Is It Wrong to Judge a Religion by the Behavior of its Followers?

[Ryan O'Dine]

Is it wrong to look at suicide bombers and think substantially less of Islamic scripture? Or to look at the pedophile priest scandals/coverups and count them as a condemnation of Christian theology? Or even to judge a religion by its average lay people? Correct answer: No.

You: “The ones acting badly (or no better than anyone else) aren't interpreting it right.” Me: if it's so easy to misinterpret in harmful ways (or simply ignore), there's already a problem. Where's the Divine?

You: “Religion X has changed people's lives for the better.” True; but so have religions A, B, C, etc. So have political ideologies, secular philosophies, et al. If religion X believers don't stand out as categorically distinguishable... again, where's the Divine?

True? False? Grey Area? Strawberry Shortcake? Hippopotamus?

[Darth Rotor]

Is it wrong to look at suicide bombers and think substantially less of Islamic scripture? Or to look at the pedophile priest scandals/coverups and count them as a condemnation of Christian theology? Or even to judge a religion by its average lay people? Correct answer: No.

You: “The ones acting badly (or no better than anyone else) aren't interpreting it right.” Me: if it's so easy to misinterpret in harmful ways (or simply ignore), there's already a problem. Where's the Divine?

You: “Religion X has changed people's lives for the better.” True; but so have religions A, B, C, etc. So have political ideologies, secular philosophies, et al. If religion X believers don't stand out as categorically distinguishable... again, where's the Divine?

True? False? Grey Area? Strawberry Shortcake? Hippopotamus?
Strawberry Shortcake. Religion is a mixed bag.

If the behavior of the followers of a religion were homogenous, you'd have good grounds for making a judgment, particularly regarding your own decision to join it or not.

Now, how many behaviors do you need to tally up before you have accounted for enough to make a judgment? ;) Most people exhibit more than one behavior ...

DR

[Ryan O'Dine]

Strawberry Shortcake. Religion is a mixed bag.

If the behavior of the followers of a religion were homogenous, you'd have good grounds for making a judgment, particularly regarding your own decision to join it or not.

Now, how many behaviors do you need to tally up before you have accounted for enough to make a judgment? ;) Most people exhibit more than one behavior ...

DR
Religions claim a bee line to the One Universal Truth, no? Is it not fair to expect something well beyond the ordinary?

The behavior of specific believers doesn't have to be homogeneous, but shouldn't it at least stand out from all the other believers claiming the One Universal Truth?

[Iconoclast08]

Is It Wrong to Judge a Religion by the Behavior of its Followers?

No, if you subscribe to the notion that belief in religious nonsense has very real and pernicious behavioral consequences.

[Tumblehome]

@ Ryan O'Dine

That can be turned around, too. If you judge a religion for the violent actions of a few, you'd have to, in the same breath, judge it on the good actions of a few others. I can't think of a way where that isn't contradictory.

[Ryan O'Dine]

@ Ryan O'Dine

That can be turned around, too. If you judge a religion for the violent actions of a few, you'd have to, in the same breath, judge it on the good actions of a few others. I can't think of a way where that isn't contradictory.
Any ethical system can have good believers and bad. There will always be psychotics whose actions are beyond anything but medication. But when you see organized atrocities on the one hand (history is rife with them), and an often generally indifferent laity on the other, you're getting to something more damning, I think.

And as I say, if you can't discern any particular difference in the behaviors among different religions, am I not allowed -- on that basis -- to question the Divinity of them all?

[I Ratant]

@ Ryan O'Dine

That can be turned around, too. If you judge a religion for the violent actions of a few, you'd have to, in the same breath, judge it on the good actions of a few others. I can't think of a way where that isn't contradictory.
.
"Good actions" aren't fatal to the receivers.

[SOdhner]

You could apply that reasoning to some extent, yes, but it's very easy to go too far. I think the best example of this is what you said in your post:

Or to look at the pedophile priest scandals/coverups and count them as a condemnation of Christian theology?

It's a gross oversimplification to act as if "Christian" is a single religion. There are massive differences between the different churches. Let me turn it around on you - can I take anyone who happens to be an atheist and use their behavior to judge atheists in a general sense? Of course not. Now, you might say that that's different because atheists aren't organized in the way religions are... but it's the same with different branches of Christianity. Not only does my church not pay attention to whatever rules other ones put out there, but many of the others would insist that we're all going to burn in hell for not being "real" Christians.

You can certainly judge a congregation by looking at its members and its clergy. If the priest/pastor/etc. is spewing hatred and everyone is applauding, well... there you go. Further, you can judge the church as an organization based on how it deals with these people. There's a line between the church as an organization and the church as religion though, and it's hard to say when you should judge one based on the other. There are times, certainly, but... it's tricky.

The United States has done many horrible things, and will do many more, yet we love to hold these values up and talk about what we "stand for". Same question applies there. There are people who act like joining the armed forces makes you a saint, and others that act like it makes you a soulless killer - largely depending on how they feel about the country. They can both point to some events or policies and dismiss others, but the fact is that it's not that simple and both of those extreme stances are probably wrong.

That's because we need to give some weight to people's intent, and people don't always take the time (or have the ability) to know all of the different facts before they align themselves with a church, a country, an organization. That means people might live up to certain principles in their personal lives while also associating with some organization that is a bad model for those very same priciples, or the people *in* the organization might betray the vision it was founded on... It's a mess.

[jiggeryqua]

.
"Good actions" aren't fatal to the receivers.

I can think of a few specific occasions where you might genuinely be doing someone a favour by shooting them now rather than leaving them to die slowly, painfully and horribly somewhere where they have no hope of timely medical attention - but that's beside the point. 'Good actions aren't bad actions' isn't that helpful a comment - especially when you're replying to a remark that the bad actions and the good actions should contribute to a judgement. The 'good actions' you put in detachment quotes are good actions, no matter how you try to detach yourself from the idea that someone with a religious belief can act for good. Their 'bad actions' are bad actions. Bush & Blair thinking god sent them to war in Afghanistan? Bad action...massively fatal action. Church volunteers distributing soup and dry sleeping bags to homeless people? Good action...although I'm open to a convincing argument that letting homeless people die on the streets itstheirownfaultafterall is 'good'. Rather than 'bad'...and fatal.

[Ryan O'Dine]

It's a gross oversimplification to act as if "Christian" is a single religion. There are massive differences between the different churches.
Absolutely. I'm not opposed to judging behaviors sect by sect, even if my language is sloppy in that regard.

Let me turn it around on you - can I take anyone who happens to be an atheist and use their behavior to judge atheists in a general sense? Of course not. Now, you might say that that's different because atheists aren't organized in the way religions are... but it's the same with different branches of Christianity. Not only does my church not pay attention to whatever rules other ones put out there, but many of the others would insist that we're all going to burn in hell for not being "real" Christians.
I believe the differences with atheism are more significant than that. Atheists don't claim to posses the One Eternal God-Given Truth. My impression is that many religions believe their Truth to have a literally supernatural power to affect people's lives. That's why I think its so appropriate to judge their beliefs by their behaviors. I'm essentially using their own standards.

You can certainly judge a congregation by looking at its members and its clergy. If the priest/pastor/etc. is spewing hatred and everyone is applauding, well... there you go. Further, you can judge the church as an organization based on how it deals with these people. There's a line between the church as an organization and the church as religion though, and it's hard to say when you should judge one based on the other. There are times, certainly, but... it's tricky.
I think we're close to common ground here.

The United States has done many horrible things, and will do many more, yet we love to hold these values up and talk about what we "stand for". Same question applies there. There are people who act like joining the armed forces makes you a saint, and others that act like it makes you a soulless killer - largely depending on how they feel about the country. They can both point to some events or policies and dismiss others, but the fact is that it's not that simple and both of those extreme stances are probably wrong.
My objection here is the same as with atheism above. The U.S. doesn't claim to have the kind of Truth religions usually trumpet.

[I Ratant]

I can think of a few specific occasions where you might genuinely be doing someone a favour by shooting them now rather than leaving them to die slowly, painfully and horribly somewhere where they have no hope of timely medical attention - but that's beside the point. 'Good actions aren't bad actions' isn't that helpful a comment - especially when you're replying to a remark that the bad actions and the good actions should contribute to a judgement. The 'good actions' you put in detachment quotes are good actions, no matter how you try to detach yourself from the idea that someone with a religious belief can act for good. Their 'bad actions' are bad actions. Bush & Blair thinking god sent them to war in Afghanistan? Bad action...massively fatal action. Church volunteers distributing soup and dry sleeping bags to homeless people? Good action...although I'm open to a convincing argument that letting homeless people die on the streets itstheirownfaultafterall is 'good'. Rather than 'bad'...and fatal.
.
Mishaps occur when trying to assist some people.
But it's usually because of an attempt to keep them alive.
Suicide bombing, no.
It's done as a manifestation of faith.
A faith that promotes the mass slaughter of innocents is evil.

[jiggeryqua]

Atheists don't claim to possess the One Eternal God-Given Truth.

[Some] atheists insist that the Truth is that there are no gods, nor has there ever been any gods. I don't believe I've ever seen one say "and there never will be any gods", but I think the eternal nature of that Truth is taken as read. To be fair, it's not the only, or One, truth (though it is the only truth that defines atheists). As for 'God-Given' well, yes, atheists don't claim to be inspired by a god they deny - that would be silly. But just because gasoline isn't urine doesn't make me more inclined to drink it.

[Ryan O'Dine]

[Some] atheists insist that the Truth is that there are no gods, nor has there ever been any gods. I don't believe I've ever seen one say "and there never will be any gods", but I think the eternal nature of that Truth is taken as read. To be fair, it's not the only, or One, truth (though it is the only truth that defines atheists). As for 'God-Given' well, yes, atheists don't claim to be inspired by a god they deny - that would be silly. But just because gasoline isn't urine doesn't make me more inclined to drink it.
This is important. Religions claim a kind of Truth that stands out from all other possible truths. The various Holy Scriptures aren't just collections of wise sayings, they're revelations of an ultimate reality possessed only by that religion. Not mere self-help books, they're the gateways to spiritual enlightenment and communion with God.

Surely we should judge them (and consequently their resulting behaviors) on an entirely different level from the merely logical and factual truths of atheism.

[iknownothing]

Absolutely. You can judge that it utterly fails to prevent grossly immoral behavior. And you can judge that it doesn't inspire any positive behavior beyond what every other religion/philosophy/etc. does.

If those two are true, then what's the point of the religion?

[tsig]

@ Ryan O'Dine

That can be turned around, too. If you judge a religion for the violent actions of a few, you'd have to, in the same breath, judge it on the good actions of a few others. I can't think of a way where that isn't contradictory.

That's assuming there are a few others.

[Darth Rotor]

Religions claim a bee line to the One Universal Truth, no? Is it not fair to expect something well beyond the ordinary?
That wasn't the opening question. Nor is that particularly germane to my answer, since the delta between theory and practice is what I was getting at.
The behavior of specific believers doesn't have to be homogeneous, but shouldn't it at least stand out from all the other believers claiming the One Universal Truth?
Not what I was getting at.

When you make a judgment, how many factors are you willing to consider?

Why?

DR

[Piscivore]

Absolutely. I'm not opposed to judging behaviors sect by sect, even if my language is sloppy in that regard.
How about judging behaviours person by person?

[Piscivore]

Is it wrong to look at suicide bombers and think substantially less of Islamic scripture? Or to look at the pedophile priest scandals/coverups and count them as a condemnation of Christian theology? Or even to judge a religion by its average lay people? Correct answer:Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)

[Ryan O'Dine]

That wasn't the opening question. Nor is that particularly germane to my answer, since the delta between theory and practice is what I was getting at.
You're saying that you can't judge a religion based on people's inability to live up to God's Truth -- have I got that right?

If so, I still have the same basic problems. For example, atrocities on large, organized scales. Can I not expect Divine Truths to do better than political philosophies in this regard, however fallible the individual believer?

Second objection below.

When you make a judgment, how many factors are you willing to consider?

Why?

DR

How about judging behaviours person by person?

I don't think we have to get into bean counting, or develop a statistical analysis here. It seems to me if God Himself (in many religions) personally handed down a life-transforming set of Truths, the evidence from believers should be blindingly obvious, just on a day-to-day basis.

Such believers should shine like supernovae, not gleam like D cell flashlights. If you suggest otherwise, aren't you basically admitting that God's Own Truth is indistinguishable from any prosaic kind of human truth?

[Polaris]

My answer to the OP question is no, because without the religion the behavior of the followers (I assume the OP implies misbehavior) they wouldn't have the excuse, or worse, reason, to do ill. However, I don't believe the opposite is true: it's wrong to judge a religion's followers by the tenets of the religion.

Since I think it's fair to say that some religions are better than others based on the effect they have on the world, I think those tenets are a fair basis to judgement. And that being the case, individually it would mean that the better a person followed that religion, the worse person he/she would be, and vice versa.

[SOdhner]

I believe the differences with atheism are more significant than that. Atheists don't claim to posses the One Eternal God-Given Truth. My impression is that many religions believe their Truth to have a literally supernatural power to affect people's lives. That's why I think its so appropriate to judge their beliefs by their behaviors. I'm essentially using their own standards.

Well, you already agreed to the main point that I brought that up for - that "Christian" is a really broad term. I'll agree with you about atheists but not for the reason you state.

See, I think that you can go further with this and not limit it to religion. There are plenty of philosophies that tell people how to live or how to think and not all of them involve God. I think the God part of it isn't a helpful place to draw the line, since some are more or less certain in the very definition of God or the importance that plays in how you live your life.

My objection here is the same as with atheism above. The U.S. doesn't claim to have the kind of Truth religions usually trumpet.

Well, your mileage may vary but I know a lot of people that elevate the principles that the country was founded on (or that they think it was founded on) to this nearly divine Truth. I think it compares pretty well... but again, to each his own.

You can judge that it utterly fails to prevent grossly immoral behavior. And you can judge that it doesn't inspire any positive behavior beyond what every other religion/philosophy/etc. does.

I like what you just said. Really. But at the same time I feel a need to play Devil's Advocate here because even though I like it I don't entirely agree with it.

The argument can be made that any religion or philosophy is like an instruction manual. If the manual says "DO NOT TOUCH THE RED WIRE" and I lean on in and say "Don't worry, I read the manual" and then I touch the red wire and am electrocuted... on the one hand you can say that the manual failed to prevent my death. On the other hand people who like the manual can say it's not the manual's fault that I didn't live according to those rules. They can insist that, by definition, any negative examples aren't "really" part of that group anyway and so the REAL followers of the manual have a 100% success rate at not touching the red wire.

So what we have is a problem with too many influences. We have the literal manuals (whatever holy books, manifestos, etc. that exist for the movement), we have the rules as they are understood by the general follower (not always the same), we have the rules as they are established by the organization, and finally how that organization behaves.

Maybe the book is great, but the organization is horrible.
Maybe the book is horrible, but the general followers have re-interpreted it to be something great.
Etc.

So which part are we judging? For example, I know some people who live better lives than I believe they otherwise would because they want to follow the teachings of Jesus (as portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels). If they followed the wrong parts of the Bible, or the example of some of the leaders of the Catholic church, etc. there would be a problem. So we can condemn on aspect but there may be others that are a positive influence.

[Piscivore]

You're saying that you can't judge a religion based on people's inability to live up to God's Truth -- have I got that right?

If so, I still have the same basic problems. For example, atrocities on large, organized scales. Can I not expect Divine Truths to do better than political philosophies in this regard, however fallible the individual believer?

I don't think we have to get into bean counting, or develop a statistical analysis here. It seems to me if God Himself (in many religions) personally handed down a life-transforming set of Truths, the evidence from believers should be blindingly obvious, just on a day-to-day basis.

Such believers should shine like supernovae, not gleam like D cell flashlights. If you suggest otherwise, aren't you basically admitting that God's Own Truth is indistinguishable from any prosaic kind of human truth?

Only if believing "God's Own Truth" automatically gives each "believer" the ability to perfectly and infallibly act in accordance with that "truth". I don't see where that claim is made by any but a few extreme fringe religions.

[FireGarden]

Is it wrong to look at suicide bombers and think substantially less of Islamic scripture? Or to look at the pedophile priest scandals/coverups and count them as a condemnation of Christian theology? Or even to judge a religion by its average lay people? Correct answer: No.

The answer is correct because religion isn't monolithic. And it is easy to pick out an unrepresentative subset.

But I think your other judgements are okay, because they aren't judgements which try to portray a subset of a group as representative of the group.

You: “The ones acting badly (or no better than anyone else) aren't interpreting it right.” Me: if it's so easy to misinterpret in harmful ways (or simply ignore), there's already a problem. Where's the Divine?

