Religion and Compliance

[idav]

When is is ok to stop sin vs allowing individual freedom? Is a theocracy better in order to force people to comply to the letter of law according to a religion? God seems to pretty much allow everything to judge later yet humans do plenty of judgment and punishment. How does your religion deal with sin and punishment and what should be left to God?

 

[Thief]

God gave Man dominion.....in this world

God rules in His kingdom

 

[Dawnofhope]

When is is ok to stop sin vs allowing individual freedom? Is a theocracy better in order to force people to comply to the letter of law according to a religion? God seems to pretty much allow everything to judge later yet humans do plenty of judgment and punishment. How does your religion deal with sin and punishment and what should be left to God?

The use of the word 'sin' is Christian terminology for disobeying God's laws.

Baha'is are encouraged through daily prayer, meditation and study of the writings to call themselves to account each day and strive day by day to have their lives better reflect Baha'u'llah's Teachings. (Baha'u'llah is for Baha'is who Christ is for Christians and Muhammad for Muslims). For the most part it is between the individual and God.

Baha'i laws include no consumption of alcohol and no sexual intercourse before marriage. Elected Baha'i assemblies administer Baha'i laws in case of flagrant violation. So if someone who is a known Baha'i is openly consuming alcohol in public places or cohabiting with their partner and not married. We would make every effort to encourage them to follow the laws. As a last resort we would apply administrative sanctions where Baha'is can not vote in elections or attend certain meetings.

In cases of breaking civil laws then that is usually dealt with by civil authorities in the usual manner.

For most Baha'is however it is between themselves and God as to how they live their lives.

 

[SomeRandom]

As they say, God judges all in the end. Of course that's a primarily Abrahamic viewpoint. Dharmics seem to take the approach that judgement remain on earth and those who can transcend will do so. Of course, I'm not very fond of theocracy in general. If God is supposed have given man free will, it seems disobedient to try to take that away from people. (Barring legitimate hurtful crimes, of course. Society needs to function after all.)

 

[osgart]

I only have one commandment, do no harm to others and self. Other then that individuals should be free to live as chooses.

I couldnt bind anyone to my religion. Nor would i ever try.

A religion should only be entered into with the full desire of ones own will.

It does seem though that ' do no harm to others and self' as law would run into controversy with some people in its far reaching implications. What constitutes others, and what constitutes harm mainly.

I think a lot of what people dont do is as harmful as what they do in fact do. For instance letting homeless people die in the streets, if you have the power and means to help, would be an example.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When is is ok to stop sin vs allowing individual freedom? Is a theocracy better in order to force people to comply to the letter of law according to a religion? God seems to pretty much allow everything to judge later yet humans do plenty of judgment and punishment. How does your religion deal with sin and punishment and what should be left to God?

Life lessons. School of Hard Knocks. Karma.

Paves the way of discernment adequately.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When is is ok to stop sin vs allowing individual freedom?

Definitely not until you’re willing to admit that your god is incapable of doing it himself and needs your help.

Is a theocracy better in order to force people to comply to the letter of law according to a religion?

Theocracy is never better.

In a society that respects human rights, the only limitations on freedom that are justified are those that can be reasonably defended. If the only reason you have to limit another person’s freedom is some religious tenet that you accept but he doesn’t , then you have no business imposing your religious restrictions on him. Stick to using demonstrable facts as the basis for your laws.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It gets me wondering as to why compliance is such a big issue in many religions? Is non-compliance a threat to Identity?

 

[Mox]

When is is ok to stop sin vs allowing individual freedom? Is a theocracy better in order to force people to comply to the letter of law according to a religion? God seems to pretty much allow everything to judge later yet humans do plenty of judgment and punishment. How does your religion deal with sin and punishment and what should be left to God?

Forcing people to do something or not do something, is rather a hollow victory. Since they are only doing it or not doing it because you are presumably using some sort of punitive threat to effect compliance.

The only things that are justifiably enforceable are laws that proscribe those acts which cause others identifiable harm.

Religious definitions of sin, that have no counterpart in criminal or civil law, cannot be justifiably enforced. Since if God is the plaintiff, the individual wronged by human sin, then he can bring his cases against 'sinners' whenever he wishes to do so, until then, sin is irrelevant as far as the application of justice is concerned.

Eventually a people might grow accustomed to be being servile and compliant, from the continual use of threats to suppress dissent or alternatively they might eventually, possibly with the help of a hostile foreign power or at some other opportunity, rise up and start throwing the priests off a nice high building. The latter certainly does happen.

