Good vs. bad properties in religion

[Soyeong]

I think it was James who said that true religion is helping widows and keeping oneself unspotted from the world. He reckons that good religion is more than just theological talk but expresses itself in action. This is why he says that if a person says he has faith, he needs to show it by what he does. Talk is cheap, but action costs a little more.

But Christianity is set completely apart from every other religion. No other religion involves a personal relationship with its God or gods. Other religions involve an advancement of the person from one level to another to reach a kind of paradise. Christianity involves an instantaneous conversion from being dead in sin to being totally alive in Christ and totally acceptable to God. No other religion achieves this.

Christianity is a true religion, so it is therefore a religion. I agree that it is a religion that is distinct from other religions, but it nevertheless is still a religion.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

IMO any religion or trait of religion which emphasizes positive, internal, personal development is "good".

Likewise, any which emphasizes the external (e.g. forced compliance upon unwilling others) is "bad", and does not deserve to be called a religion at all, but a political philosophy.

I just listed a bad..my bad! But the good would have been the one you wrote about, to look within, self reflection, contemplation, meditation.

 

[Tolworth John]

Sometimes I listen to things that religious people say, and I feel like it is wrong to allow them to continue to believe in their religion

It is always nice to listen to tolerent people. You know what tolerant means don't you:-' I disagree with what you say/think/believe, but respect your right to say/think/believe that.'

Here is a question for you. How are you going to amend the American Consitution, the inalienable rights to pursue happiness etc ?
A second question is how do you prove that Christianity is false? Christian teaching says if there was no resurection there is No Christianity.
There is a task for you, shame no historians will help you.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In fact the very concept of religion was probably invented to describe Christianity (and other non-ethnic religions that were popular at that time such as Mithraism). When Christianity began to convert people, religion was disconnected from ethnicity. Being a Greek didn't necessarily mean you would worship Greek gods, so the concept of religion became necessary.

Christians typically gather at church on Sundays and study the Bible and so on. That's a religion.

That is not correct. The Romans already had the concept of Religion long before Christianity. Nothing stopped you from worshipping other gods, but foreign gods could be incorporated into Roman Religion, thus becoming a part of their system.
Good examples are Cybele and Apollo, who became Roman gods, while they were taken from foreigners. This is in opposition to the Interpraetio Romanorum where foreign gods were equated to their own, such as calling Melqart the Asian Hercules.

There were gods considered the Roman Pantheon, whose worship did not entail being Roman, but was the Roman way to approach the gods. Various 'religions' weren't considered the same, which is why Rome proceeded to build Temples to their own gods, even when equating local gods to them. This is also why Rome expelled the Isis worshippers on occasion or persecuted Christianity, for they weren't practicing appropriate religion in their eyes.
Isis worship was also pan-ethnic. The idea of 'ethnicity' is anachronistic when applied to Rome, a state that freely absorbed peoples and extended Romanitas to all the peoples of its Empire in the end. This is why Greeks called themselves Romans till the early 19th century, and why Romanians have never stopped doing so.

Sufficed to say, Polybius and Livy already juxtaposed different modes of worshipping the gods, defining separate Religions, long before Mithraism or Christianity entered the scene. The use of the word Religion to describe it, is however a late usage - becoming a specialisation of the general word meaning 'to show reverence to the gods' in the 5th century, based off of Monastic usages.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Sometimes I listen to things that religious people say, and I feel like it is wrong to allow them to continue to believe in their religion. These religious people deserve better. It is like allowing an adult to believe in Santa Claus. That's not respecting a person's beliefs; it is not caring about a person's right to know the truth.

On the other hand, I know that religion can sometimes help people psychologically. Also, there is a possibility that false religions might still be useful tools for finding gods, gaining enlightenment, or whatever. For example, the real god(s) might not care if people worship the moon or the stars or Yahweh or Allah or Krishna or Jesus - as long as they are seeking something.

Any ideas about what properties make a religion "bad" so that it would be our duty to lead people out of that religion?

EDIT: Other factors to consider are the capability of the believer to accept the truth and recover. On a forum it is hard to know these things.

This is a question of morality: How do we determine what is good, what is bad.

We think Aztec human sacrifice to have been bad. In their eyes, they were maintaining the natural order, therefore good.
Nazis killing Jews is bad, but to Nazis it is a moral act.