This is a different type of judgement entirely. Rather than extrapolating from examples to the whole, you are saying that religion doesn't fit the purpose it claims to have.

You: “Religion X has changed people's lives for the better.” True; but so have religions A, B, C, etc. So have political ideologies, secular philosophies, et al. If religion X believers don't stand out as categorically distinguishable... again, where's the Divine?


Here you are saying that religion doesn't have a monopoly on improving people's lives. This follows from the facts, and is a different kind of judgement to the ones in the first paragraph.

[I Ratant]

How about judging behaviours person by person?
.
There really isn't any other sane way to do that, in random instances.
Group, mob behavior is more stereotypable, but an individual, no.

[Darth Rotor]

You're saying that you can't judge a religion based on people's inability to live up to God's Truth -- have I got that right?
No, but I give merit to your concerns on that score, since any decision you would make to join such a religion would require you to weigh "how well does t his belief/philosophy" work out in practice? Am I happy with that balance? Religion is a collective human activity, and like any other group endeavor, if you consider participating in it, it's very wise to do some homework and see how it squares with your likes and dislikes.

If, on the other hand, you are aware of the general principles of a religion, and many of them do not fit your world view, I don't see anything wrong with you being wary of those who practice it until you see how well their practice and theory/philosohpy fit plays out.

Example: Islam generaly abhors homosexuality, on principle. You may neet some Muslims who, because they choose to accept the spirit more than rule of various Islamic teachings, are more charitable and warm to homosexuals as fellow human beings than some of the hardcore who want them stoned/killed.

Likewise with Christians: if you are single, and like to chase women and have a varied sex life, if you meet/encounter a lot of Christians whose principles are, by rule, very much against that, you'd be wise to exercise caution with them until you see how the theory versus practice plays out, as your expectation would be that they'd frown on, or object to your habits. Depending on your general relationship with them, this might cause serious friction between you.
If so, I still have the same basic problems. For example, atrocities on large, organized scales. Can I not expect Divine Truths to do better than political philosophies in this regard, however fallible the individual believer?
I'll refer you to Eric Hoffer, and his observations on mass movements.

http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Nature-Movements/dp/0060916125
I don't think we have to get into bean counting, or develop a statistical analysis here. It seems to me if God Himself (in many religions) personally handed down a life-transforming set of Truths, the evidence from believers should be blindingly obvious, just on a day-to-day basis.
You are presuming that transmission and reception are perfect, in this communication, which I am pretty sure is a faulty assumption. Speaking only from a Christian philosophical frame of reference, it is acknowledged that humans err and sin, from which I derive that it is easy for humans to be sent a good message and screw it up in implementation. My experience in other areas supports that tendency of humans: we could, as a species, screw up a wet dream. :cool:
Such believers should shine like supernovae, not gleam like D cell flashlights.
The rare ones who get to that level are remarkable, for being so rare, in terms of how well the "get it" or don't. St Francis of Assissi is an example I'd toss out as someone who "got it" pretty well.
If you suggest otherwise, aren't you basically admitting that God's Own Truth is indistinguishable from any prosaic kind of human truth?
No, but you just did. ;)

I think you are asking for a simple answer in the OP, to a non trivial human undertaking.

I've used this quip elsewhere, but I've often thought that, when it comes to Divine intention, God told "us" (be it Mohammed, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, whomever) all that we know, but not all that He knows.

DR

[Cainkane1]

Is it wrong to look at suicide bombers and think substantially less of Islamic scripture? Or to look at the pedophile priest scandals/coverups and count them as a condemnation of Christian theology? Or even to judge a religion by its average lay people? Correct answer: No.

You: “The ones acting badly (or no better than anyone else) aren't interpreting it right.” Me: if it's so easy to misinterpret in harmful ways (or simply ignore), there's already a problem. Where's the Divine?

You: “Religion X has changed people's lives for the better.” True; but so have religions A, B, C, etc. So have political ideologies, secular philosophies, et al. If religion X believers don't stand out as categorically distinguishable... again, where's the Divine?

True? False? Grey Area? Strawberry Shortcake? Hippopotamus?
I've known fantastic Muslims, Catholics, Baptists etc. Atheists are a minority group and I personally refuse to shun the majority of the human race.

[FireGarden]

I like what you just said. Really. But at the same time I feel a need to play Devil's Advocate here because even though I like it I don't entirely agree with it.

The argument can be made that any religion or philosophy is like an instruction manual. If the manual says "DO NOT TOUCH THE RED WIRE" and I lean on in and say "Don't worry, I read the manual" and then I touch the red wire and am electrocuted... on the one hand you can say that the manual failed to prevent my death. On the other hand people who like the manual can say it's not the manual's fault that I didn't live according to those rules. They can insist that, by definition, any negative examples aren't "really" part of that group anyway and so the REAL followers of the manual have a 100% success rate at not touching the red wire.

Another example could be that there are quacks who have made it through medical school. But one question we should ask is: does going to medical school make it less likely that'll you'll become a quack?

And most religions claim to be universal. How many say that only the most disciplined can follow the faith? Often you're simply born into a faith, and the faith will accept you as an adherent. Then you go touch the red wire and they say "Well he didn't really pay enough attention to what our faith says -- so he wasn't really one of us".

The argument you give could make sense. EG: for a faith like Jediism, where Luke wasn't a Jedi until he had worked for it and earned it like a doctor would earn a degree. Yoda even tried to send him packing by saying he was too old and set in his ways. And his father was a Jedi, but this wasn't inherited as a birth right.

For religions of that kind, maybe they can say the manual works but only if you follow it properly. Maybe I'm generalising too much from the religions I'm familiar with, but they seem to regard studying the manual as something you can do after you've joined.

[kerikiwi]

The problem is that just because a label is attached, such as 'muslim' or 'christian' it does not mean that all people who have that label believe the same things.
Fred Phelps and Ratzinger are christians, but they don't have identical beliefs, other than each probably thinks the other is wrong.
'Muslims' do something bad so that is used as proof that islam is evil.
If the same logic is followed, muslims doing something good should be proof that islam is good.

People can claim to be muslim or christian, and that is what they believe they are. That is their religion, no matter how much other muslims or anti-muslims say they are wrong.
Being right is not a prerequisite for belief.

[Darth Rotor]

And most religions claim to be universal. How many say that only the most disciplined can follow the faith?
I don't know if I'd have said it quite that way, but you make a pretty good point there. The problem is that you are near to constructing a false dichotomy: that only if one is a perfect adherent can one be following the faith. Not a digital phenomenon, nor a step function. It's a continuum.

As see it, for most religions the exercise of the faith is a journey, not a finished product. That's certainly been my experience, that it entails a proess of continual improvement. So if I tell you "I am a Christian" you have an inkling to the journey I am on -- hopefully, to becoming a better Christian next week than I am this week.

But back to your point of having to be most disciplined in order to follow, I think the Gnostics adopted that approach, in terms of level of immersion before one gets to the state of gnosis, and becomes one of the perfecti, but I'll not dwell further on that, other than to say such an approach may have significantly reduced the appeal to that religious form.

Often you're simply born into a faith, and the faith will accept you as an adherent. Then you go touch the red wire and they say "Well he didn't really pay enough attention to what our faith says -- so he wasn't really one of us".
If one doesn't grow in a religion, your earlier point about "most disciplined" and mine about "journey" look to converge. If one does not practice the religion, the odds of growing within the faith, or the journey, seem small to me.
And his father was a Jedi, but this wasn't inherited as a birth right.
I think that is true of Christianity: you have to develop within it. Or did I not quite get your point?

For religions of that kind, maybe they can say the manual works but only if you follow it properly. Maybe I'm generalising too much from the religions I'm familiar with, but they seem to regard studying the manual as something you can do after you've joined.
I'll offer that you can be a C level Christian, a B level Christian, or an F level failure or worse. The one's who get an A are rare. I think that the bell curve is a good mental picture of how people fall into practice versus theory on that score. The biggest clump are most likely C students.

DR

[Tsukasa Buddha]

When people phrase a question like that it always makes me think of the FSM game. Like Belief System X is floating up there touching people with it's noodley appendage.

As a humanist, I see it as more each person who becomes a believer creates their own belief system that mirrors certain aspects of X.

With that as my basis, I say it is incorrect to blame a "religion", because there is no such thing.

[Ryan O'Dine]

See, I think that you can go further with this and not limit it to religion. There are plenty of philosophies that tell people how to live or how to think and not all of them involve God. I think the God part of it isn't a helpful place to draw the line, since some are more or less certain in the very definition of God or the importance that plays in how you live your life.

I'm going to harp on this one point because I think it's important for me to defend (and by the way -- welcome to the forum, I'm enjoying our conversation. :))

I think the God part is important. Critical, even. By bringing God into the equation, religions are claiming an entirely different order of Truth. A Truth more true than any other, exactly because it comes from God. A Truth with a transformative power like nothing else.

They are not claiming subtle transformations, as far as I can tell. They're claiming categorical ones. I'm taking them at their word -- and am failing by and large to see it expressed in their behavior. Maybe that's unfair -- some of these various counterarguments are making me reconsider. But I'm not there yet.

[FireGarden]

I don't know if I'd have said it quite that way, but you make a pretty good point there. The problem is that you are near to constructing a false dichotomy: that only if one is a perfect adherent can one be following the faith. Not a digital phenomenon, nor a step function. It's a continuum.

I thought I was implying the opposite, since my question is probably answered with "not many faiths claim that only the most disciplined can join".

As see it, for most religions the exercise of the faith is a journey, not a finished product. That's certainly been my experience, that it entails a proess of continual improvement. So if I tell you "I am a Christian" you have an inkling to the journey I am on -- hopefully, to becoming a better Christian next week than I am this week.

I think that is true of Christianity: you have to develop within it. Or did I not quite get your point?

The point is: who is a Christian? Do they have to develop within some curriculum, as you say, or can they merely believe that Jesus is the Lord?

Even if I accept your view, then you are a Christian when you begin the journey -- not when you arrive at a destination. If your journey isn't direct, are you still a Christian while taking detours? Do we blame you or the map if you take a detour?

I'll offer that you can be a C level Christian, a B level Christian, or an F level failure or worse. The one's who get an A are rare. I think that the bell curve is a good mental picture of how people fall into practice versus theory on that score. The biggest clump are most likely C students.

DR

Well, fair enough. That allows you accept people into the faith before they've studied the manual. This now let's you defend the manual in the way SOdhner suggested, by saying that so-and-so didn't follow it properly eg: because he was a novice.

I hadn't considered it from that angle.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Only if believing "God's Own Truth" automatically gives each "believer" the ability to perfectly and infallibly act in accordance with that "truth". I don't see where that claim is made by any but a few extreme fringe religions.

The believer does not have to be “perfect” to be notably different. If I don't find any significant differences at all -- if their behavior is indistinguishable from anyone else's -- aren't I right to question the premise of their Truths?

I think you are asking for a simple answer in the OP, to a non trivial human undertaking. DR
Nonetheless, I find your answers non-trivial. I appreciate your input, and reserve the right to object after I've pondered a little.

I've known fantastic Muslims, Catholics, Baptists etc. Atheists are a minority group and I personally refuse to shun the majority of the human race.

Just for the record, I am in no way, shape or form suggesting anyone shun anyone else. I can be put off by a believer's behavior, rigorously question the source that supposedly led to that behavior, and still call them friend.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Another example could be that there are quacks who have made it through medical school. But one question we should ask is: does going to medical school make it less likely that'll you'll become a quack?
...snip...

Thank you, FireGarden. Thought provoking.

The problem is that just because a label is attached, such as 'muslim' or 'christian' it does not mean that all people who have that label believe the same things.
This has been touched on, but your post clarifies the issue, and I think it's worth revisiting.

If a single scripture gives rise to a wide variety of beliefs -- but the behaviors resulting from those beliefs do not stand out remarkably one from the other -- is it not fair to come to a general conclusion about that scripture?

Do I hear a yes? Can I at least have an amen?

[Piscivore]

The believer does not have to be “perfect” to be notably different. If I don't find any significant differences at all -- if their behavior is indistinguishable from anyone else's -- aren't I right to question the premise of their Truths?
No, because those "Truths" do not promise to improve or alter behaviour, let alone to the degree which you seem to require.

The only "signifigant differences" which you have thusfar mentioned are unspecific, emotionally evocative vaguaries like "such believers should shine like supernovae".

What specific behaviours should a believer exhibit, according to you, if their "truth" were factual?

[SOdhner]

I'm going to harp on this one point because I think it's important for me to defend (and by the way -- welcome to the forum, I'm enjoying our conversation. :))

Thanks! I'm enjoying it too.

I think the God part is important. Critical, even. By bringing God into the equation, religions are claiming an entirely different order of Truth. A Truth more true than any other, exactly because it comes from God. A Truth with a transformative power like nothing else.

Maybe I misunderstood the original question, but I don't think so. It seemed like you were asking whether religions could be judged by the behavior of their believers, and now you seem to be talking about whether or not religions are delivering on the promises they make. That seems like a different question.

They are not claiming subtle transformations, as far as I can tell. They're claiming categorical ones. I'm taking them at their word -- and am failing by and large to see it expressed in their behavior. Maybe that's unfair -- some of these various counterarguments are making me reconsider. But I'm not there yet.

I disagree, actually. The big transformations most promise are post-death and therefore not really part of this conversation since we can't observe any behavior by the believers at that point. While they're alive it isn't so much about some magical transformation (generally speaking) as it is about how you should live so that you can be a better person / be more pleasing to God / whatever.

In that sense, we can ignore a certain amount of the premise and look at the results. I mean, what if Hitler showed up and told you the (correct) answer to some difficult physics problem. Would the physics change just because it was Hitler? No. Truth is truth.

So, then, if we are looking at the behavior of the followers we can look at that behavior without worrying too much about the untestable parts of the philosophy. If there's a religion that preaches that God wants us to be nice to our neighbors and there's also some non-religious philosophical movement that says the same, why are you only looking at one of them? If they both have dedicated followers they should both be up for this discussion.

[Complexity]

I condemn all religions without regard to their followers as being somewhere between utterly wrong and utterly wrong and a fraudulant scam (e.g. scientology and catholicism).

Believers and followers can only make the situation worse.

[Ryan O'Dine]

No, because those "Truths" do not promise to improve or alter behaviour, let alone to the degree which you seem to require.
I suppose it's possible my understanding of religion is grossly wrong. I hope knowledgeable people will enlighten me.

Christianity, for example. My understanding is, you follow the scriptures, you become a better person. You get closer to God. You become more perfectly moral. If you follow some other religion, you are going down the wrong path and cannot achieve such things to the same degree.

The only "signifigant differences" which you have thusfar mentioned are unspecific, emotionally evocative vaguaries like "such believers should shine like supernovae".

What specific behaviours should a believer exhibit, according to you, if their "truth" were factual?
I'm not actually sure I need to specify that. If I generally can't distinguish believers in X from believers in Y -- if their behavior seems pretty interchangeable -- then I feel justified in questioning how one can supposedly have The Truth, and the other not.


Thanks! I'm enjoying it too.
I prefer that people suffer on my threads, but okay. ;)

Maybe I misunderstood the original question, but I don't think so. It seemed like you were asking whether religions could be judged by the behavior of their believers, and now you seem to be talking about whether or not religions are delivering on the promises they make. That seems like a different question.
If the religion promises to change your behavior -- make you more moral, more godly, more righteous -- then the question stands. Yes?

[Tumblehome]

Any ethical system can have good believers and bad. There will always be psychotics whose actions are beyond anything but medication. But when you see organized atrocities on the one hand (history is rife with them), and an often generally indifferent laity on the other, you're getting to something more damning, I think.

Defining a cultural entity by history strikes me as one-dimensional. History is rife with organized atrocities because that's what history basically is about: it's a record of changes in the geopolitical landscape usually through violent conflict between leaders. Common folk of any cultural affiliation who build hospitals and feed the poor don't change national boundaries, so they don't get historical press, even though they are more numerous (I would bet, anyway) than their rabble-rousing leaders.

And how can you judge a religion by its general membership when you don't know who they are and what they're doing? I've heard many declarations of opposition to extremism from Muslims who follow their religion and just want to get on with their own lives peacefully with their neighbours, yet the vast majority of ink and airtime goes to acts of violence. Again, it's a matter of optics.

And as I say, if you can't discern any particular difference in the behaviors among different religions, am I not allowed -- on that basis -- to question the Divinity of them all?