In a free nation, the church has no legislative judicial or executive authority, since the minute the clerics start ruling a nation with their interpretation of God's laws then human rights, democracy, freedom and scientific progress, die.

 

[metis]

In Judaism, compliance is not assumed within most branches-- ya know, two Jews have three opinions on everything.

In Catholicism, there's a somewhat different approach, and this analogy comes from a priest I know: the Church is like a Roman traffic cop trying to direct traffic, whereas many follow his directions, many don't, and some may only pay partial attention to him. But if a conflict were to occur, the cop is there to try and sort things out. An excellent book (Catholic) on this approach that I read quite a while back was "Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide", and it's main theme is that the Church has the role to teach what it thinks is right, but individual has the right of discernment. However, there were many times, especially in the past, where non-conformity was often treated very harshly, as it was in pretty much all religions/denominations. IOW, "the good old days" really weren't so good after all.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

As they say, God judges all in the end. Of course that's a primarily Abrahamic viewpoint. Dharmics seem to take the approach that judgement remain on earth and those who can transcend will do so. Of course, I'm not very fond of theocracy in general. If God is supposed have given man free will, it seems disobedient to try to take that away from people. (Barring legitimate hurtful crimes, of course. Society needs to function after all.)

The problem is in the Dharmic concept is you may not know when one may transcend. You may be doing the rigt thing on earth but in the end you were only doing something immoral.

 

[Sir Doom]

When is is ok to stop sin vs allowing individual freedom?

Idealy, as long as someone's idea of 'individual freedom' doesn't include removing it from someone else, then 'sin' should be mostly ignored if it isn't your own.

Is a theocracy better in order to force people to comply to the letter of law according to a religion?

Absolutely not. Forcing an ideal on someone is probably the quickest way to ensure disobedience.

God seems to pretty much allow everything to judge later yet humans do plenty of judgment and punishment. How does your religion deal with sin and punishment and what should be left to God?

We punish ourselves for our own sins. Other than that (and what I stated above) punishment is unnecessary. If God needs more than that I'm not aware of it.

 

[SomeRandom]

The problem is in the Dharmic concept is you may not know when one may transcend. You may be doing the rigt thing on earth but in the end you were only doing something immoral.

Yeah so? The samsara also renders such a point moot as there are endless chances to "get things right."

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Yeah so? The samsara also renders such a point moot as there are endless chances to "get things right."

Point is an evil person may not know they're doing evil. I'd rather them know at the end and not know during this life they have made others to suffer.

 

[SomeRandom]

Point is an evil person may not know they're doing evil. I'd rather them know at the end and not know during this life they have made others to suffer.

If they made others suffer they have already violated Dharma and arguably commandments from other religions. So they're probably already aware. Besides wouldn't end judgment just chuck them into Hell? How is that better than giving them another chance?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

If they made others suffer they have already violated Dharma and arguably commandments from other religions. So they're probably already aware. Besides wouldn't end judgment just chuck them into Hell? How is that better than giving them another chance?

Hmm so give a perpetual murder a chance with no remorse? Funny, I watched a video of a debt collector in UK who has no remorse in watching someone being gassed with petroleum and lit on fire. There are those that kill kids who give kids no chance at life. I doubt evil people are aware they're evil and even if they're aware their continuance means they are not concerned about any metaphysical judgment.

 

[SomeRandom]

Hmm so give a perpetual murder a chance with no remorse? Funny, I watched a video of a debt collector in UK who has no remorse in watching someone being gassed with petroleum and lit on fire. There are those that kill kids who give kids no chance at life. I doubt evil people are aware they're evil and even if they're aware their continuance means they are not concerned about any metaphysical judgment.

Ahh so quick to condemn. Psychopaths and sociopaths, well I don't know how they are created (or born.) but their negative energy is rehabilitated instead of tossed asunder. Do not confuse samsara as mere second chances, suffering is an integral part and always has been. That's what Karma actually is. Not the hippie nonsense of instant punishment, but eternal punishment. Until even the lowliest of scum are able to do good in the world, are able to find truth and themselves. Eternal retribution is found in both Abrahamic and Dharmic philosophy. It's just the when and how that differs.
Course remember that Dharmics (at least some) have a Hell concept. Several in fact, they're just not normally eternal.
And those hypothetical murderers without remorse could theoretically achieve heaven and salvation with a mere repentance and refusal to sin no more, in some Christian circles. So it's not like this is a case of Dharma vs Abraham in terms of punishment and reward. There is nuance to be found.