Which Of the World's Religions Is Most Practical?

[Quiddity]

OK, let me clarify... Judaism, and reform Judaism in particular, focuses on the needs of its practitioners here and now, in this life. It encourages its adherents to lead a spiritual life in terms of mindfulness of gratitude, but it does not ask people to subordinate physical needs to doctrine.

Well, I'm not sure if that's true of the more conservative movements. Most Orthodox and Conservative Jews seem to align quite similar on social and moral issues as the Catholic Church.....but I see what you mean.

Is that just a cryptic way of saying "do whatever you guys want as long as it doesn't harm anyone"...

 

[lilithu]

Is that just a cryptic way of saying "do whatever you guys want as long as it doesn't harm anyone"...

No.

Even reform Judaism has a structure. There are certain things you are supposed to do, like observe the sabbath and say blessings before meals etc, etc. But you aren't required to follow these rules if it presents a hardship.

Personally, I would like UU to be more like reform Judaism. I think we could do with a little more structure, but always allowing for differences in personal circumstance.

 

[Quiddity]

No.

Even reform Judaism has a structure. There are certain things you are supposed to do, like observe the sabbath and say blessings before meals etc, etc. But you aren't required to follow these rules if it presents a hardship.

Personally, I would like UU to be more like reform Judaism. I think we could do with a little more structure, but always allowing for differences in personal circumstance.

I can see why you would. Really, there is probably some real tugging within UU. Different ideologies trying to take it in all sorts of directions. I suppose it's just bound to happen when you have different flavors part of it.

You know, I was taking "practical" not as what is easiest or more tolerant, or even which one tends to fulfill more needs (although all those are important and part of it), but rather which one is bound to "work" if put into practice properly. I tend to see religions that have a better sense of direction (rightly or wrongly) as more practical. That make sense?

 

[lilithu]

You know, I was taking "practical" not as what is easiest or more tolerant, or even which one tends to fulfill more needs (although all those are important and part of it), but rather which one is bound to "work" if put into practice properly. I tend to see religions that have a better sense of direction (rightly or wrongly) as more practical. That make sense?

Sure, it makes sense. Tho by that definition I would hope that everyone would choose their own religion. Because if they don't think that of their own religion, they should switch.

 

[dogsgod]

Any given religion will have us share a set of beliefs without offering any good reason as to why they are anymore correct than any other religion's. For this reason religions do far more to divide people of differing faiths than they do to unite people. Why bother?

 

[Quiddity]

Sure, it makes sense. Tho by that definition I would hope that everyone would choose their own religion. Because if they don't think that of their own religion, they should switch.

Why? It doesn't have "to work" does it? As long as it's able to produce fruits, (tolerance, fulfill needs, etc.) I would imagine that it wouldn't really matter if it didn't work in the face of adversities? (disagreements, emotions, politics, etc.) Would it to you? If so, why?

 

[lilithu]

Why? It doesn't have "to work" does it? As long as it's able to produce fruits, (tolerance, fulfill needs, etc.) I would imagine that it wouldn't really matter if it didn't work in the face of adversities? (disagreements, emotions, politics, etc.) Would it to you? If so, why?

Perhaps we have a different idea of what it means "to work"?

For me, if I'm going to devote my life to a religion, then what I am doing is gambling my whole life on it. Not only any possible afterlife, but also this life. Different religions promise somewhat different things, but I assume that for those who have chosen their own faith, they're counting on it delivering what it promises.

 

[Quiddity]

Perhaps we have a different idea of what it means "to work"?

By "work", I mean it's able to face all adversities and still be able to produce something official and with a direction. How the religion is structured plays a huge in this.

But really I speak from a mindset that believes that if right exist it should be able to be found irregardless of any adversities. I honestly don't think this is the case for many religions. Throw in one huge screw (adversity) and it either seizes to exist or is prone to schism.

How do you see "work"?

For me, if I'm going to devote my life to a religion, then what I am doing is gambling my whole life on it. Not only any possible afterlife, but also this life. Different religions promise somewhat different things, but I assume that for those who have chosen their own faith, they're counting on it delivering what it promises.

Well, you are talking to a person that believes "I will embrace truth whether I like what I find or not"....I had that sig going for some time. I literally have to detach myself as best as I can and just observe and ponder over it.