I don't understand why you brought divinity into this. I'd say you can question the divinity of all religions regardless of the behaviour of any of them, but that seems to be a separate issue. People interpret their holy books on their own, not because they're directed by any divine power.

[Tumblehome]

That's assuming there are a few others.

That reminds me of the label on frozen orange juice containers: "100% pure orange juice", except for "orange juice", I'd substitute "cynicism". :p

[Piscivore]

I suppose it's possible my understanding of religion is grossly wrong. I hope knowledgeable people will enlighten me.

Christianity, for example. My understanding is, you follow the scriptures, you become a better person.
Not by default, not automatically. Fellow Christians (of the same denomination) may and probably do, on first meetings, assume another Christian is a better person, but I don't think you'll find many that claim just professing belief turns one into a better person.

You get closer to God. As long as one is "living the life", so to speak. Not just from simple belief.

You become more perfectly moral.
As above.

If you follow some other religion, you are going down the wrong path and cannot achieve such things to the same degree.
This is superficially true, but it doesn't mean that if you do follow the "right religion", you are automatically going down the right path and automatically acheive these "things".

I'm not actually sure I need to specify that.
I'm actually sure that you do. What do you expect "believers" to do differently than non believers? How does one look for evidence of a "difference" without criteria? Especially when the "truths" you are deriding for not producing "different behaviour" does not actually claim it will produce different behaviour from simple belief.

If I generally can't distinguish believers in X from believers in Y -- if their behavior seems pretty interchangeable --
How about this- "believers in X" go to an X church, donate money to X causes, vote for X candidates, support positions supported by X. "Believers in Y", dont. These are specific behaviours that are different for believers in X and non-believers in X.

What you are doing is generalising to such a degree that any difference is moot, than calling that a failure of the thing you are generalising about. That's like failing to focus a microscope and then declaring one does not see a difference between cocci and bacilli.

You're not using the "equipment" correctly.

then I feel justified in questioning how one can supposedly have The Truth, and the other not.
"Feeling justified" is not a test for truth. And, ironically, an error common to religions.

If the religion promises to change your behavior -- make you more moral, more godly, more righteous -- then the question stands. Yes?
That's a big if. Find even one. And even then, you're just back to hasty generalisation, or perhaps cherry picking, to declare that all religions share this "failing".

[Piscivore]

I condemn all religions without regard to their followers...
Where does one find a religion that exists without members/followers/believers?

[SOdhner]

If the religion promises to change your behavior -- make you more moral, more godly, more righteous -- then the question stands. Yes?

No. Your question wasn't "do religions make you a better person?", it was "Is it wrong to judge a religion by the behavior of its followers?".

The behavior of the followers might be influenced by the promises of the religion, but that doesn't make them interchangeable. If we are looking to the behavior of the followers it doesn't really matter if the beliefs in question are promising to make them better, make them worse, or make them a sandwich. It's just about what they are DOING with those beliefs.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Defining a cultural entity by history strikes me as one-dimensional. History is rife with organized atrocities because that's what history basically is about: it's a record of changes in the geopolitical landscape usually through violent conflict between leaders.
And I'm saying it's a problem for claims of divine origin if churches are no different. That it's fair for me to expect something more from God's Truth than the usual geopolitical shenanigans.

Common folk of any cultural affiliation who build hospitals and feed the poor don't change national boundaries, so they don't get historical press, even though they are more numerous (I would bet, anyway) than their rabble-rousing leaders.
A church is God Himself working through His chosen people and institutions. If I need look particularly hard to find evidence of that (behaviors, for example, that stand out from false, ungodly churches or mere political philosophies), well -- that's doesn't speak so impressively of God, seems to me.

And how can you judge a religion by its general membership when you don't know who they are and what they're doing?
My contention is that since God is involved, the differences between true and false should stand out unmistakably, even in day-to-day encounters with His people.


I don't understand why you brought divinity into this. I'd say you can question the divinity of all religions regardless of the behaviour of any of them, but that seems to be a separate issue. People interpret their holy books on their own, not because they're directed by any divine power.
Believers themselves will tell you their Truths are different from all other truths -- exactly because of their divine origins. I'm taking them at their word, and looking for evidence of this in their behaviors. If knowing the TRUTH doesn't change you for the better, I guess I'm not sure what the point of seeking it is.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Not by default, not automatically. Fellow Christians (of the same denomination) may and probably do, on first meetings, assume another Christian is a better person, but I don't think you'll find many that claim just professing belief turns one into a better person.
Hmm. Once again, my concept of Christianity, and religion in general, appear to be very different. Not having been a Christian myself, I may be willing to defer to you. But you'd have to explain how you reconcile what you said above with the notion I frequently hear -- that merely professing Jesus as your personal savior is a complete game changer.

I'm actually sure that you do. What do you expect "believers" to do differently than non believers? How does one look for evidence of a "difference" without criteria?
Well, let's let my criteria be their criteria. Most religions say you will be a better person by following them. Most use the usual definition of “better person” to some degree -- kinder, more altruistic -- the usual suspects. If I don't see significant differences in this regard, am I allowed to pass judgment then?


Especially when the "truths" you are deriding for not producing "different behaviour" does not actually claim it will produce different behaviour from simple belief.
So a Christian giving their life to Jesus doesn't believe that that will make them a better person? That inviting the Holy Spirit to work through them won't actually result in noticeably different behaviors?


How about this- "believers in X" go to an X church, donate money to X causes, vote for X candidates, support positions supported by X. "Believers in Y", dont. These are specific behaviours that are different for believers in X and non-believers in X.
But they're not behaviors that stand out in a profound way suggesting the influence of a Divine All-Powerful All-Benevolent Omniscient Entity.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I'm having trouble understanding you, SOdhner. I'm an easily befuddled person (as if that wasn't obvious) so bear with me.
No. Your question wasn't "do religions make you a better person?", it was "Is it wrong to judge a religion by the behavior of its followers?".
I don't see a gaping difference between these two questions. If a religion does not make its followers better people, I feel free to judge it on that basis. The questions are parallel for me.

[Darth Rotor]

Even if I accept your view, then you are a Christian when you begin the journey -- not when you arrive at a destination.
Both, not either / or. The journey includes all the bumps in the road, or detours, or missed turn offs, which one (hopefully) recognizes and corrects for.
Well, fair enough. That allows you accept people into the faith before they've studied the manual. This now let's you defend the manual in the way SOdhner suggested, by saying that so-and-so didn't follow it properly eg: because he was a novice.
It most likely means that so-and-so need to consider improving his work at following the tenets of the faith.

DR

[SOdhner]

But you'd have to explain how you reconcile what you said above with the notion I frequently hear -- that merely professing Jesus as your personal savior is a complete game changer.

It's a game-changer AFTER THE GAME. Look, in Christian circles there are two main angles of approach (a bit of a simplification, of course, but we have to draw the line somewhere).

1. Salvation by Faith
This means if you believe in Jesus you get into heaven. That belief is thought to be a sign of strong moral fibre partly because it is assumed that you'll also do your best to be a good person and partly because they think it is your obligation to believe, so NOT believing is kind of a jerk thing to do. It doesn't automatically make you a good person, and in fact many of them think salvation by belief is needed because none of us are good enough people to make it into heaven on merit.

2. Salvation by Works
This means you have to do good things in order to make it into heaven. You have to walk the walk. Clearly, this also doesn't promise to make you a better person, it instead asks you to be a better person first and then the reward comes later.

There's some overlap between the two.

So a Christian giving their life to Jesus doesn't believe that that will make them a better person? That inviting the Holy Spirit to work through them won't actually result in noticeably different behaviors?

Eh. They certainly think they've been shown the way in which to be a good person, and they may feel that they're getting some divine emotional or moral support in that quest, but it isn't assumed that they will somehow be a good person without doing the work themselves.

I don't see a gaping difference between these two questions. If a religion does not make its followers better people, I feel free to judge it on that basis. The questions are parallel for me.

Hah! Just looking at that quote, I can see how it might rely on you already understanding me to understand me. Sigh.

Let's just try this: I find your question to be unclear.

1. Why religion rather than just any philosophy that instructs people on how to live?
2. What do you mean by religion? Do you mean the organization, the underlying beliefs, or the community?
3. What are we judging? Whether or not a religion follows through on its promises, or wheter or not it results in "good" people? Those are two different things.

[FireGarden]

Hmm. Once again, my concept of Christianity, and religion in general, appear to be very different. Not having been a Christian myself, I may be willing to defer to you. But you'd have to explain how you reconcile what you said above with the notion I frequently hear -- that merely professing Jesus as your personal savior is a complete game changer.

I could probably pick a Chick tract at random and find one which matches your discription. But I don't think that makes Chick's "Let the Lord into your heart and you will stop being a Vampire" (Yes, I do remember one with a Vampire) more representative than what Darth described.

If a religion does not make its followers better people, I feel free to judge it on that basis. The questions are parallel for me.

But what judgement do you make? That it fails to live up to what you, personally, expect from a religion.

To a certain extent I have some sympathy with you.

There are millionaire programs that claim to improve your chances of making big money. If we investigated these and found that their followers weren't more successful than average, we would be able to judge that the programs don't deliver.

For religion, you'd have to check the claims on an equally precise basis. Which would let you knock Chick, but not Darth.

[Tricky]

Never judge a (good) book by it's converts.

[Skeptical Greg]

Is It Wrong to Judge a Religion by the Behavior of its Followers?

No.

A religion is defined by the behavior if it's followers...

[Tricky]

No.

A religion is defined by the behavior if it's followers...
Since no two people behave exactly the same, should the correlary be that no two people have the same religion?

[tsig]

Since no two people behave exactly the same, should the correlary be that no two people have the same religion?

No two people have the same god.

If we don't judge a religion by the behavior of it's followers then what criteria do we use?

The RCC says that it will make it's members holy:

"The Church is holy because God makes her members holy by union with him. God sanctifies the Church by drawing her into his divine life, supremely through the union effected by the Incarnation. The faith and life of the Church participates in the holiness of God by expressing the divine life in doctrine, sacraments, services and saints --- men and women whose lives have been recognized for their holiness."


http://orthodoxwiki.org/One_Holy_Catholic_and_Apostolic_Church

[Piscivore]

Hmm. Once again, my concept of Christianity, and religion in general, appear to be very different. Not having been a Christian myself, I may be willing to defer to you. But you'd have to explain how you reconcile what you said above with the notion I frequently hear -- that merely professing Jesus as your personal savior is a complete game changer.
What you are missing is that the primary purpose of religion is not measurable empirical changes in behaviour, but a subjective, emotional reinterpretation of self. It does not necessarily change what one is, or what one does, it changes how one feels about what one is.

Well, let's let my criteria be their criteria.
That's a big part of the problem right there. You're judging them on what you think they ought to be, instead of what they claim.

Most religions say you will be a better person by following them. Most use the usual definition of “better person” to some degree -- kinder, more altruistic -- the usual suspects.
Which ones say that? If "most" do, you should have to look to hard to find a reference or two.

Most of the religions with which I am familiar say the opposite- they start with an acknowlegement of how flawed the person is. The mainstream Christian denominations further state that nothing can change that, but that god forgives us for our iniquities. He does not take them away.

If I don't see significant differences in this regard, am I allowed to pass judgment then?
If one does not care if one's "judgements" are correct, one is "allowed" to come to any conclusion one wishes, on whatever basis.


So a Christian giving their life to Jesus doesn't believe that that will make them a better person?
I don't know, ask them. There are millions of Christians in thousands of different denominations. Pretending to know what they all think is ludicrous. There's that hasty generalisation again.

That inviting the Holy Spirit to work through them won't actually result in noticeably different behaviors?
Well, not all of them profess a belief in the "holy spirit", for starters. that renders the question nonsense for those Christians.

But they're not behaviors that stand out in a profound way suggesting the influence of a Divine All-Powerful All-Benevolent Omniscient Entity.
You are still assuming there should be some kind of a major magical transformation of the believer that is not claimed to occur by most religion. There is plenty of things to criticize belief and/or religion about making stuff up, or picking out some egregious extremist belief and trying to fallaciously tar and feather the whole concept with it.

[Piscivore]

No two people have the same god.

If we don't judge a religion by the behavior of it's followers then what criteria do we use?

The RCC says that it will make it's members holy:

"The Church is holy because God makes her members holy by union with him. God sanctifies the Church by drawing her into his divine life, supremely through the union effected by the Incarnation. The faith and life of the Church participates in the holiness of God by expressing the divine life in doctrine, sacraments, services and saints --- men and women whose lives have been recognized for their holiness."


http://orthodoxwiki.org/One_Holy_Catholic_and_Apostolic_Church


But what does "holy" mean?

[Ryan O'Dine]

It's a game-changer AFTER THE GAME. Look, in Christian circles there are two main angles of approach (a bit of a simplification, of course, but we have to draw the line somewhere).
...snip...
To oversimplify your oversimplification, even if Christians have the One Real Truth given by the One Real God, we shouldn't expect them to behave any better or worse than anyone else. Their behavior will be indistinguishable from those possessing false “truths,” and worshiping false gods.

Now I may be willing to concede that (if it's what you're saying), but I'd honestly be surprised if many practicing Christians would be as quick to concede.


Let's just try this: I find your question to be unclear.

1. Why religion rather than just any philosophy that instructs people on how to live?
Indeed, I think it's fair to judge any philosophy this way. However, I hold religions to a higher standard because they hold themselves to a higher standard -- a standard which encompasses the influence of the Divine.

2. What do you mean by religion? Do you mean the organization, the underlying beliefs, or the community?
When I judge behaviors, I'm looking at individuals I'm exposed to every day in person, in the media, wherever. I'm also judging behaviors on both an organizational and historical level. Does the Roman Catholic Church stand out for its behaviors in the sweep of history, for example. (What is an organization, after all, but the people that make it up?)
3. What are we judging? Whether or not a religion follows through on its promises, or wheter or not it results in "good" people? Those are two different things.
I'm still not sold on that. Again, would a Christian say, “I don't expect Christians to behave any better than anyone else”?

[Ryan O'Dine]

But what judgement do you make? That it fails to live up to what you, personally, expect from a religion.
First, I'm certainly NOT saying this: “Because religions don't live up to my standards, I have proven them false.”

However, in my very bottom line, I AM saying: “Because I detect no profound differences in the behavior of the various religions, I feel free to strongly question any individual claims of absolute/Divine truth."
There are millionaire programs that claim to improve your chances of making big money. If we investigated these and found that their followers weren't more successful than average, we would be able to judge that the programs don't deliver.
Yes. And we should be all the more judgmental toward religions because they claim influences far beyond the ordinary temporal world of those millionaire programs.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm still not sold on that. Again, would a Christian say, “I don't expect Christians to behave any better than anyone else”?
I don't think so, but at the same time, every Christian expects any human, Christian or otherwise, to sin, at least now and again. It's one of the core assumptions of the Faith, as I understand it: you are going to screw up. The question is, I suppose, how badly and how often.

DR

[Ryan O'Dine]

@Piscivore:

I'm willing to concede I may be asking too much of God -- that the mere possession of His Truth should change people for the better.

However, I think you may be asking too little -- that possession of the Truth should have no particularly noticeable effect on anyone.

[Piscivore]

@Piscivore:

I'm willing to concede I may be asking too much of God -- that the mere possession of His Truth should change people for the better.

However, I think you may be asking too little -- that possession of the Truth should have no particularly noticeable effect on anyone.

I'm only going to ask of a god or a religion (or a psychic or a dowser or a homeopathic concoction or a chiropracter) exactly what the adherents claim. Anything else is foolish and unskeptical.

And I think you'll find that there are noticible effects from believing in a religion, and I gave you some examples. They're just not the dramatic and spectacular sort of effects you seem to want to see.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Strawberry Shortcake. Religion is a mixed bag.

If the behavior of the followers of a religion were homogenous, you'd have good grounds for making a judgment, particularly regarding your own decision to join it or not.

Now, how many behaviors do you need to tally up before you have accounted for enough to make a judgment? ;) Most people exhibit more than one behavior ...

DRI know I'm late to this discussion so feel free to tell me this has been covered and I'll try to catch up.

But my response to this is, what religion? In the case of Islam and Christianity, the two religions I'm currently most familiar with, you cannot determine the actual tenets, rules, or anything else about either because the texts they are based on are so contradictory or interpretable in so many different ways.

So the question is should you judge all believers by their lowest common denominators? And that answer is of course, no.

Because I challenge anyone to tell us just what the Christian or Muslim religion is. What are the true tenets, and support your claim with your evidence, not just your opinions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Never judge a (good) book by it's converts.

Have a book in mind there? Were you being facetious about the 'good' part?