We enter with our own presuppositions, tempered by our cultural background. Either we have to assume an Absolute morality which we are vaguely trying to approach, and therefore all that fails to accord with it is bad; or we assume a relative morality derived from our background and such, in which case our condemnation of any other group is merely Jingoistic Hubris.

As a Christian, I hold the former, and would condemn all that fails to accord with the basic rules of Love thy Neighbour.
Without a religious or metaphysical base for an absolute morality however, the latter Jingoism obviously applies, so I think none holding these views can really be justified in condemning any others' positions on the basis of their inherent 'wrongness'.

 

[Robban]

.........as long as we comprehend that Salvation by Grace through Faith does not involve religious structure, nor does the standing of saved require "effort" in order to sustain it. Witnessing, testifying, proclaiming the Amazing Grace of God through our Lord and Savior Jesus is obviously not structure but joy. Judaism was the perfect example of rigid religious structure. I don't know how religious it is today.

It boils down to, remembering, reminding, do not forget,

Forget what?

What the Lord your God has done for you.

(Christianity celebrate Easter, to remind.for example)

Lifes ocean can be calm and still, it can be raging storms too,

We can be overcome by many things on our journey,

The word "Ark" also means "Word",

In the raging storm go into the ark,

But much better, go into the ark before the storm strikes.

 

[cloudyday2]

It is always nice to listen to tolerent people. You know what tolerant means don't you:-' I disagree with what you say/think/believe, but respect your right to say/think/believe that.'

Here is a question for you. How are you going to amend the American Consitution, the inalienable rights to pursue happiness etc ?
A second question is how do you prove that Christianity is false? Christian teaching says if there was no resurection there is No Christianity.
There is a task for you, shame no historians will help you.

The best method I have heard is "conversational intolerance" suggested by Sam Harris. Traditionally when a religious person makes an off-handed religious comment in the presence of non-believers, the non-believers are expected to ignore it or even nod respectfully in apparent agreement. "Conversational intolerance" suggests that non-believers should cross-examine the believer regarding this off-handed religious comment in hopes that the believer will begin to think and question.

 

[cloudyday2]

That is not correct. The Romans already had the concept of Religion long before Christianity. Nothing stopped you from worshipping other gods, but foreign gods could be incorporated into Roman Religion, thus becoming a part of their system.
Good examples are Cybele and Apollo, who became Roman gods, while they were taken from foreigners. This is in opposition to the Interpraetio Romanorum where foreign gods were equated to their own, such as calling Melqart the Asian Hercules.

There were gods considered the Roman Pantheon, whose worship did not entail being Roman, but was the Roman way to approach the gods. Various 'religions' weren't considered the same, which is why Rome proceeded to build Temples to their own gods, even when equating local gods to them. This is also why Rome expelled the Isis worshippers on occasion or persecuted Christianity, for they weren't practicing appropriate religion in their eyes.
Isis worship was also pan-ethnic. The idea of 'ethnicity' is anachronistic when applied to Rome, a state that freely absorbed peoples and extended Romanitas to all the peoples of its Empire in the end. This is why Greeks called themselves Romans till the early 19th century, and why Romanians have never stopped doing so.

Sufficed to say, Polybius and Livy already juxtaposed different modes of worshipping the gods, defining separate Religions, long before Mithraism or Christianity entered the scene. The use of the word Religion to describe it, is however a late usage - becoming a specialisation of the general word meaning 'to show reverence to the gods' in the 5th century, based off of Monastic usages.

I didn't say that religion didn't exist - I said that the concept of "religion" as something separate from ethnicity did not exist. In the ancient world Judaism was simply part of the traditions of Jewish people. There was no need to separate-out the supernatural beliefs and practices until Christianity and other evangelistic/multi-cultural religions became popular.

 

[Tolworth John]

it is wrong to allow them to continue to believe in their religion.

What you wrote is different from challenging what a Christian says about his belief.
'Allow them to continue in their religion', strongly implies you would approve of believers being lock away untill they changed their belief.
You may not have meant that, its how it came across to me.

Yes I think nonchristians should challenge Christians about there 'religous' statements. But that implies an intelligent critism and not riddicle.

I also think Christians should challenge atheists when they casually blaspheme, after all how riddiculous is it to hear an atheist calling on the God he claims not to believe in?

