. As well as the rapture from Darby. Hell from Dante and Milton. (Ezekiel 8; Romans 6:7)

So when Jehovah comes to set up his kingdom and battle with all of the nations that Jesus had rejected when Satan, their owner, had tempted him with, thier so called Christian society - with its self-appointed moral police of the globe - will stop raping children and blowing up abortion clinics to come and battle with God himself and undoubtedly say to Jesus, his prince: "Lord, Lord, did we not perform powerful works in your name?" And he will say "Get away from me, I never knew you."

[1] Although the Platonic trinity isn't a Jewish teaching like it is with apostate Christianity, they do believe that God's existence is plural, and that the Hebrew Scriptures, or Tenach, hint at the Trinity. For example, the first verse of Genesis 1:1 uses the word "Elohim" to refer to God, which comes from a root that means "strength, might, or power".

It could be what you're observing is not corruption at all, but is part of the system brought down by Moses from the divine. Judaism is an adaptive practice, a living tradition with a few core principles. One of which is best written as an axiom: "There's always another way." This means that what might be considered a corruption is actually just one of those "other-ways".

The verse I usually point to in order to support this comes from Deuteronomy 17: "If there is a matter too difficult for you ... go to the priests and judges of the day... " There is a divine law, but there are human checks and balances in place as part of the divine system. These human checks and balances naturally produce various ways of living a Jewish way of life. Those various ways might appear to be a corruption to the outsider, but, they're might be in perfect harmony with the divine intention. The only way to tell is by case-by-case evaluation. That's why I asked from examples. You don't need to provide any, I'm just trying to make a point. We don't need to argue about it unless you'd like to.

There isn't much point in arguing about it, we simply have different perspective. Maybe that's a good thing. My perspective is perhaps somewhat unique when compared to most in that I see Judaism as having been rooted in Moses and the prophets but Judaism itself as known today as being a result of the Pharisees seizing the authority and prestige as they perceived it, having long coveted it of the Aaronic Priesthood. That after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. I think a lot of that was the problem with Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus continued the Jewish teaching while the Pharisees had already begun to deteriorate it.

However, there is the distinction between the "other way" you refer to, as might be seen in the Pirkei Avot, or "Sayings of the Fathers" and where there is a conflict with those "sayings" including thier possible intent, for example, of exaltation. (Matthew 23:8-12)

The same can be said of Daoism. Similar to Judaism ( "There's always another way" ), Doaism is the no-way, way. It's a path which embraces all paths; That's a path which is simultaneously all and none. I'm not sure how that can become corrupted unless Daoism suddenly becomes dogmatic about anything other than its own lack of dogma.

Confucianism and Taoism were two different schools of thought developed around the same time in China during the Warring States period. A time when the citizens were exhausted with the constant battles between feudal states. Both believed in a heavenly way, the Chinese Tian which is nature or the universe as a guiding force, the heavenly way rather than God or deities as occidental culture might understand it. They had two different approaches to their teachings of the heavenly way. Taoism was passive; allowing nature to take its course, to interfere causes problems. Confucianism was active; nature must be harnessed.

Li Erh, commonly known as Laozi, meaning Old Master, may have lived in the sixth century BCE; he wrote Tao Te Ching, the principal text of Taoism. Taoism, along with Confucianism, began as an escape from the turmoil of the Warring States period. The two philosophies had different approaches; the Tao (way, path, power, discipline) was a passive approach to a sort of divine or heavenly will. Taoism was originally a return to the traditions of ancient ancestors; a simple, quiet, rural life. Don't interfere with nature, follow the path and everything will work out. Confucianism had a more pragmatic approach. Confucius believed that heavenly nature, like human nature, must be directed or harnessed. Neither Laozi nor his successor, Zhuang Zhou, who wrote Zuangzi claimed divine inspiration. Over the ages Taoism has adopted many gods, though these are more similar to the gods of the nation's surrounding Israel rather than the Abrahamic God of the Bible.

 

[SalixIncendium]

^^ incomplete definition of religion ^^

It wasn't a definition.

Incomplete seems to be the on-going theme of your arguments lately.

I wasn't making an argument. I was making a statement of the blatantly obvious.

Misrepresentation seems to be on on-going theme with your contributions lately.

 

[dybmh]

@I Am Hugh ,

So the pagan ideas you listed which you claim infiltrated Judaism are an immortal soul and a plural God? But you cite Genesis, the world Elohim as your justification for this?

Am I understanding?

For Daoism you have identified the preference for natural reactions correctly, but, have neglected that interference is also natural and good in certain circumstances. This is taught in the founding document the DDJ. Agreed? It's a very difficult read, though. The Chinese is difficult to translate properly.

There isn't much point in arguing about it, we simply have different perspective.

You seem to have made a factual error regarding Judaism. You also seem to be lacking some key details. Bringing that information to you would not be an argument.

 

[dybmh]

It wasn't a definition.

What ever it was it was incomplete. As usual.

 

[dybmh]

Indifference.

No. It's negligence. It's foolish to actively avoid relevant credible information.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's a blind way of evaluating the world.. i.e. on what is happening right now

How is that "blind"?
How is taking real world data and real world events as a basis for evaluating something, the "blind" way to do it?

I'ld say that it is the exact opposite.

What else do you suggest? To evaluate something based on how it is "supposed" to work and simply ignore all real world data?

Communism is "supposed" to work also. Go look at the real world though. Whenever communism is implemented, misery follows shortly afterwards.

How else should we evaluate ideas, if not by looking at real world data of their implementation?

Hopefully, more politicians will be well-educated, and can see further than their nose.

Their "nose" being real world data? And beyond the nose being fantasy lala-land where everyone is in denial of the real-world data?

 

[Kathryn]

I believe that man is fallen and fallible, so I basically go by the scriptures and teachings of a particular religion. Whether or not man follows it is still up for grabs.

 

[crossfire]

The Kalama Sutta is a very helpful guide: If a religion propagates greed, hatred, or delusion, (the three poisons) it leads to long term harm. If it works towards the ending of greed, hatred, or delusion, it leads to long term benefit.