[SOdhner]

To oversimplify your oversimplification, even if Christians have the One Real Truth given by the One Real God, we shouldn't expect them to behave any better or worse than anyone else. Their behavior will be indistinguishable from those possessing false “truths,” and worshiping false gods.

I... THINK we're agreeing now. The behavior is measurable and the teaching can be judged regardless of whether or not they are factually correct.

However, I hold religions to a higher standard because they hold themselves to a higher standard -- a standard which encompasses the influence of the Divine.

Gah. And there it goes. You've lost me again. If we are looking at the behavior in order to pass judgement on a group, why the hell does it matter whether they think they should act a certain way because God says so or because it's a non-religious universal truth or because Plato thought it was a good idea?

When I judge behaviors, I'm looking at individuals I'm exposed to every day in person, in the media, wherever. I'm also judging behaviors on both an organizational and historical level. Does the Roman Catholic Church stand out for its behaviors in the sweep of history, for example. (What is an organization, after all, but the people that make it up?)

I don't feel like that answered my question. I wasn't asking about what behaviors you were looking to, I was asking about the second half - the judgement part. When you say you are judging a religion, what do you mean by 'religion'? The texts, the organization, or the individual members?

I'm still not sold on that. Again, would a Christian say, “I don't expect Christians to behave any better than anyone else”?

Expect them to? Sure. Hope they will? Yeah. But that's not a promise the religion makes. There are two (as always, gross oversimplification) types of teachings:

1. How you should live life.
2. What will happen if you do or don't meet #1.

So, number one might be "love thy neighbor" or "only beat your slaves for X hours per day" or whatever. Some good, some bad, but at least they're measurable in the real world.

Number two tends to be "You'll ascend into heaven when you die" which isn't something you can measure.

Add to this that a religion might result in behaviors that do not match up with the TEXTS because the COMMUNITY has developed a parallel faith (whether they're aware of it or not).

So what the religion promises and whether it results in "good" people are two very different things.

[Darth Rotor]

Because I challenge anyone to tell us just what the Christian or Muslim religion is. What are the true tenets, and support your claim with your evidence, not just your opinions.
I'd rather not start a war, thanks. You are aware, SG, that more than once in our history wars have begun over the disagreement over what is The One True Faith.

The simplest answer to your question is within language: a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ, at whatever level of competence that Christian is able (or can be bothered to). You make a mistake, I think, in expecting any and all Christians to be a 100% Christian. See my previous remarks on the bell curve: that is how it plays out in practice.

Likewise, a Muslim is one who professes his faith in the standard format for that religion. As with Christians, the competence with which the Muslim follows the tenets of the Faith vary. That is how it works out in practice.

Why you demand perfection from your fellow humans puzzles me.

DR

[Ryan O'Dine]

Gah. And there it goes. You've lost me again. If we are looking at the behavior in order to pass judgement on a group, why the hell does it matter whether they think they should act a certain way because God says so or because it's a non-religious universal truth or because Plato thought it was a good idea?
Because God is the All-Powerful Creator of the Universe. As such, it's fair in my estimation to expect something extraordinary from His Truth vis-a-vis the effects it has on those who believe it. Effects that prosaic truths simply cannot muster.

People are saying I'm wrong to expect such a thing. I appreciate the disagreement, but don't feel swayed to surrender my POV quite yet.

I don't feel like that answered my question. I wasn't asking about what behaviors you were looking to, I was asking about the second half - the judgement part. When you say you are judging a religion, what do you mean by 'religion'? The texts, the organization, or the individual members?
I'm judging the tenets of a faith -- their truth value, their Divine origin, their unique nature -- based to a significant degree on the behavior of its believers as well as the institutions they helm. Does that answer your question?

[SOdhner]

I'm judging the tenets of a faith -- their truth value, their Divine origin, their unique nature -- based to a significant degree on the behavior of its believers as well as the institutions they helm. Does that answer your question?

It does.

And that makes some of your other points clearer.

Okay, so the question is (and correct me if I'm still wrong here): Can the VALIDITY of a religion's DOCTRINE be determined by the behavior of its followers?

I'm going to say the answer is no, because the test of whether or not they're right happens after they die. If there's a religion that makes a specific claim such as "Once you join the church your tongue turns blue" you could test that, but most of them say things like "God wants you to not eat shellfish, and if you do he'll torture you after you die". That's not testable, because they never claimed that God would physically prevent anyone from eating shellfish.

More to the point, religions don't generally make any claims regarding how you WILL behave, just how you SHOULD behave. So it's not a useful measure.

Also, if it's Truth we're looking for you still have other problems. Maybe there's a philosophy that makes you a better person, and maybe it is wrong about God. It might still make you a good person. On the flipside, there could be a church that is mostly right that still has non-believers in the organization somewhere that do bad stuff. Or whatever. The problems with this are endless, you'll have to do what we've always done and limit yourself to the traditional testable claims.

[Darth Rotor]

Because God is the All-Powerful Creator of the Universe. As such, it's fair in my estimation to expect something extraordinary from His Truth vis-a-vis the effects it has on those who believe it. Effects that prosaic truths simply cannot muster.

People are saying I'm wrong to expect such a thing. I appreciate the disagreement, but don't feel swayed to surrender my POV quite yet.


I'm judging the tenets of a faith -- their truth value, their Divine origin, their unique nature -- based to a significant degree on the behavior of its believers as well as the institutions they helm. Does that answer your question?

Ryan, I understand you concern better after this post, and will offer the Gnostics once again as an example.

As I understand their faith version of Christianity, they were doomed to fail for one of two reasons: one, heresy wars with the larger Church, which is how it played out, or two, being subsumed by Islam a few centuries later due to not having very many adherents.

The Gnostic doctrine that I have read set the bar very, very high for being one of the perfecti (or as SG might put it, a True Christian in the context of that variation on early Christian practice) which made for the higher levels of that religion to be ascetics.

While I admire that sort of adherence to self denial and self discipline, the knock of effect is often that the religion is unaccessible to the larger pile of us under the fat parts of the bell curve.

Religion, which is the collective practice of following God, or a god, or some gods, isn't just about its tenets, it is also about the applicability of its tenets by large groups of people. I think that had a role to play as the teachings of Jesus slowly spread around the Mediterranean basin: enough of those principles were achievable that it was more easily adopted than others.

Of course, later, the fact of being an institution overcame that obstacle, but applicability remains a problem, since people leave religions, just as they join them.

Back to the Divine Truth element: in any religion it's higest principles are goals worthy of striving for, regardless of how few can achieve in practice that last percentile of competence.

DR

[Piscivore]

Because God is the All-Powerful Creator of the Universe. As such, it's fair in my estimation to expect something extraordinary from His Truth vis-a-vis the effects it has on those who believe it. Effects that prosaic truths simply cannot muster.
Why?

What you've got here is applying perfect solution fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy)- People aren't perfect (or "signifigantly different") because of belief, therefore belief is worthless- to refute a straw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) version of religion- they don't claim that that sort of change is to be expected.

How is any of that "fair"?

I'm judging the tenets of a faith
No, you are not. You are judging what in your opinion the tenents of faith should be based on your admittedly limited understanding of religion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd rather not start a war, thanks. You are aware, SG, that more than once in our history wars have begun over the disagreement over what is The One True Faith. Not trying to start an argument, and no, sorry, I know you are a believer, you know I am not, but beyond that I don't recall the debate you speak of.

I was adding to your comment, not arguing with it.

The simplest answer to your question is within language: a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ, at whatever level of competence that Christian is able (or can be bothered to). You make a mistake, I think, in expecting any and all Christians to be a 100% Christian. See my previous remarks on the bell curve: that is how it plays out in practice. Here we do disagree so I believe you this is a debate we've had already.

There is little consistency in what the "teachings of Christ" are. There is a current American stereotype of what those "teachings" are supposed to be (not sure the Catholics have the same version as the Evangelicals). But you can find contradictions to just about everything the teachings are claimed to be with a simple search of Jesus quotes in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. And that's my point. Where are these standard Christian tenets documented? In the NT, those tenets are not documented. It's a fantasy version of the NT. In the real version you can find contradiction after contradiction.


Likewise, a Muslim is one who professes his faith in the standard format for that religion. As with Christians, the competence with which the Muslim follows the tenets of the Faith vary. That is how it works out in practice.

Why you demand perfection from your fellow humans puzzles me.

DRThere is no "standard format" as you claim. There are many interpretations and if you go to the actual text, you don't find the 'standard du jour' is supportable in either the Koran or the Bible texts.

[Darth Rotor]

Not trying to start an argument, and no, sorry, I know you are a believer, you know I am not, but beyond that I don't recall the debate you speak of.
I was referring to "we, the human race" when I said "our history" so I was making a joke, somewhat, about wars being started over this topic. :cool: Not about you and me arguing, which we have also done.
There is little consistency in what the "teachings of Christ" are.
Sure, beyond a few basics, hence the hundreds of different sects, but that doesn't matter.

If you can point to a set of teachings of Christ, which you can, and follow them, in whatever degree of fidelity, you can correctly call yourself a Christian. The fun part is that other Christians may well pillory you for doing so, hence all those nice wars over the "One True Faith" that you seem to be hung up on.
And that's my point. Where are these standard Christian tenets documented? In the NT, those tenets are not documented. It's a fantasy version of the NT. In the real version you can find contradiction after contradiction.
The most commonly agreed Christian tenets that I can offer you are:
1. Baptism (there are a variety of forms of that)
2. Profession of the stated belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior of one's immortal soul.
3. The Bible as the standard Holy Book of Christians. (Of course, this is rich with humor, as the Protestants and Catholics differ in which books are canon, and so on. Good fun).
Aside: Maia has told us about a Christian sect that doesn't believe in the supernatural, but I don't recall the details. I am sure somebody within the Christian community would label Bishop Spoong (sp???) and adherents to that approach as heretics, or "No True Christians" so it might be that the Profession, point 2, requires more consideration.
There is no "standard format" as you claim.
For Islam, actually there is. Watch carefully.

The Shahada, from the verb šahida (literally "to witness"), means to know and believe without suspicion, as if witnessed; it is the name of the Islamic creed.

The Shahada is the Muslim declaration of belief in the oneness of Allahu and acceptance of Muhammad as his prophet.

The declaration reads: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God" in English. This declaration, or statement of faith, is called the Kalima, which literally means "word". Recitation of the Shahadah is the most important of the Five Pillars of Islam for Muslims. Non-Muslims wishing to convert to Islam do so by a public recitation of the creed.

There you are. The standard format. The Other Four Pillars of Islam are:

Salat (prayers),
Sawm (fasting),
Zakat (giving of alms, specifically during Ramadan) and
Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).

I give the Muslims credit here: they applied the KISS principle to joining the Faith.

Beyond that, as you and I will agree, there are any number of variations in practice, which is part of the fun. I think you will find all Muslims share that common ground.

The No True Muslim argument that you are hung up on is responsible for a lot of dead bodies in Iraq since about August 2003, but that isn't your fault: that problem has been around since about the time the Prophet kicked the bucket.

DR

[Ryan O'Dine]

Well, people have given me a lot to think about. I'm going to need to let these ideas breathe a little in my head for a spell.

However, I am going to disagree with certain posters on this one point: I don't think its necessary for me to limit myself strictly to what the believers claim. Why? Because it's possible such believers have not worked out all the logical implications of their claims. Granted, I may be foolish (as Piscivore suggests) to try to work them out myself, but I don't think it would make me particularly unskeptical to do so.

Anyway, God forbid this should turn into an MDC thread. You all don't want to make baby Jesus cry, do you?

[tsig]

But what does "holy" mean?

In RCC terms it means you go to church on Sunday, receive Holy Communion, make frequent confessions, give regular offerings, visit the sick and if you're really holy you manifest the signs of sainthood.

All behaviors and quite able to be judged.


Jesus said "by their fruits ye shall know them". What are the fruits of faith?

Well he also said "That ye have love for one another".

So it seems that we have to judge a religion on the behavior of it's followers.

If not what means do we use to judge a religion?


The religious posters here generally cite religion as a reason for their behavior (gave up drinking, whoring, drug use, ect) and the "I was evil til I met Jesus" is a common pulpit theme so it looks like the religious themselves seem to invite being judged on their behaviors.

[Piscivore]

However, I am going to disagree with certain posters on this one point: I don't think its necessary for me to limit myself strictly to what the believers claim. Why? Because it's possible such believers have not worked out all the logical implications of their claims.

The error there is to assume that their beliefs have anything to do with logic. These are people that think that magic is real, after all- they can and will just wave away your logical implications as mistaken and irrelevant, because their god is beyond human logic.

And, unfortunately, that is an unfalsifiable claim.

ETA: And why bother to "work them out" yourself and risk error? Why not just ask the believer?

[Complexity]

Where does one find a religion that exists without members/followers/believers?


Now that would be a religion I could believe in!

(untainted by woo worshipers)

Just joking, of course.

[Darth Rotor]

Anyway, God forbid this should turn into an MDC thread. You all don't want to make baby Jesus cry, do you?
I sure don't, and I thank you for the thread, it's been thought provoking. :)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

The religious posters here generally cite religion as a reason for their behavior (gave up drinking, whoring, drug use, ect) and the "I was evil til I met Jesus" is a common pulpit theme so it looks like the religious themselves seem to invite being judged on their behaviors.
Really? I don't. I quit smoking, and Jesus has bloody eff all to do with it.

However, I have pondered this a bit, and think you and Ryan are correct in including the behavior of the adherents of a religion in your judgments of a religion. Given the variability of that, it makes the task of forming a judgment more fun. :)

DR

[Piscivore]

In RCC terms it means you go to church on Sunday, receive Holy Communion, make frequent confessions, give regular offerings, visit the sick and if you're really holy you manifest the signs of sainthood.


That doesn't parse:
""The Church is go[ing] to church on Sunday because God makes her members go to church on Sunday by union with him. God sanctifies the Church by drawing her into his divine life, supremely through the union effected by the Incarnation. The faith and life of the Church participates in the go[ing] to church on Sunday-ness of God by expressing the divine life in doctrine, sacraments, services and saints --- men and women whose lives have been recognized for their go[ing] to church on Sunday -ness."

"Holy" in this context is clearly an adjective, not a collection of behaviours. Want to try again?

If not what means do we use to judge a religion?
Why not judge each believer instead? Is it too much effort?

The religious posters here generally cite religion as a reason for their behavior (gave up drinking, whoring, drug use, ect)
Do they cite their religion, or their belief?

and the "I was evil til I met Jesus" is a common pulpit theme so it looks like the religious themselves seem to invite being judged on their behaviors.
Do they credit their religion, or their belief?

Seems to me that religion is an expression of belief, not a prescriber of belief. Religions change as beliefs change- we don't have too many pogroms or inqusitions nowadays, right? How did that happen if "religion" dictates to the believers, rather than believers creating the religion?

[Trent Wray]

To the OP, I think it depends.

If the followers claim that their god is alive and well, etc, and that god condones their actions on any level .... then they should be able to produce that god. If they can't, they are acting as a proxy for their god ... and so they should be judged accordingly I think, since they are the only evidence of their claims. Enter the true scotsman, fundamental goodness, knowing right from wrong, etc.

As long as believers in a god let god do his own business and talking, I think that's best. That way, the person can be judged by their own merits and standings, and so can their god be judged by his own actions and standing.

[154]

Jesus Christ either Is or Is Not exactly who He claimed to be

regardless of whoever calls themself a Christian, for better and for worse,

and regardless of who you call a Christian, for better and for worse.

[Trent Wray]

Jesus Christ either Is or Is Not exactly who He claimed to be

regardless of whoever calls themself a Christian, for better and for worse,

and regardless of who you call a Christian, for better and for worse. The same could be said of anyone who had followers, yes? Like Charles Manson or Kim Jong Il, etc.

[Tumblehome]

And I'm saying it's a problem for claims of divine origin if churches are no different. That it's fair for me to expect something more from God's Truth than the usual geopolitical shenanigans.


A church is God Himself working through His chosen people and institutions. If I need look particularly hard to find evidence of that (behaviors, for example, that stand out from false, ungodly churches or mere political philosophies), well -- that's doesn't speak so impressively of God, seems to me.


My contention is that since God is involved, the differences between true and false should stand out unmistakably, even in day-to-day encounters with His people.



Believers themselves will tell you their Truths are different from all other truths -- exactly because of their divine origins. I'm taking them at their word, and looking for evidence of this in their behaviors. If knowing the TRUTH doesn't change you for the better, I guess I'm not sure what the point of seeking it is.