 

[cloudyday2]

Without a religious or metaphysical base for an absolute morality however, the latter Jingoism obviously applies, so I think none holding these views can really be justified in condemning any others' positions on the basis of their inherent 'wrongness'.

Let's say that I find evidence that Muhammad was actually a literary creation constructed from two historical figures. Don't you think Muslims would like to know this? If I believed in Santa Claus, I would want somebody to take me aside privately and give me the bad news rather than playing along.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I didn't say that religion didn't exist - I said that the concept of "religion" as something separate from ethnicity did not exist. In the ancient world Judaism was simply part of the traditions of Jewish people. There was no need to separate-out the supernatural beliefs and practices until Christianity and other evangelistic/multi-cultural religions became popular.

I understood that this is what you meant. As I said, this isn't true.

Rome worshipped Cybele. She was never thought as ethnically Roman, a Roman goddess, but she was an important part of Roman Religion. Her Foreigness was always acknowledged, which is why her priests could be eunuchs and have other non-Roman attributes, that were generally treated as abhorrent.

Likewise we see Metuentes - God-Fearers. These were ethnically Greek individuals who acknowledged the Jewish God. We see them in the Talmud and the Church fathers. They practiced Judaism, but without all the ethnic brouhaha that it otherwise entailed, like circumcision. We see a similar story with the Hasmonaean conversion of the Idumaeans to Judaism, who weren't ethnically Jews but often acknowledged the Jewish God. Judaism was closely tied to ethnicity, as it still is today, but they aren't the same then or now.

We see Dionysius worship thought to be a foreign spread from Asia to Greece in the Archaic and Classical Greek periods, often leading to bans or opposition from the polis. This is probably a mistaken derivation, but they acknowledged the differentiation between religious practice and the ethnicity of those associated with that religious practice.

The ancient world already differentiated belief and those holding it. In essence, Religion. Besides, pan-ethnic religions like Orphism or Sarapis worship greatly predated Christianity anyway.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Let's say that I find evidence that Muhammad was actually a literary creation constructed from two historical figures. Don't you think Muslims would like to know this? If I believed in Santa Claus, I would want somebody to take me aside privately and give me the bad news rather than playing along.

Why do you think knowing something is incorrect is necessarily 'better' than the alternative? This is a value judgement, almost an axiomatic assertion. How can we make this point? It is almost as if their is a universal tendency to favour truth over falsehood, for otherwise why would it still be thought 'better' in an innocuous example as well?

I think we should inform people if we think there is an important falsehood, but as I said, I believe in the existence of Absolute values, even if we approach them imperfectly. If you deny absolutes, either via denying God or a suitable Metaphysical alternative, I fail to see how one can justify doing so, except by simply stating it as your preference - personally or culturally - to do so. Perhaps they could claim utility, but that begs the question what is it being done for, what is the justification for holding that as an aim, and whether an honest truth is better than a noble lie for efficaciousness' sake, which sinks the view just as surely.

 

[Eryk]

It is like allowing an adult to believe in Santa Claus.

These arguments will only work on a cargo cult. They won't work on the belief in a transendent ground of being and the spiritual core of a person's life. Such things are not amenable to argument because they are intuitive.

It's not wise to get out of your own business and meddle in the personal choices of other people. If they are thinking themselves into pain, you must understand that only they can think themselves out of it. You cannot ever make another person believe, want, or do anything. The attempt to do so will only provoke a reaction that entrenches the person further in their beliefs. This is why you only converse with people who want a conversation.

If you really believe that theists are mental children, it will show in your tone of voice, body language, everything. Arrogance can't be concealed. If you see ugliness or ridiculousness or anything that distorts your perception of human beings, it will manifest in action and then you're one of the people making the world worse.

The belief that "other people should not believe x" will cause you pain until you observe what you are doing to your self.

 

[cloudyday2]

If you deny absolutes, either via denying God or a suitable Metaphysical alternative, I fail to see how one can justify doing so, except by simply stating it as your preference - personally or culturally - to do so. Perhaps they could claim utility, but that begs the question what is it being done for, what is the justification for holding that as an aim, and whether an honest truth is better than a noble lie for efficaciousness' sake, which sinks the view just as surely.