 

[Quiddity]

Upon further reflection, I think I should be clearer on what I mean by "work". I realized that what I said can also be applied to the RC.

Really, it's an authoritative structure that makes it more practical. And the structure itself if examined do differ as you are already aware.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I tend to see religions that have a better sense of direction (rightly or wrongly) as more practical. That make sense?

But doesn't this mean that what makes sense to you is what you consider more practical. I like the UU lack of direction, for want of a better term, and think it is more practical over all, but I recognise that this is a personal bias. In fact, I would say that everyone's answer will be colored by their own personal bias and is therefore correct for them without necessarly being correct for everyone else. hmmm, that sounds familiar for some reason...

 

[lilithu]

By "work", I mean it's able to face all adversities and still be able to produce something official and with a direction. How the religion is structured plays a huge in this.

But really I speak from a mindset that believes that if right exist it should be able to be found irregardless of any adversities. I honestly don't think this is the case for many religions. Throw in one huge screw (adversity) and it either seizes to exist or is prone to schism.

You'll have to define "adversity," but I detect a swipe at the Protestants.

Upon further reflection, I think I should be clearer on what I mean by "work". I realized that what I said can also be applied to the RC.

Really, it's an authoritative structure that makes it more practical. And the structure itself if examined do differ as you are already aware.

With respect, I personally do not think that the Catholic church was "working" very well at the time of the Reformation, what with the selling of indulgences and such.

Some religions may be better than others at maintaining an official voice and direction, but if that direction is wrong then it doesn't much matter that the direction was maintained. I am not saying that Catholicism is wrong. I'm only saying that being able to maintain a stable direction is not, imo, the best indicator of something "working."

How do you see "work"?

I purposely left the definition open to be defined by each religion. What I said is that "to work" would be to deliver what it promises. So in the case of Buddhism it would be to lead one to attain nirvana. In the case of Christianity, it would be to lead one to heaven. And perhaps some Buddhists and Christians will disagree with this and that's fine too.

If you're asking me what I personally mean as a UU, I'd say that for me as a UU, giving little thought to a possible afterlife, my religion "works" if it helps to create the Beloved Community. That would include stuff like being tolerant and open, etc. But see from my pov, these are not just practical, secular concerns about getting along in a diverse society; this is my faith. Creating a community here and now where people have the opportunities to live up to their fullest potentials IS what I think the purpose of life is. This is what I believe "Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth" to mean. UU "works" imo if it helps achieve this.

Well, you are talking to a person that believes "I will embrace truth whether I like what I find or not"....

As do I. However, you and I discern "what is true" by different criteria.

 

[Katzpur]

Well, I was interested in how everyone would define "practical" so I left that open.

Jeesh! You're no help. How about a dictionary definition? "Practical" is said to mean "designed for use; utilitarian; concerned with the application of knowledge to useful ends, as distinguished from speculation; concerned with or dealing efficiently with everyday activities."

I'm going to go with either Mormonism or Islam. Neither one of these is a creedal faith. Both are ways of life for their adherents with fairly well-defined behavioral guidelines for believers and with certain expectations being well-understood and accepted.

 

[uumckk16]

Jeesh! You're no help. How about a dictionary definition? "Practical" is said to mean "designed for use; utilitarian; concerned with the application of knowledge to useful ends, as distinguished from speculation; concerned with or dealing efficiently with everyday activities."

I'm going to go with either Mormonism or Islam. Neither one of these is a creedal faith. Both are ways of life for their adherents with fairly well-defined behavioral guidelines for believers and with certain expectations being well-understood and accepted.

Really? Isn't a "creed" basically the same thing as a "doctrine"? They come up as synonyms in my thesaurus. And clearly Mormonism has doctrines. Of course, I'm sure you know what you're talking about when you say your faith isn't creedal...not trying to challenge that! What am I missing?

 

[Comprehend]

For God to be considered as factual and accepted into scientific theory it must first be defined in falsifiable terms. For example: The second law of motion states that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. This statement is stated in falsifiable terms in that it can be shown to be false if someone can give an example wherein this is not the case. So far, after well over three hundred years since this law was discovered, it has held up as to be true and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The problem is that believers absolutely refuse to define their gods in no uncertain terms and then wonder why science can't help them out.

is it just me or does this post seem like it belongs to another thread?