Okay, I see now (I think) that you're talking about fundamentalists who believe literally in their particular holy books--the Warrior Brigade, if you will, who act militantly in the name of their religion. In that case you might have a point (although good luck with convincing them of that ;)). But be careful not to drag all followers into it. There are good law-abiding believers too, and I'd bet they're the vast majority.

[iknownothing]

Okay, I see now (I think) that you're talking about fundamentalists who believe literally in their particular holy books--the Warrior Brigade, if you will, who act militantly in the name of their religion. In that case you might have a point (although good luck with convincing them of that ;)). But be careful not to drag all followers into it. There are good law-abiding believers too, and I'd bet they're the vast majority.

No, I think you're missing the point.

Not that some religious people act bad. But that on the whole, the believers in any particular religion act no better than the believers in any other particular religion, or non-believers. Sometimes they do terrible militant warrior things. Other times they are perfectly ordinary, normal people. Sometimes very nice people.

But there's nothing that makes anyone say "Wow, believers in ____ sure are different. You can see how transformed their lives are."

[Darth Rotor]

Jesus Christ either Is or Is Not exactly who He claimed to be

regardless of whoever calls themself a Christian, for better and for worse,

and regardless of who you call a Christian, for better and for worse.
Where do you intend to take this thought, within the context of this discussion?

[Ryan O'Dine]

The error there is to assume that their beliefs have anything to do with logic. These are people that think that magic is real, after all- they can and will just wave away your logical implications as mistaken and irrelevant, because their god is beyond human logic.
That may be true, but I don't see how my trying undermines my skepticism, as you seemed to have implied.

ETA: And why bother to "work them out" yourself and risk error? Why not just ask the believer?
I'm certainly not shy of risking error, as this thread abundantly demonstrates. But the point: it's possible the believer simply hasn't worked out all the implications of their beliefs themselves. If one can show, for example, that the implications of one set of beliefs contradict the outright claims of another, I think even the believer would have to take note.

I don't claim to have succeeded in that, of course. I'm just saying I find it a reasonable and interesting challenge. Certainly not an “unskeptical” one.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I sure don't, and I thank you for the thread, it's been thought provoking. :)

DR
Well, I'm glad an actual real live believer joined the fray. It's been important for me to hear your side.

However, I have pondered this a bit, and think you and Ryan are correct in including the behavior of the adherents of a religion in your judgments of a religion. Given the variability of that, it makes the task of forming a judgment more fun. :)

DR
I may be misreading you, but do I smell the faint whiff of a little sliver of a hint common ground? That judging the behavior of believers, however difficult and fraught with pitfalls that may be, could legitimately be at least some part (however small) of assessing the religion itself?

I'd be happy with that.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Okay, I see now (I think) that you're talking about fundamentalists who believe literally in their particular holy books--the Warrior Brigade, if you will, who act militantly in the name of their religion. In that case you might have a point (although good luck with convincing them of that ;)). But be careful not to drag all followers into it. There are good law-abiding believers too, and I'd bet they're the vast majority.
No, I think you're missing the point.

Not that some religious people act bad. But that on the whole, the believers in any particular religion act no better than the believers in any other particular religion, or non-believers. Sometimes they do terrible militant warrior things. Other times they are perfectly ordinary, normal people. Sometimes very nice people.

But there's nothing that makes anyone say "Wow, believers in ____ sure are different. You can see how transformed their lives are."
My official thumbs-up seal of approval to iknownothing's response.

[tsig]

That doesn't parse:
""The Church is go[ing] to church on Sunday because God makes her members go to church on Sunday by union with him. God sanctifies the Church by drawing her into his divine life, supremely through the union effected by the Incarnation. The faith and life of the Church participates in the go[ing] to church on Sunday-ness of God by expressing the divine life in doctrine, sacraments, services and saints --- men and women whose lives have been recognized for their go[ing] to church on Sunday -ness."

"Holy" in this context is clearly an adjective, not a collection of behaviours. Want to try again?


Why not judge each believer instead? Is it too much effort?


Do they cite their religion, or their belief?


Do they credit their religion, or their belief?

Seems to me that religion is an expression of belief, not a prescriber of belief. Religions change as beliefs change- we don't have too many pogroms or inqusitions nowadays, right? How did that happen if "religion" dictates to the believers, rather than believers creating the religion?


"Why not judge each believer instead? Is it too much effort?"


I thought we were talking about individuals. Your snark is noted.

I'm not playing your semantic games.

I told you what a catholic seminarian in 1960 understood to be holy.

[tsig]

Now that would be a religion I could believe in!

(untainted by woo worshipers)

Just joking, of course.

I once started my own religion, got a tax number and followers but I quickly discovered that I didn't want to associate with people who were crazy enough to believe I had some call from god.:)

[tsig]

Really? I don't. I quit smoking, and Jesus has bloody eff all to do with it.

However, I have pondered this a bit, and think you and Ryan are correct in including the behavior of the adherents of a religion in your judgments of a religion. Given the variability of that, it makes the task of forming a judgment more fun. :)

DR

OK you don't but you have heard the sermons that start out "I was a thieving,drunken, women chasing sinner til I met Jesus" this seems to me to indicate a change in behavior.

I am confused that some here are arguing that religion should have no effect on behavior since that has always been one of it's biggest claims.

[Piscivore]

That may be true, but I don't see how my trying undermines my skepticism, as you seemed to have implied.
Is it rational to fault someone for not speaking a language they've never even heard? Is it rational to criticises someone for not objecting to highway construction plans that were on "public display" in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused basement lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"?

I'm certainly not shy of risking error, as this thread abundantly demonstrates. But the point: it's possible the believer simply hasn't worked out all the implications of their beliefs themselves.
And it's possible (probable) that they don't think your "implications" are correct because they do not share the same basic premises as you do- the first one being that there is no magic. These people do not share that premise. For them, any "implication" that seems to create conflict for you is irrelevant and incorrect because of factors they think you are ignoring.



If one can show, for example, that the implications of one set of beliefs contradict the outright claims of another, I think even the believer would have to take note.
First one has to determine that the believer in question actually holds both beliefs at the same time, don't you? These kind of conflicts are what creates schisms, which is why we have a thousand different flavours of Christianity.

I don't claim to have succeeded in that, of course. I'm just saying I find it a reasonable and interesting challenge. Certainly not an “unskeptical” one.
Is it skeptical to make one's own assumptions about what having "psychic powers" means and then expecting anyone who claims to have them to adhere to that standard? Is is skeptical to "work out" one's own impression of what black people are like from minstrel shows of 150 years ago and expect them to adhere to that standard? Is it rational to form an assumption of what homosexuals are like from what one has read about Oscar Wilde and expect all homosexuals to conform to that standard?

[Darth Rotor]

@ Ryan: Yes, a bit of common ground, as "walking the walk" and "talking the talk" ought to be considered together when you make such an evaluation. It informs my own judgments of Christians I meet, some of whom are really good at walking the walk, little talk needed, while others are more talk than walk. Same faith, different individual emphasis on the application of the principles.

That said, Piscivore wins the thread. His last few posts shed a great deal of light, and make me feel "I wish I'd said that!" on numerous points.

The exercise of a belief is subject to change, thanks to religion being a collective human activity.

I think this is what has Fundies, in both Islam and Christianity, all in a lather.
OK you don't but you have heard the sermons that start out "I was a thieving,drunken, women chasing sinner til I met Jesus" this seems to me to indicate a change in behavior.

I am confused that some here are arguing that religion should have no effect on behavior since that has always been one of it's biggest claims.
Yes, I am aware of that. I also have friends whose victory over drug addiction you can directly attribute to their turning to the Faith for help. They'd tried a lot else, that worked for them. That said, it doesn't do the trick for everyone.

As to behavior change, I sincerely hope that my behavior changes, for the better, as I continue in my Christian journey.

I hope to be more selfless, less selfish, as I grow.

One thing my wife has noticed in the past year, and a couple of my friends, is that my temper has cooled. That's their observation, unsolicited. It was nice to hear that, as anger has been my Achilles heel for most of my life.

I still get angry, but I guess it doesn't show as much, or maybe it's not as intense.

DR

[FireGarden]

Calm down, Darth. It's only an internet forum!

[Piscivore]

I told you what a catholic seminarian in 1960 understood to be holy.

That gets to the point I was trying to make with my question in post #55- "Holy" is one of those words that seems to mean something but is really so vaguely defined as to mean almost anything. What your catholic seminarian in 1960 interpreted as "holy" does not seem to be what the person(s) who drafted the statement you quoted understood "holy" to mean. That makes the statement, to me, useless as a basis for any kind of objective judgement.

[uruk]

I don't know, By the criteria in the OP you can condemn any organization by the actions of a few individuals.

If an athiest pile drived a plane into a church or the vatican, Would you condemn all athiests? (not saying that atheisism is a religion, but it has organizations that promote it ideals)
Here and when it happened:
http://www3.gendisasters.com/texas/14890/san-juan-tx-plane-crashes-in-church-oct-1970
I personally knew the son of the man who did this. I recently contacted him and was reminded of the incident. He said his father was not the religious type but believed that the Catholic church was involved in a plot to over throw the U.S. government.

I know that does not necessarily mean the man was an athiest but for the sake of my argument let's make it a hypothetical.

Personaly I don't think it is right to judge a religion for the actions of a few individuals.
That is unless the actions were condoned by the religion as a whole.

You do have individual priests, imans, bishops, pastors, mullas, "enlightend ones", popes, grand wizards, and so forth who may act on thier own against the general doctrines of thier particular religions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was referring to "we, the human race" when I said "our history" so I was making a joke, somewhat, about wars being started over this topic. :cool: Not about you and me arguing, which we have also done.

Sure, beyond a few basics, hence the hundreds of different sects, but that doesn't matter.

If you can point to a set of teachings of Christ, which you can, and follow them, in whatever degree of fidelity, you can correctly call yourself a Christian. The fun part is that other Christians may well pillory you for doing so, hence all those nice wars over the "One True Faith" that you seem to be hung up on.

The most commonly agreed Christian tenets that I can offer you are:
1. Baptism (there are a variety of forms of that)
2. Profession of the stated belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior of one's immortal soul.
3. The Bible as the standard Holy Book of Christians. (Of course, this is rich with humor, as the Protestants and Catholics differ in which books are canon, and so on. Good fun).
Aside: Maia has told us about a Christian sect that doesn't believe in the supernatural, but I don't recall the details. I am sure somebody within the Christian community would label Bishop Spoong (sp???) and adherents to that approach as heretics, or "No True Christians" so it might be that the Profession, point 2, requires more consideration. I don't think Baptism and belief in heaven, yadda yadda are the tenets that the OP had in mind.

I'm saying that the thread question, "do the individuals reflect the religion?", can't be answered because there is no "the religion" to be reflected. The individuals are the religion, all of them have their own version. If you call the bare rituals and belief in God "the religion", there's not much there to reflect.

For Islam, actually there is. Watch carefully.



There you are. The standard format. The Other Four Pillars of Islam are:

Salat (prayers),
Sawm (fasting),
Zakat (giving of alms, specifically during Ramadan) and
Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).

I give the Muslims credit here: they applied the KISS principle to joining the Faith.

Beyond that, as you and I will agree, there are any number of variations in practice, which is part of the fun. I think you will find all Muslims share that common ground.

The No True Muslim argument that you are hung up on is responsible for a lot of dead bodies in Iraq since about August 2003, but that isn't your fault: that problem has been around since about the time the Prophet kicked the bucket.

DRWith both religions, the basic tenets you describe, like 3 of those 'pillars', are rituals. That's not something I would describe as a tenet in the meaning I was thinking of.

In the Bible, the Ten Commandments are considered a pronouncement of rules. Everything else you are supposed to get from the stories. A lot of the OT rules such as those in Leviticus have been discarded as irrelevant.

So again, if you are saying the belief in that religion's god and the mandated rituals are all that make up "the religion", then I think the OP had something else in mind.

[Piscivore]

That said, Piscivore wins the thread. His last few posts shed a great deal of light, and make me feel "I wish I'd said that!" on numerous points.

Thank you. :o

[Skeptic Ginger]

Jesus Christ either Is or Is Not exactly who He claimed to be...You left out the third option: there never was an historical Jesus in the first place. .... But I digress.

[Third Eye Open]

What else would you judge it by?

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I think you're missing the point.

Not that some religious people act bad. But that on the whole, the believers in any particular religion act no better than the believers in any other particular religion, or non-believers. Sometimes they do terrible militant warrior things. Other times they are perfectly ordinary, normal people. Sometimes very nice people.

But there's nothing that makes anyone say "Wow, believers in ____ sure are different. You can see how transformed their lives are."I think you have the essence of how I see it.

Except some religious cults certainly transform people's lives, but those are more like small sects than religions.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think Baptism and belief in heaven, yadda yadda are the tenets that the OP had in mind.
Not sure, though Ryan and I have reached an understanding. Religion is a collective human activity directly related to belief in God/gods/god/something.
I'm saying that the thread question, "do the individuals reflect the religion?", can't be answered because there is no "the religion" to be reflected.
The religions exist, and can thus be evaluated, regardless of how morphed or sloppy or incomplete you think they are. Are you angling toward "a Think in itself" ideal of a religion here? (I forget if it's Kant or Hegel who used that, Hegel comes to mind).
The individuals are the religion, all of them have their own version. If you call the bare rituals and belief in God "the religion", there's not much there to reflect.
No, the individuals aren't the religion. The individuals are followers or adherents of a religion, and a given religion is a collection of agreed ideals, beliefs, behaviors, tenets, principles, that those the followers practice ... at X degree of fidelity.
With both religions, the basic tenets you describe, like 3 of those 'pillars', are rituals. That's not something I would describe as a tenet in the meaning I was thinking of.
OK, the core commonalities are too austere to satisfy your question, fair enough.
In the Bible, the Ten Commandments are considered a pronouncement of rules.
Then add them to the profession of faith, and baptism. Agreeing on the primacy of the rules laid out in Exodus 20 would be the baseline rules and principles of Christian religion: in short, any Christian you meet will agree on those as the core set of principles. Does that help?
So again, if you are saying the belief in that religion's god and the mandated rituals are all that make up "the religion", then I think the OP had something else in mind.
No, I am not saying that, but yes, I think he did. You and I got diverted in discussing True Religion (the perfected ideal of a given religion?) rather than what Ryan asked, which is how to make a judgment.

You are familiar with the principles of at least one religion, are not content with the match between that and behavior, don't much buy the basic beliefs, and are thus unlikely to join it.

Works for me.

DR

[Skeptic Ginger]

Tell me one Christian tenet, Darth, that describes a value or required behavior other than a ritual. Then find me the incontrovertible Bible passage that supports that tenet.

For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is such a tenet. Seems clear enough until you look at the gazillion passages in the Bible which tell you who to kill.

"Jesus is Love" is touted regularly, love thy neighbor, and so on. But you can find NT passages where Jesus tells his followers all sorts of behaviors that will bring the wrath of God because those people deserve Hell, not mercy.

[Piscivore]

But you can find NT passages where Jesus tells his followers all sorts of behaviors that will bring the wrath of God because those people deserve Hell, not mercy.

Which ones?

[154]

For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is such a tenet. Seems clear enough until you look at the gazillion passages in the Bible which tell you who to kill.To be accurate and precise, and entirely truthful, the correct translation is "murder."
There are not a gazillion passages which tell you who to kill.
If the truth matters to you, let alone in example.
Somebody tell me I'm frothing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which ones?Cruelty and violence in the New Testament (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html) compliments of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

These are but a few examples. The SAB cites many many more.

[Skeptic Ginger]

To be accurate and precise, and entirely truthful, the correct translation is "murder."
There are not a gazillion passages which tell you who to kill.
If the truth matters to you, let alone in example.
Somebody tell me I'm frothing.Children who bad mouth their parents are to be killed. Women who dare cheat on their husbands are to be killed (but not the men who cheat, mind you). The Amalkites were slaughtered including infants and animals. But God's people were OK to take any of the virgin girls and make sex slaves of them. Lot had incest with his daughters and the Bible blamed the girls.

Want more examples?

[Safe-Keeper]

My answer to the OP is that religion is its followers. "Christianity" today is a vastly different thing, for better and for worse, than the "Christianity" in the Bible.

To make a probably very poor analogy, you don't judge a house by its blueprints, but by the finished building.

[H3LL]

"Religion" is just one of the many group labels that people are evolved to identify with and the most murderous group to belong to.

We all closely identify and are emotionally committed to various groups, each to a greater or lesser extent. These groups are many and varied from family, friends, work. city, state/province/county, skin colour (sad), politics, country, philosophy, intellect etc. etc. etc. and, even sadder, religion.