Whether an absolute exists or not is irrelevant if we cannot be certain that we know that absolute. A consensus is all that is necessary. The world is heading towards democracy, free trade, etc. That is the consensus. This is the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Those Muslim terrorists threw their lives away and the lives of all their victims because they hoped it would further the cause of creating a modern Islamic empire to replace the more secular Muslim regimes supported by the US. The cost to the US and the world has been very high.

EDIT: I wandered from responding to your point. Democracy works best in most cases if the voters have accurate information. Global connections make "bad" religious beliefs a danger to all. It might benefit the world if certain "bad" religious beliefs are challenged - even though traditionally religion has been treated as off-limits in polite discussions.

 

[cloudyday2]

These arguments will only work on a cargo cult. They won't work on the belief in a transendent ground of being and the spiritual core of a person's life. Such things are not amenable to argument because they are intuitive.

In reality most religions are indistinguishable from a cargo cult except that most of them were invented much earlier so the facts are harder to recover. Of course that is a very important difference.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Ugh, I hope you are wrong about that.

In Europe it is practically a done deal. Do get used to it. Those who resist will be labeled 'haters' by the PC crowd. They will be labeled 'dhimmi' by the Muslim crowd, but only after they recognize and embrace their third class status in the new system.

 

[SPF]

Any ideas about what properties make a religion "bad" so that it would be our duty to lead people out of that religion?

From the Christian perspective, I consider it my duty to try and lead all people out of all other religions and point them towards Christ. Christianity is mutually exclusive in comparison to all other belief systems. So if Christianity is true, and as a follower of Christ I obviously believe it is - It would be my desire, out of love for my neighbor, to always share with them the Truth of Christ because it is only through Christ that our sins can be forgiven.

 

[cloudyday2]

From the Christian perspective, I consider it my duty to try and lead all people out of all other religions and point them towards Christ. Christianity is mutually exclusive in comparison to all other belief systems. So if Christianity is true, and as a follower of Christ I obviously believe it is - It would be my desire, out of love for my neighbor, to always share with them the Truth of Christ because it is only through Christ that our sins can be forgiven.

The mutually exclusive feature is probably an example of a bad property in some religions (Christianity and Islam and probably others too).

 

[SPF]

The mutually exclusive feature is probably an example of a bad property in some religions (Christianity and Islam).

All religions to an extent are mutually exclusive. The atheist believes that God does not exist. The Theist believes that God does exist. This belief is mutually exclusive. Describing the fact that religions having mutually exclusive beliefs as a bad property is ridiculous.

The question is does God exist? In reality, He either does or does not. It should be of the utmost importance for us as people to discern the answer to that question. Because if God does exist, then there's a good chance that He has a purpose for our life, and we had better try and see if we can figure out what it is.

Beliefs being mutually exclusive is reality, and mutually exclusive beliefs are not relegated to only religions. For instance, when the nice police man pulled me over last week and told me I was going 24mph over the speed limit, I suggested to him that he was mistaken and that I was only going 17mph over the speed limit. Our beliefs were mutually exclusive.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Whether an absolute exists or not is irrelevant if we cannot be certain that we know that absolute. A consensus is all that is necessary. The world is heading towards democracy, free trade, etc. That is the consensus. This is the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Those Muslim terrorists threw their lives away and the lives of all their victims because they hoped it would further the cause of creating a modern Islamic empire to replace the more secular Muslim regimes supported by the US. The cost to the US and the world has been very high.

EDIT: I wandered from responding to your point. Democracy works best in most cases if the voters have accurate information. Global connections make "bad" religious beliefs a danger to all. It might benefit the world if certain "bad" religious beliefs are challenged - even though traditionally religion has been treated as off-limits in polite discussions.

This equates to merely prioritising our own cultural determinations, as I said.
You have no standard to determine whether something is 'bad' beyond your own cultural views then, for maybe Communism or Statism or Shariah would actually create a 'better' world. You don't know, nor can determine it, nor define relative worth thereby. What is better? Why would 'good' decisions be made by consensus? Look to ancient Athens and you'll see many bad democratic decisions. Remember Hitler was democratically elected and he cwrtainly did not hide his hatred of the Jews nor absolutist agenda. He in fact lauded it in Mein Kampf.

We have to look to universals to make this point, for I am sure you see the end of slavery as a good thing, but this very much went against consensus, as did the rise of democracy, free trade, etc.
Look how many people are out in force protesting free trade at every G20 meeting, for instance.