 

[dogsgod]

is it just me or does this post seem like it belongs to another thread?

No it's not just you, it does belong on another thread. My bad.

 

[eudaimonia]

Which religion is the most practical?

Practicality implies purpose -- for what is a religion practical?

I cannot answer your question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quiddity]

You'll have to define "adversity," but I detect a swipe at the Protestants.

Well, I was Protestant, so I know the frustrations that went on just to agree on something and make it official. There was no mechanism where by one could submit. It was far more personal and subjective. That's not my cup of tea and I've seen just how much confusion and interpretational chaos it can cause. Having said that, I wasn't limiting my comments to just Protestants...

As for adveristy, well I just noted a few above. Essentially (as I said) there is no mechanism that can resolve important issues if the system is followed properly.

With respect, I personally do not think that the Catholic church was "working" very well at the time of the Reformation, what with the selling of indulgences and such.

That's because you are pointing out the bad fruits (which is something I wouldn't dare deny) and attaching it to the system I speak of. That's not what I am talking about.

Some religions may be better than others at maintaining an official voice and direction, but if that direction is wrong then it doesn't much matter that the direction was maintained. I am not saying that Catholicism is wrong. I'm only saying that being able to maintain a stable direction is not, imo, the best indicator of something "working."

It's ok, I already know you don't completely agree with my Church.
If it's direction (dogmas) were ever wrong, I certainly wouldn't remain catholic. But how am I to judge dogmas? On my own intellect and reasoning? Sure, (which I do) but I hope you see the endless swirl it leads you to when millions of people do it. I know you have a different view of this then I do, but I do not hold my breath with some "universal" concensus when it comes to such an approach.

I purposely left the definition open to be defined by each religion. What I said is that "to work" would be to deliver what it promises. So in the case of Buddhism it would be to lead one to attain nirvana. In the case of Christianity, it would be to lead one to heaven. And perhaps some Buddhists and Christians will disagree with this and that's fine too.

How could we ever verify that? If this is the case, then all will appear not to "work".

If you're asking me what I personally mean as a UU, I'd say that for me as a UU, giving little thought to a possible afterlife, my religion "works" if it helps to create the Beloved Community. That would include stuff like being tolerant and open, etc. But see from my pov, these are not just practical, secular concerns about getting along in a diverse society; this is my faith. Creating a community here and now where people have the opportunities to live up to their fullest potentials IS what I think the purpose of life is. This is what I believe "Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth" to mean. UU "works" imo if it helps achieve this.

Ok, I have a very similar view. Except of course I am more of an absolutist. I see now that you define "work" with how tolerant and the fruits it produces.

Although I agree that its important, I wouldn't personally use that as means to measure "work". Why? Because there can be good systems/directions (dogmas) with bad or lazy followers. Using people as a means to measure what works will never give you an accurate reading unless everybody is impeccable in their behaivor and extension of love.

As do I. However, you and I discern "what is true" by different criteria.

Perhaps very similar. I suspect much of it would come down to how we see Love.

 

[Quiddity]

Actually after reading this (from another thread):
I will not judge the credibility of a "religion" based on its beliefs.

I think it's safe to assume we disagree. Because that's exactly what I do. I do no judge on the fruits, but the beliefs/system.

 

[Hema]

Actually after reading this (from another thread):
I will not judge the credibility of a "religion" based on its beliefs.

I think it's safe to assume we disagree. Because that's exactly what I do. I do no judge on the fruits, but the beliefs/system.

Me did say on the first page that the most practical religion is love. You people don't want to listen to me...stubborn - just like my fiance. Okay, okay I'm joking! Don't give me any warnings or anything. :sorry1:

Isn't religion a way of live? Isn't the best path one of love?

 

[Quiddity]

Me did say on the first page that the most practical religion is love. You people don't want to listen to me...stubborn - just like my fiance. Okay, okay I'm joking! Don't give me any warnings or anything. :sorry1:

Isn't religion a way of live? Isn't the best path one of love?

Absolutely...problem is once you get into understanding what people mean by "love"?

It's too vague for me to make any assesment, really.