Some of those groups instruct their followers to kill people from other groups, but this changes over time. A WWll Londoner would have little trouble killing a uniformed, armed German soldier in Bond Street with small fear of retribution. Politics, patriotism, call it what you will, the Londoner's group(s), at that time condones killing the German soldier and even encourages it. It's not the case in 2010.

Many religions, right from the day of their existence instruct it's group to kill those not of that religion. Going so far as to threaten punishment beyond imagination for not doing so.

The Londoner above meeting the German soldier and discovering that he's wounded and incapacitated may stay his hand and call a medic, confident that the soldier will become a POW, then a normal citizen once the war is over.

Member of religious group X meeting a similarly incapacitated member of religion Y and under instruction to kill that person knows for "certain" that should that person be healed he will still be a member of the hated religion Y. There is no reason to stay his hand. Bang!

IMHO religion is the only group that you can belong to that has death to out-group members codified in its instruction - for ever. Never changing, never easing - Black and white, clear instructions to kill.

It's a credit to the followers that, unusually, they refrain from such instructions. Perhaps because of a rare use of innate moral judgement or greater fear of police than a supernatural entity, who can say. I do wonder how close people are to not ignoring the "instructions". I suspect, quite close.

Is It Wrong to Judge a Religion by the Behavior of its Followers?

Yes it is.

It is right to judge a religion by what instructions are contained within its scripture and proponent's teachings and be wary of the followers actually following those instruction - Given certain circumstances a large proportion surely will. Lesser irrational and immoral examples other than murder are legion and killings are more numerous than one would like.



.

[Darth Rotor]

Tell me one Christian tenet, Darth, that describes a value or required behavior other than a ritual. Then find me the incontrovertible Bible passage that supports that tenet.

For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is such a tenet. Seems clear enough until you look at the gazillion passages in the Bible which tell you who to kill.

"Jesus is Love" is touted regularly, love thy neighbor, and so on. But you can find NT passages where Jesus tells his followers all sorts of behaviors that will bring the wrath of God because those people deserve Hell, not mercy.
Do not take the name of God in Vain
Do not bear false witness
Do not commit adultery
Do not steal

These are principles that are agreed, even when people have trouble adhereing to them.

DR

[H3LL]

Do not take the name of God in Vain
Do not bear false witness
Do not commit adultery
Do not steal

These are principles that are agreed, even when people have trouble adhereing to them.

DR

Agreed by whom?

"Do not take the name of God in Vain" - What is his/her/it's name exactly? I'd like to know so he/she/it knows exactly who I'm calling a git. Moses was the only one that knew but wasn't telling - Do you know?

"Do not bear false witness" - Unless you're God or Lying For Jesus or a clergyman?

"Do not commit adultery" - Unless you are God and have the hots for that Mary chick ..... or King David .... or a normal human that looks/thinks at/about another woman .... or one that's divorced. Is it just the blind and lobotomised that manage to follow this one?

"Do not steal" - Unless God says you can because the victim is not "chosen" or just because he says so.

[Piscivore]

Cruelty and violence in the New Testament (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html) compliments of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:

These are but a few examples. The SAB cites many many more.

And it is not possible he was speaking figuratively? The dude had a propensity for that, as I recall.

[Piscivore]

Many religions, right from the day of their existence instruct it's group to kill those not of that religion. Going so far as to threaten punishment beyond imagination for not doing so.
Evidence?

[Darth Rotor]

Agreed by whom?
People who adopt Christianity as their religion. That people often fail to live up to this wasn't the question: they do, and I have commented on that upthread.

Note for readers here: try not to treat people like machines run by code written in C++.

DR

[David Henson]

Is it wrong to look at suicide bombers and think substantially less of Islamic scripture?

Yes, I think so. Unless those scriptures said "be suicide bombers."

Or to look at the pedophile priest scandals/coverups and count them as a condemnation of Christian theology?

Yes, because Christian theology itself is against the actions of the priests. Think of it as if it were teachers instead of priests, would you condemn education on the basis of the teachers?

Or even to judge a religion by its average lay people? Correct answer: No.

Uh . . . religion isn't a living entity of its own accord. The people in religion, its supporters, tend to allow if not condone things like the crusades, inquisition, etc. So, I think that you should judge a religion my its average lay people, what else would you judge it on?

Modern day Christianity is far removed from its origins. Should you judge a religion on its origins if its current state is so obviously disimilar? I don't think so.

You: “The ones acting badly (or no better than anyone else) aren't interpreting it right.” Me: if it's so easy to misinterpret in harmful ways (or simply ignore), there's already a problem. Where's the Divine?

Do you mean to suggest that if there is speeding there is no law against speeding? Anyway, tell me what divine means if you can.

You: “Religion X has changed people's lives for the better.” True; but so have religions A, B, C, etc. So have political ideologies, secular philosophies, et al. If religion X believers don't stand out as categorically distinguishable... again, where's the Divine?

Do you think Aaron should have asked that while Moses was on the mountainside? When the people were dancing and singing around the golden calf?

True? False? Grey Area? Strawberry Shortcake? Hippopotamus?

You have to look at things for what they are.

[cienaños]

post by David Henson
Yes, because Christian theology itself is against the actions of the priests. Think of it as if it were teachers instead of priests, would you condemn education on the basis of the teachers?

It is not a policy in education to suppress the natural biological functions that exist in teachers.

[David Henson]

post by David Henson


It is not a policy in education to suppress the natural biological functions that exist in teachers.

Good point. I would only remind the reader that in the case of the Catholic Church it is a philosophical rather than theological issue. It isn't supported by Scripture.

See my response to the SAB - What The Bible Says About Birth Control (http://thedaystar.webs.com/wtbsa/birthcontrol.html)

[Ryan O'Dine]

Yes, I think so. Unless those scriptures said "be suicide bombers."
Suppose those scriptures failed to cultivate the morality necessary to recognize and condemn acts as despicable as terrorism? Would you reconsider your “Yes”? (Note: I don't mean to suggest Muslims typically condone terrorism. Only that the minority who do is pronounced and premeditated enough to legitimately effect my judgment.)

Do you mean to suggest that if there is speeding there is no law against speeding? Anyway, tell me what divine means if you can.
I mean to suggest that the laws of God should be held to a higher standard than the laws of people. By “Divine” I mean “Of or pertaining to God, usually defined roughly as the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Benevolent Creator of the Universe.” (Which is why the higher standard.)

Do you think Aaron should have asked that while Moses was on the mountainside? When the people were dancing and singing around the golden calf?
Yes. In fact that episode has always troubled me a great deal, and for reasons directly related to this thread.

[Safe-Keeper]

People who adopt Christianity as their religion. That people often fail to live up to this wasn't the question: they do, and I have commented on that upthread. Someone on this forum wrote some time ago that they had logged onto a large Christian forum to determine what Christians agreed on. They apparently discussed a great many matters, but in the end the only thing everyone agreed on was that there was a man named Jesus and that He was divine. Be careful throwing around statements like "believed by people who adopt Christianity as their religion". Even things like the ten commandments differ from church to church.

[David Henson]

Suppose those scriptures failed to cultivate the morality necessary to recognize and condemn acts as despicable as terrorism? Would you reconsider your “Yes”? (Note: I don't mean to suggest Muslims typically condone terrorism. Only that the minority who do is pronounced and premeditated enough to legitimately effect my judgment.)

If those scriptures made the claim to cultivate morality, perhaps. If those scriptures were written hundreds or thousands of years ago to a people who were being oppressed by a corrupt government terrorism might not be held as despicable acts and so, morality being subjective I don't see the point.

I mean to suggest that the laws of God should be held to a higher standard than the laws of people. By “Divine” I mean “Of or pertaining to God, usually defined roughly as the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Benevolent Creator of the Universe.” (Which is why the higher standard.)

Well, as for the Bible it doesn't present the idea of any God being omnipotent, omniscient etc. as such. That is more or less religious nonsense, and also I think it odd that a mortal would dictate what the law of a "Divine" creator of the universe should be like. Most importantly though, the laws of the alleged God would apply to men rather than Gods and so would reflect that.

Yes. In fact that episode has always troubled me a great deal, and for reasons directly related to this thread.

Why is that?

[David Henson]

Someone on this forum wrote some time ago that they had logged onto a large Christian forum to determine what Christians agreed on. They apparently discussed a great many matters, but in the end the only thing everyone agreed on was that there was a man named Jesus and that He was divine. Be careful throwing around statements like "believed by people who adopt Christianity as their religion". Even things like the ten commandments differ from church to church.

This may be irrelevant to the discussion you were having with someone else but I have always wondered why atheists, who will often boast that there are no two atheists who think or believe alike will so harshly criticize theists for doing the exact same.

[Darth Rotor]

Someone on this forum wrote some time ago that they had logged onto a large Christian forum to determine what Christians agreed on. They apparently discussed a great many matters, but in the end the only thing everyone agreed on was that there was a man named Jesus and that He was divine. Be careful throwing around statements like "believed by people who adopt Christianity as their religion". Even things like the ten commandments differ from church to church.
I understand that. I don't think the examples chosen are likely not to be agreed, which is why I picked the ones I did for the sake of brefity. So, I was not "throwing anything around" and appreciate that you and I agree on this point: Christianity, as practiced, has great variation. Diversity is apparently a good thing, except when critics assess a religion, yes? :cool:

DR

[Piscivore]

This may be irrelevant to the discussion you were having with someone else but I have always wondered why atheists, who will often boast that there are no two atheists who think or believe alike will so harshly criticize theists for doing the exact same.

Me too. That's when I noticed there are atheists, and there are anti-theists.

[David Henson]

Me too. That's when I noticed there are atheists, and there are anti-theists.

If I'm not mistaken Christopher Hitchens, who I am beginning to admire a great deal, calls himself an anti-theist. I think that term is much more honest and well thought than the term atheist.

[Piscivore]

If I'm not mistaken Christopher Hitchens, who I am beginning to admire a great deal, calls himself an anti-theist. I think that term is much more honest and well thought than the term atheist.

For people that actively oppose religion, rather than simply disbelieving in a god, yes. That's not to say all atheists are anti-theists, though.

[David Henson]

For people that actively oppose religion, rather than simply disbelieving in a god, yes. That's not to say all atheists are anti-theists, though.

Agreed. To me, though, the term atheism and so atheists is just silliness.

[Piscivore]

Agreed. To me, though, the term atheism and so atheists is just silliness.

Why?

[David Henson]

Why?

Because atheism means disbelief in gods. Anything can be a god so what is the point in disbelieving in them? There are millions of gods in Hinduism, how can there not be a god? It doesn't matter if they "believe" in them or not, it doesn't even matter if they exist, they are still gods. Nonsense.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do not take the name of God in Vain
Do not bear false witness
Do not commit adultery
Do not steal

These are principles that are agreed, even when people have trouble adhereing to them.

DRAnd yet God directs the Saul to slaughter the Amalekites for their land. God supposedly gets mad because Saul takes other spoils but the land was never mentioned as theft.1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
(15:2-3) "Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."There are other Bible passages where God directs people to steal from others. It's just couched as 'owed' or 'rightfully theirs'.



Abraham had concubines: Genesis 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.Maybe you only define adultery if it is the wife who strays?

Throughout the Bible men have children by other women because their wives fail to get pregnant.



Some people claim the "false witness" covers all lies. Seems to me it only covers false accusations. Genesis 12:13 Say, I pray thee, thouart my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.Abram makes his wife lie for him, by telling the Egyptians that she is his sister. But at least it was half-true, since she was his half-sister. Such incestuous marriages are condemned elsewhere in the Bible, but god makes an exception for Abram and Sarai. (See Genesis 17:15-16 where God blesses their marriage and Genesis 20:2-18 where Abram repeats the same "she's my sister" lie.)


The tenet of not taking God's name in vain isn't much of a life guideline.


I don't doubt a large number of Christians believe their religion commands certain moral behaviors, love thy neighbor, don't kill, respect your parents, whatever. But I do doubt these are clear guidelines unequivocally spelled out in the Bible which is the religious text that is referred to as containing these unquestionable religious tenets.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This may be irrelevant to the discussion you were having with someone else but I have always wondered why atheists, who will often boast that there are no two atheists who think or believe alike will so harshly criticize theists for doing the exact same.You don't have your facts right here. You've made up a straw man to attack.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And it is not possible he was speaking figuratively? The dude had a propensity for that, as I recall.Who was speaking figuratively?

God commands people to kill again and again in the Bible.

What you would like maybe is to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take as rules/laws/truth and anything else you just brush off as a parable, a story or whatever.

That is a VERY BIG PROBLEM for Christians and Bible believers.

[Skeptic Ginger]

People who adopt Christianity as their religion. That people often fail to live up to this wasn't the question: they do, and I have commented on that upthread.

Note for readers here: try not to treat people like machines run by code written in C++.

DRI can't speak for others, but I'm not arguing there are no Christians and they don't follow what they define as their religion. I'm saying there is no documented clear unequivocal tenets of Christianity to be found in Biblical text.

As I and others have said, there is no single Christian religion to be reflected on by adherents. The adherents define the religion individually.

[Piscivore]

Who was speaking figuratively?
The dude purportedly speaking the words in the text you quoted.

God commands people to kill again and again in the Bible.
So then every other reference to violence in it has to be a literal endorsment of violence and cannot be figurative?

What you would like maybe is to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take as rules/laws/truth and anything else you just brush off as a parable, a story or whatever.
Sure. Why not? I don't have to believe "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is literally true to learn something from it. I don't have to think Joe Elliott is actively and intentionally promoting arson when he sings "We're going to burn this damn place down!" to enjoy Def Leppard.

That is a VERY BIG PROBLEM for Christians and Bible believers.
No, it is only a VERY BIG PROBLEM for fundamentalists who believe in biblical inerrency and anti-theist critics who insist that believers must, for some reason take the entire text literally. Everybody else seems to get on fine with that idea.

[Piscivore]

Because atheism means disbelief in gods.
Actually, it is more accurate to say atheism is "a lack of belief in gods".

Anything can be a god
And the atheist lacks belief that "anything" someone else is calling a god is worthy of worship.

What you are doing here is equivocating. Let's look at the definition of "god":

God (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god):
1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.(lowercase) any deified person or object.
You are changing the "god" in "atheism means disbelief in gods" from senses 1-5, which is the correct referrents and using number 7.

If you need to include sese eight in the definition of "atheist", it would read something like "lack of belief in gods or the need to worship."


so what is the point in disbelieving in them?
Now you are confusing "lack of belief", a passive behaviour, with "disbelief", an active behaviour. One does have to actively disbelieve in phlogiston to lack belief in it, the same goes for gods, no matter how many millions people make up.

There are millions of gods in Hinduism, how can there not be a god?
Because people can make up millions of imaginary things.

It doesn't matter if they "believe" in them or not, it doesn't even matter if they exist, they are still gods.
Now you are equivocating between "gods" as objectively existing entities and "gods" that are simply subjective concepts.

Nonsense.
Yes, this kind of equivocation is nonsense. that's why it is a fallacy.

[H3LL]

These are principles that are agreed, even when people have trouble adhereing to them.


People who adopt Christianity as their religion. That people often fail to live up to this wasn't the question: they do, and I have commented on that upthread.


Well at least two of your list were either impossible (unless you're Moses) or severely debilitating to actually do.

The other two are habitually ignored by God, biblical characters and the clergy. No wonder that the followers are, as you say, a little lax.



Note for readers here: try not to treat people like machines run by code written in C++.


That's rich considering one of your "principles", as detailed in the bible, seems only possible for a machine.


Thanks for replying to the first line of my other post.


.

[H3LL]

Evidence?


There is none.

You do know we're talking about religion here? Don't you?

There's some ancient novels I can point to but it's not what I would call evidence.

.

[Piscivore]

Someone on this forum wrote some time ago that they had logged onto a large Christian forum to determine what Christians agreed on. They apparently discussed a great many matters, but in the end the only thing everyone agreed on was that there was a man named Jesus and that He was divine. Be careful throwing around statements like "believed by people who adopt Christianity as their religion". Even things like the ten commandments differ from church to church.

I'd go so far as to say the only common tenent to Christianity is the ability to form the thought "I am a Christian."

[Piscivore]

There is none.

You do know we're talking about religion here? Don't you?

There's some ancient novels I can point to but it's not what I would call evidence.

.

I was asking for eidence supporting your statement "Many religions, right from the day of their existence instruct it's group to kill those not of that religion. Going so far as to threaten punishment beyond imagination for not doing so".

I was not asking for evidence these instructions were somehow valid.

If "many" religions instruct their followers to "kill those not of that religion", you can surely come up with a scripture or edict outlining these instructions, can you not?

[H3LL]

I was asking for eidence supporting your statement "Many religions, right from the day of their existence instruct it's group to kill those not of that religion. Going so far as to threaten punishment beyond imagination for not doing so".

I was not asking for evidence these instructions were somehow valid.

If "many" religions instruct their followers to "kill those not of that religion", you can surely come up with a scripture or edict outlining these instructions, can you not?


I understood you perfectly but didn't think you were that dense.

Bible:
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

Koran
4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Talmud(?)
Every Jew, who spills the blood of the Goyim is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.




That covers 40,000+ religions. Is that enough to qualify my "many"? There are more quotes but they are enough. I want to keep my dinner down.


.

[Piscivore]

I understood you perfectly but didn't think you were that dense.

Bible:


Koran


Talmud(?)





That covers 40,000+ religions. Is that enough to qualify my "many"? There are also more of the same.


.

Do the majority of believers in these religions act in accordance with these writings? Do even "many" of them do these things?

[H3LL]

BTW, I forgot the NT for the Christian OT deniers:


"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." Luke 19:27

anyway ....

Do the majority of believers in these religions act in accordance with these writings? Do even "many" of them do these things?

You questioned my "many religions" - I answered you.

Your above statement is unconnected but already answered previously.


This is the bit where you say "Thank-you-very-much."


.

[Piscivore]

You questioned my "many religions" - I answered you.
You answered with ancient texts that don't seem to be much heeded in the current practice of these religions. Or were you speaking in past tense when you said ""Religion" is... the most murderous group to belong to... Member of religious group X meeting a similarly incapacitated member of religion Y and under instruction to kill that person knows for "certain" that should that person be healed he will still be a member of the hated religion Y. There is no reason to stay his hand. Bang!"

How many living Christian ministers instruct their followers to kill those of other faiths? How many Rabbis? How many Imams?

How many Christian/Moslem/Jewish health care workers routinely euthanise members of other religions?

[Ryan O'Dine]

If those scriptures made the claim to cultivate morality, perhaps.
Fair enough.

If those scriptures were written hundreds or thousands of years ago to a people who were being oppressed by a corrupt government terrorism might not be held as despicable acts and so, morality being subjective I don't see the point.
There are two ways we could approach this:

1. I could base my judgment on my own standards of morality. And why not?

2. I could base my judgment on whether the believers appear to be following their own standards of morality.

Well, as for the Bible it doesn't present the idea of any God being omnipotent, omniscient etc. as such.
Actually, any supernaturally powerful being with some kind of special knowledge of the underlying reality will do.

That is more or less religious nonsense, and also I think it odd that a mortal would dictate what the law of a "Divine" creator of the universe should be like.
I wouldn't say I'm trying to dictate what those laws should be like; only that their effects should be distinguishable from prosaic human laws.

Most importantly though, the laws of the alleged God would apply to men rather than Gods and so would reflect that.
You might have an interesting argument here. If you feel like hashing it out, I'm all ears.

Why is that?
I'm itching to get into the whole golden calf thing, and may do so later; but I'm going to beg off for now and call it a night.

[Oystein]

...
It's a gross oversimplification to act as if "Christian" is a single religion. There are massive differences between the different churches. Let me turn it around on you - can I take anyone who happens to be an atheist and use their behavior to judge atheists in a general sense? Of course not. Now, you might say that that's different because atheists aren't organized in the way religions are... but it's the same with different branches of Christianity. Not only does my church not pay attention to whatever rules other ones put out there, but many of the others would insist that we're all going to burn in hell for not being "real" Christians.
...

I don't think this is all on the same shelf.

An atheist will predict that the acceptance of their basic premise, i.e. there is no God (and morality is not revealed in writing to man) will not make them stand out ethically.

A believer in a revealed God on the other will nearly always claim that knowledge of God and her commandments is key to a moral life, and will thus predict that followers of the same revelation will on average be significantly better. I mean, what would be the point of handing down moral rules, if that doesn't improve anything? It is not even necessary that the followers of the same revelation be organized in the same body.

[Piscivore]

There are two ways we could approach this:

1. I could base my judgment on my own standards of morality. And why not?

2. I could base my judgment on whether the believers appear to be following their own standards of morality.
2a. One could try and puzzle out what those standards of morality are by picking statements out of affiliated ancient texts that may or may not have currency in the religion as currently practiced, or

2b. One could ask the believers what their standards of morality are.

Pick one.

[H3LL]

....Words .....

How many?

How many is too many? One? One million? Pick a number.

How many yesterday?

How many tomorrow?

Any more bouncy-ball questions?

I would like to say it's fun tracking your Billy Whizz goal-posts - but it isn't.



I gave an opinion on the OP, you questioned my "many religions" and "evidence". I answered.

Get back to the topic or open another thread I can avoid.

I'll not respond to further off-topic silliness.

.

[Darth Rotor]

And yet God directs the Saul to slaughter the Amalekites for their land. God supposedly gets mad because Saul takes other spoils but the land was never mentioned as theft.There are other Bible passages where God directs people to steal from others. It's just couched as 'owed' or 'rightfully theirs'.
While that's very interesting, what has that to do with Christianity? If, for example, God has written the rules, then God can waive the rules when He bloody well wishes to. I've had some experience of seeing how that works in practice on the human side: exceptions and wavers to rules, in human endeavors, abound.
Abraham had concubines: Maybe you only define adultery if it is the wife who strays?
No, but you just did. So Abraham had a concubine, looks like he was having a hard damned time living up to the law. Gee, there's a shock, given that it is axiomatic that humans will sin, err, screw up -- call it what you like, it's consistent within the system. Go back a page or two and relook at my point on where in the bell curve one stands, in terms of practice.

You appear to be making an assumption that the Jew Abraham had to be, 100% faithful all the time or Be No True Jew. The consistent narrative in the OT is that people always screw up, no matter what the laws are. It's one of the gifts of being human: being a f@@@ up.
Throughout the Bible men have children by other women because their wives fail to get pregnant.
So what? IIRC, that's all OT, and I think Onan was punished for not screwing his sister in law.
Some people claim the "false witness" covers all lies. Seems to me it only covers false accusations.
I think it covers both.
The tenet of not taking God's name in vain isn't much of a life guideline.
It includes not making oaths you'll not keep, and being foresworn of oaths so taken.
I don't doubt a large number of Christians believe their religion commands certain moral behaviors, love thy neighbor, don't kill, respect your parents, whatever. But I do doubt these are clear guidelines unequivocally spelled out in the Bible which is the religious text that is referred to as containing these unquestionable religious tenets.
It's all right there, in the various books, so I don't understand your objection. Again, if you expect that only the Ideal is what will be in evidence, regardless of belief system, then you are already wasting my time and your own. We are back to where we started, so let's not waste any more time going in this same circle, again.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

That's rich considering one of your "principles", as detailed in the bible, seems only possible for a machine.
Which one is that?

[Piscivore]

I gave an opinion on the OP, you questioned my "many religions" and "evidence".

Actually, I was questioning the entire premise of your "opinion", I just did it a step at a time. But thanks for playing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The dude purportedly speaking the words in the text you quoted.


So then every other reference to violence in it has to be a literal endorsment of violence and cannot be figurative?


Sure. Why not? I don't have to believe "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is literally true to learn something from it. I don't have to think Joe Elliott is actively and intentionally promoting arson when he sings "We're going to burn this damn place down!" to enjoy Def Leppard.


No, it is only a VERY BIG PROBLEM for fundamentalists who believe in biblical inerrency and anti-theist critics who insist that believers must, for some reason take the entire text literally. Everybody else seems to get on fine with that idea.Sheesh, could you be more apologetic?

You are just echoing my point, BTW, that the religion is all what the individual believes and finding core beliefs that pertain to more than rituals and the concepts of Jesus and heaven are elusive in the Bible.

[Skeptic Ginger]

While that's very interesting, what has that to do with Christianity? Did you miss the NT Jesus quote telling everyone to live by the OT laws/rules/guidelines?

If, for example, God has written the rules, then God can waive the rules when He bloody well wishes to. I've had some experience of seeing how that works in practice on the human side: exceptions and wavers to rules, in human endeavors, abound. You have gotten off of the issue here. The task I asked of you was to cite the universal Christian tenets and a source in the Bible that clearly stated those tenets and wasn't contradicted elsewhere in the Bible.

You found a ritual: Don't take the name of the Lord in vain
And the core beliefs: Jesus made some kind of sacrifice and believers go to heaven.

Beyond that you haven't found anything that constitutes "the Christian religion" which exists unequivocally regardless of believer interpretation in the context the OP was referring to.

No, but you just did. So Abraham had a concubine, looks like he was having a hard damned time living up to the law. Gee, there's a shock, given that it is axiomatic that humans will sin, err, screw up -- call it what you like, it's consistent within the system. Go back a page or two and relook at my point on where in the bell curve one stands, in terms of practice.

You appear to be making an assumption that the Jew Abraham had to be, 100% faithful all the time or Be No True Jew. The consistent narrative in the OT is that people always screw up, no matter what the laws are. It's one of the gifts of being human: being a f@@@ up. Care to cite the passage where God tells any of these male adulterers they were sinning?

So what? IIRC, that's all OT, and I think Onan was punished for not screwing his sister in law.

I think it covers both. Was the lie described as a sin?

It includes not making oaths you'll not keep, and being foresworn of oaths so taken.

It's all right there, in the various books, so I don't understand your objection. Again, if you expect that only the Ideal is what will be in evidence, regardless of belief system, then you are already wasting my time and your own. We are back to where we started, so let's not waste any more time going in this same circle, again.

DRSo now you are up to:

Keep your word.
Don't take the name of the Lord in vain.
And the core beliefs: Jesus made some kind of sacrifice and believers go to heaven.


That's the entire core Christian religion which is clear from the Bible?

[Piscivore]

Sheesh, could you be more apologetic?
Yes. I could. Unless anything not explicitly negative said about religion is "apologetic".

You are just echoing my point, BTW, that the religion is all what the individual believes and finding core beliefs that pertain to more than rituals and the concepts of Jesus and heaven are elusive in the Bible.
It is a point with which I agree. That's why I think it is ludicrous to try and judge believers en masse according to the purported doctrines of their faith. One can simply not know anything about Christians from reading the bible.

[Darth Rotor]

Did you miss the NT Jesus quote telling everyone to live by the OT laws/rules/guidelines?
No. But that isn't the topic of conversation. Regardless of what he cites as "what you ought to do," the fidelity of adherence is going to be less than 100%, which is consistent with the consistent failings recorded in the OT narrative, and what Ryan was asking about in the OP, which is the behavior of its followers.
You have gotten off of the issue here. The task I asked of you was to cite the universal Christian tenets and a source in the Bible that clearly stated those tenets and wasn't contradicted elsewhere in the Bible.
You don't get to assign me tasks. Sorry about that.

What was most interesting to me was that you wandered off in the OT narrative that showed people not complying, and claimed it was a contradiction.

I have already cited those tenets that are in the Bible that you will find most Christians agreeing to. How well you find adherence ... is as noted previously, quite another story.

If you don't believe that point of commonality, I don't know what to do for you. See topic of OP.
You found a ritual: Don't take the name of the Lord in vain
And the core beliefs: Jesus made some kind of sacrifice and believers go to heaven.Beyond that you haven't found anything that constitutes "the Christian religion" which exists unequivocally regardless of believer interpretation in the context the OP was referring to.
Actcually, I did, since I cited the Exodus 20 collation, which you do not care for. It answers the mail in terms of both simplicity, and how rarely Christians disagree on it, though it is funny to note that which makes up "10" is still not agreed. Funny as all get out.

A question for you: I am perplexed as to why you think "do not commit adultery" was only spoken to women. I never got the sense from reading that passage that it was "this one is only for you women, pay attention ladies" but maybe you can show me where that clarification is.

Better yet, don't bother.

It is about time to quote one of your own thread titles: I don't owe you anymore of my time on this one, but thanks anyway. Mostly without rancor, appreciated.

DR

[iknownothing]

How many living Christian ministers instruct their followers to kill those of other faiths? How many Rabbis? How many Imams?

But that's my problem with the idea that there is such a thing as Christian morals. Most modern Christians, who have morals shaped by a modern society, would not go for the Crusades. European Christians in the Middle ages had their morals based on the culture they lived in. Same goes for all the different time & place settings for Christianity in the last 2000 years.

So would you argue then that Christian religion is pretty much irrelevent? It seems to me that people think what they're going to think, and then go back and ascribe it to God.

If the religion really was inspired by some eternal God, wouldn't the believers of different times and places look pretty similar in terms of their morals and behavior?

While that's very interesting, what has that to do with Christianity? If, for example, God has written the rules, then God can waive the rules when He bloody well wishes to. I've had some experience of seeing how that works in practice on the human side: exceptions and wavers to rules, in human endeavors, abound.

:eye-poppi Is that really okay with you? So morals are not actually objective or real beyond whatever God says in the whim of a moment? He could waive that taboo against eating babies, and that would be okay?

That's why I think it is ludicrous to try and judge believers en masse according to the purported doctrines of their faith.

But again, then what good is the religion? I was always taught that living the good Christian life is the best witness we could give to bring people to Christ. They would see how transformed our lives were by the power of the Holy Spirit. "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love" etc. etc.

If believers are not transformed and you can't tell anything divinely inspired in what they say or do, then doesn't that make it pretty pointless? If the results are no different than placebo, doesn't it fail the trial?

One can simply not know anything about Christians from reading the bible.

So you are not a Bible literalist. So then, do you simply take whatever parts of the Bible you agree with and discard the rest? (I went through that phase on my way from Christian to atheist, so I'm not trying to sound snarky.) Then what's the point? If you ultimately judge for yourself what is true, then why use the Bible at all?

[Darth Rotor]

So morals are not actually objective or real beyond whatever God says in the whim of a moment?
Your words, not mine.
He could waive that taboo against eating babies, and that would be okay?
You gonna argue with Him? Feel free.
I was always taught that living the good Christian life is the best witness we could give to bring people to Christ. This is still true. They would see how transformed our lives were by the power of the Holy Spirit. "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love" etc. etc.And it still happens. Seen it with my own eyes. In fact, it had quite a bit to do with why I, after years of Agnosticism, became a Christian. The people who I knew whose witness was a powerful testimony.
If believers are not transformed --
Some are, and some go through the motions. What do you want, perfect people? You won't find them on our planet.
So you are not a Bible literalist. So then, do you simply take whatever parts of the Bible you agree with and discard the rest?
No I am not a literalist. As for the rest, I'll tell you in about five years.

As I said before, it's a journey, and a very challenging one. If you go back to my comment to Ryan about the bell curve, and being an A, B, C, (or failing) Christian, to get to A level one may need to become an ascetic. That appeals to me a hell of a lot more than to my wife. So what am I to do, dump her and wander off into ascetism? No, we promised "till death do us part" and I take that oath seriously.

Does that mean I may never get better than a B or a B plus?

Perhaps.

Does it mean I may burn, or ultimately fail, for not being selfless enough?

Yes.

Look, I am trying to raise my current C minus to a C. If I get to C plus or B minus level, we can revisit this. As I suggested before, try not to treat people as machines encoded in the language C++, or C Sharp, or whatever other machine code you are happiest with.

As to "What good is the religion" my answer is simple: for you, not much, for me, quite a bit.

DR

[Piscivore]

But that's my problem with the idea that there is such a thing as Christian morals. Most modern Christians, who have morals shaped by a modern society, would not go for the Crusades. European Christians in the Middle ages had their morals based on the culture they lived in. Same goes for all the different time & place settings for Christianity in the last 2000 years.
Agreed.

So would you argue then that Christian religion is pretty much irrelevent?
It is as relevant as people make it. For people like the Duggers, or the Phelps clan, it is very relevant... to them. For most others, less so, on a continuum down to "not relevant at all". Which makes membership in the religion useless as a tool for anticipating the beliefs and values of "Christians", either in particular or in general.

It seems to me that people think what they're going to think, and then go back and ascribe it to God.
Yup. Same goes for behaviour. Violent people are violent, in all contexts. Judgemental people are judgemental in all contexts. Hypocritial people are hypocritical in all contexts, etc.

It seems to me the reasons why they attribute these thoughts and behaviours to god almost always come back to some emotional need.

If the religion really was inspired by some eternal God, wouldn't the believers of different times and places look pretty similar in terms of their morals and behavior?
Only if "inspired" in this context meant that, to some degree, the god was controlling the actions of its followers. I know of very few sects that make this claim. Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

In fact, the whole third chapter of Romans (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3&version=NIV) directly addresses and contradicts the premise that belief, at least for Christians, makes one a "better person".

But again, then what good is the religion?
It fills various emotional needs in its believers. If and when it does not, they cease to believe. Or change the religion.

I was always taught that living the good Christian life is the best witness we could give to bring people to Christ. They would see how transformed our lives were by the power of the Holy Spirit. "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love" etc. etc.
I've heard this too. Even the Christains know it is a PR stunt. If it was just something the religion did for a believer automatically, why would one need to be "taught" to act in that way?

If believers are not transformed and you can't tell anything divinely inspired in what they say or do, then doesn't that make it pretty pointless?
If "transforming" people were the point, it might be. That isn't the point of religion, though, and they don't claim it is.

If the results are no different than placebo, doesn't it fail the trial?
Since aspirin doesn't cure diabetes better than placebo, is it useless?

So you are not a Bible literalist. So then, do you simply take whatever parts of the Bible you agree with and discard the rest?
Well, I'm a Discordian Atheist, so I've pretty much discarded all of it as anything better than another cultural artifact.

But yes, as I said to SG: "I don't have to believe "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is literally true to learn something from it. I don't have to think Joe Elliott is actively and intentionally promoting arson when he sings "We're going to burn this damn place down!" to enjoy Def Leppard.

No, [Biblical literalism] is only a VERY BIG PROBLEM for fundamentalists who believe in biblical inerrency and anti-theist critics who insist that believers must, for some reason take the entire text literally. Everybody else seems to get on fine with that idea [taking whatever parts of the Bible one agrees with and discarding the rest]."

Religions evolve. This is a good thing.

Then what's the point?
Beleif fills some emotional need for the believer. Religions are by and large all about emotions and perception, not objective results.

If you ultimately judge for yourself what is true, then why use the Bible at all?
It can serve as an anchor to tradition and a sense of stability in a world in constant flux, for one. In most cases it comes with a built-in sense of identity and a whole gaggle of new associates with which to belong, for another. It can provide a mechanism for guilt release. It can provide one with a ready-made moral framework for those unable or unwilling to forge their own.

There are lots of potential emotional bebefits to belief. "Magical transformation into a better person" just doesn't happen to be one of them.

[iknownothing]

I've heard this too. Even the Christains know it is a PR stunt.

No, see the post right above yours. This is something taken very seriously by most of the Christians I've known. I don't actually know of any of my Christian friends who would think it is a PR stunt.

Since aspirin doesn't cure diabetes better than placebo, is it useless?

For diabetes, yes. Religious people frequently make the case that you need God or else there's no basis for morals.

No, [Biblical literalism] is only a VERY BIG PROBLEM for fundamentalists who believe in biblical inerrency and anti-theist critics who insist that believers must, for some reason take the entire text literally.

I think you're underestimating the number of Christians who think it's a very big deal. Look at the crowds flowing through the "Creation Museum." It's not just some small, insignificant subset of Christians -- it's a large, loud, influential group, even if it is a minority.

If you look at the easy-going traditional churches who are more willing to see the Bible as literature, they're dying off. I work for a Presbyterian church which is losing members fast, as is the whole denomination. People who see the Bible the way you do don't feel much need to go to church or have strong feelings about religion, so they are hardly representative of the faith.

[Piscivore]

No, see the post right above yours. This is something taken very seriously by most of the Christians I've known. I don't actually know of any of my Christian friends who would think it is a PR stunt.
Maybe not in those express terms, but how many of them claim that simply believing in god changes one into a better person without personal effort? The post right above mine that you reference makes the opposite claim.

For diabetes, yes.
But not for the things for which it actually claims to be efficatious, yes?

Religious people frequently make the case that you need God or else there's no basis for morals.
And I did indeed list that as one of the potential benefits of religion. But providing a believer with a basis for morality is not the same thing as forcing a believer to adhere to the morality.

I think you're underestimating the number of Christians who think it's a very big deal.
I made no reference to numbers, because I do not know them and they are irrelevant to my point.

Look at the crowds flowing through the "Creation Museum." It's not just some small, insignificant subset of Christians -- it's a large, loud, influential group, even if it is a minority.
Completely irrelevant to the point.

If you look at the easy-going traditional churches who are more willing to see the Bible as literature, they're dying off.
Evidence?

I work for a Presbyterian church which is losing members fast, as is the whole denomination. People who see the Bible the way you do don't feel much need to go to church or have strong feelings about religion, so they are hardly representative of the faith.
Or, perhaps it is the traditional churches that are becoming less representative of the faith. Whatever the case, it is irrelevant to the point. People do pick and choose the parts of the bible they like, and discard the rest. They don't have a problem with it. Why should the critics?

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. But that isn't the topic of conversation. Regardless of what he cites as "what you ought to do," the fidelity of adherence is going to be less than 100%, which is consistent with the consistent failings recorded in the OT narrative, and what Ryan was asking about in the OP, which is the behavior of its followers.

You don't get to assign me tasks. Sorry about that.

What was most interesting to me was that you wandered off in the OT narrative that showed people not complying, and claimed it was a contradiction.

I have already cited those tenets that are in the Bible that you will find most Christians agreeing to. How well you find adherence ... is as noted previously, quite another story.

If you don't believe that point of commonality, I don't know what to do for you. See topic of OP.

Actcually, I did, since I cited the Exodus 20 collation, which you do not care for. It answers the mail in terms of both simplicity, and how rarely Christians disagree on it, though it is funny to note that which makes up "10" is still not agreed. Funny as all get out.

A question for you: I am perplexed as to why you think "do not commit adultery" was only spoken to women. I never got the sense from reading that passage that it was "this one is only for you women, pay attention ladies" but maybe you can show me where that clarification is.

Better yet, don't bother.

It is about time to quote one of your own thread titles: I don't owe you anymore of my time on this one, but thanks anyway. Mostly without rancor, appreciated.

DRIs there some point in having two separate conversations here, Darth?

I said there was no true core Christian religion because the Bible was inconsistent leaving no core document with clear description of what that religion is. You said there was. You can't support that assertion except on the barest of frameworks.

We both agree individuals practice what they believe to be the 'true Christian religion'.

[iknownothing]

Maybe not in those express terms, but how many of them claim that simply believing in god changes one into a better person without personal effort? The post right above mine that you reference makes the opposite claim.

I don't think any of them claim that. They have a more sophisticated way of looking at it than that. "Faith without works is dead." If you really believe, then you have invited the Holy Spirit into your heart and God works through you. You show how truly faithful you are by your changed behavior. The more faithful you are, the more you align yourself with God, blah blah blah I've heard quite a few sermons on the topic.

irrelevant to my point.
Completely irrelevant to the point.
Whatever the case, it is irrelevant to the point.

How do you really feel?

It may have been irrelevent to your point, but it is relevent to my point. You seem to be saying that lots of Christians don't really believe the Bible, don't take it too seriously, believe that showing a changed life is a "PR stunt," etc. And that only a few fundamentalists really get into all that.

I don't know how you've come by that opinion. (Got any evidence that anyone who calls themselves Christian thinks it's a "PR stunt?") It is directly counter to everything I've known from inside a couple different churches, and from everything I've read and listened to while going through a really long, boring phase of trying to make Christianity make sense.

Beliefs that have generally been held by Christian churches, and beliefs based on the Bible, are relevent to forming a judgment about the religion. Yeah, every Christian probably has a few individual quirks in what they believe, and some beliefs are open to different interpretation by different groups, but there is an actual historic Christian faith.

People do pick and choose the parts of the bible they like, and discard the rest. They don't have a problem with it. Why should the critics?

Because it's annoying when people want to borrow some authority for some opinion they hold anyway by saying "The Bible says ___," but then when confronted with an uncomfortable part of the Bible they suddenly don't want to be associated with it. For example, too many homophobes who are sure that homosexuality is bad because the Bible says so, but who seem to think God wasn't that serious about hetero fornication.

I think a lot of Americans -- maybe this is who you are referring to when you talk about what most Christians think -- would check off "Christian" on a survey about religions, and maybe would thank God if they won an award or something, but otherwise give it essentially no thought, rarely if ever attend church, and never read the Bible. So yeah, there are a lot of people who are Christian the way you describe. But I don't think they are actually representative of the religion.

I think of the religion in terms of people who actually feel some level of commitment to it, actually go to church or read up on their religion or something. And among those there is a wide variety of belief, but most of that variety falls into the category of being more literal in interpretation of the Bible and traditional in adherence to the historic faith, versus less so. Regardless, there is still that core of what the religion is about, even if some branches try to distance themselves from certain aspects of it.

So I'm not feeling concise at the moment I guess, wish I was. But all of this is just to say -- the religion and its followers can not be separated. Not that you can judge a religion on the behavior of a few crazies who are terrorists or who murder doctors or something. But if the main body of followers of a religion are no better or worse than the rest of the human population, it does reflect on the religion. Especially if that religion promises some sort of insight, wisdom, morality or something that should be reflected in the believers if it were true.

Oh well, enough.

[Darth Rotor]

Beliefs that have generally been held by Christian churches, and beliefs based on the Bible, are relevent to forming a judgment about the religion. Yeah, every Christian probably has a few individual quirks in what they believe, and some beliefs are open to different interpretation by different groups, but there is an actual historic Christian faith.
Indeed, but it has not remained static. If I read the history of the faith correctly, the application and practice was bickered about from, well, the beginning. James and Peter, for starters ... a tradition that continues to this day.
I think a lot of Americans -- maybe this is who you are referring to when you talk about what most Christians think -- would check off "Christian" on a survey about religions, and maybe would thank God if they won an award or something, but otherwise give it essentially no thought, rarely if ever attend church, and never read the Bible.
Yes.
So yeah, there are a lot of people who are Christian the way you describe. But I don't think they are actually representative of the religion.
Oh my goodness, you almosts sound like the Pope talking about a lot of Protestant denominations. In practice, they are representative. (See your own comment below on the people reflecting the religion). This is what inspired my comments above about the bell curve, and my idea of "grade earned" or a measure of the quality of practice. What Avalon calls "cultural Christian" is what I think I call the "casual Christian" and may be the "otherwise give it essentially no thougth" crowd.

Wait a minute: to be "actually representative," should they all buy your brand of kilt? I see a profit motive here ... :D
I think of the religion in terms of people who actually feel some level of commitment to it, actually go to church or read up on their religion or something. And among those there is a wide variety of belief, but most of that variety falls into the category of being more literal in interpretation of the Bible and traditional in adherence to the historic faith, versus less so. Regardless, there is still that core of what the religion is about, even if some branches try to distance themselves from certain aspects of it.
I wasn't aware that literalism is a requirement, though in some sects it is. I think the RCC doesn't go (at least not nowadays) with literalism and sola scriptura as its core posiiton. That said, I think most of its doctrine (Canon Law or the CCC makes linkages to scripture for grounding/justification for a particular practice). The Methodists I know are closer to sola scriptura.
... the religion and its followers can not be separated.
A fair statement.
Not that you can judge a religion on the behavior of a few crazies who are terrorists or who murder doctors or something. But if the main body of followers of a religion are no better or worse than the rest of the human population, it does reflect on the religion.
A fair statement as well.

Trying to find the center of mass, the median, or the mean seems to be a non-trivial undertaking. It may be exasperating to you, or to Skeptics of many sorts, but think how exasperating it is for the Pope, for the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, for the Archbishop of Canterbury, and for the heads of major denominations.

Each of them is trying to establish their application style as "the true religion," to the amusement of all and sundry. (Well, it amuses me).
Especially if that religion promises some sort of insight, wisdom, morality or something that should be reflected in the believers if it were true.
Not sure why "if it were true is in there" but I think you mean "if it were true that the promise of insight, wisdom," and all that. Did I follow you?

DR

[Piscivore]

I don't think any of them claim that. They have a more sophisticated way of looking at it than that. "Faith without works is dead." If you really believe, then you have invited the Holy Spirit into your heart and God works through you. You show how truly faithful you are by your changed behavior. The more faithful you are, the more you align yourself with God, blah blah blah I've heard quite a few sermons on the topic.
If they believe that once "you have invited the Holy Spirit into your heart and God works through you" one's behaviour is automatically changed, and one is by default a better person, why do they have sermons exhorting people to be better people?

How do you really feel?
:D

"Feel" is irrelevant.

It may have been irrelevent to your point, but it is relevent to my point. You seem to be saying that lots of Christians don't really believe the Bible, don't take it too seriously, believe that showing a changed life is a "PR stunt," etc. And that only a few fundamentalists really get into all that.
Not quite. I'm saying that a lot of Christians are not strict biblical literalists and/or do not fully support biblical inerrency.

I don't know how you've come by that opinion. (Got any evidence that anyone who calls themselves Christian thinks it's a "PR stunt?")
That they have to have lessons on how to live a Christian life is evidence they tacitly admit that this "changed life" is a product of their own efforts, and not a blessing of god.

It is directly counter to everything I've known from inside a couple different churches, and from everything I've read and listened to while going through a really long, boring phase of trying to make Christianity make sense.
Anecdotal evidence is not a test for truth.

Beliefs that have generally been held by Christian churches, and beliefs based on the Bible, are relevent to forming a judgment about the religion. Yeah, every Christian probably has a few individual quirks in what they believe, and some beliefs are open to different interpretation by different groups, but there is an actual historic Christian faith.
Which one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations) is the "actual historic Christian faith"? Baptist? Anabaptist? Catholic? Lutheran?

Because it's annoying when people want to borrow some authority for some opinion they hold anyway by saying "The Bible says ___," but then when confronted with an uncomfortable part of the Bible they suddenly don't want to be associated with it.
So? No one gets to dictate to others what their subjective opinons should be just to make it easier to assume what those opinions are. If a Christian believes one thing from the bible and not another, how is that anyone's business but his own... and potentially his god?

For example, too many homophobes who are sure that homosexuality is bad because the Bible says so, but who seem to think God wasn't that serious about hetero fornication.
So what? It just demonstrates he's using the bible to justify to himself his own feelings. If it wasn't the bible, it would be something else. If it were the opposite, if the bible created the homophobia, we'd expect to see that all believers in the bible are homophobes. That's not the case.

I think a lot of Americans -- maybe this is who you are referring to when you talk about what most Christians think -- would check off "Christian" on a survey about religions, and maybe would thank God if they won an award or something, but otherwise give it essentially no thought, rarely if ever attend church, and never read the Bible.
I'd say, from what people tell me that it is like this even moreso in Europe.

So yeah, there are a lot of people who are Christian the way you describe. But I don't think they are actually representative of the religion.
What determines who or what is representative of Christianity?

I think of the religion in terms of people who actually feel some level of commitment to it, actually go to church or read up on their religion or something. And among those there is a wide variety of belief, but most of that variety falls into the category of being more literal in interpretation of the Bible and traditional in adherence to the historic faith, versus less so.
Again, which is "the historic faith", considering this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion)?

Regardless, there is still that core of what the religion is about, even if some branches try to distance themselves from certain aspects of it.
What is that "core"?

So I'm not feeling concise at the moment I guess, wish I was. But all of this is just to say -- the religion and its followers can not be separated.
Of course not. The followers create the religion.

Not that you can judge a religion on the behavior of a few crazies who are terrorists or who murder doctors or something.
Like I said before, if one doesn't have a particular care that one's judgements are correct, one can judge on any basis one wishes.

But if the main body of followers of a religion are no better or worse than the rest of the human population, it does reflect on the religion.
"Better" or "worse" are subjective, individual assesments and are meanningless to anyone but the one who makes the judgment and the ones he has the power to persuade.

Especially if that religion promises some sort of insight, wisdom, morality or something that should be reflected in the believers if it were true.
If that is one's criteria, one must determine from the believer what she thinks those promises are. The bible cannot provide that, nor can the published tentents of the religion- not accurately.

[154]

So what? It just demonstrates he's using the bible to justify to himself his own feelings. If it wasn't the bible, it would be something else. If it were the opposite, if the bible created the homophobia, we'd expect to see that all believers in the bible are homophobes. That's not the case.

"Homophobia" is a lie.

To disapprove of homosexual behavior is not to have an "irrational fear of homosexuals."

Or is almost everyone here simply an example of "Christophobia"? All your many and varied points of contention are really only evidence of your irrational fears, right?

You can't have it both ways, but someone now explain that you can...

[Piscivore]

"Homophobia" is a lie.

To disapprove of homosexual behavior is not to have an "irrational fear of homosexuals."
It wasn't my word, dude.

[154]

It wasn't my word, dude.I didn't say it was, which is why I didn't quote you at first, but only bounced off your post, but then figured someone would say why was I making that off-topic comment, etc, etc...

Nevertheless, my point stands. It is a lie accepted as a precept and promulgated as a self-evident truth.