Good vs. bad properties in religion

[dlamberth]

Christianity is not a religion.

Christianity is a religion built around a central focal point.

 

[cloudyday2]

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.

You are right. Probably the better way to describe this bad property is "meddling" instead of "mutually exclusive". Religions that encourage their followers to meddle in the affairs of others are bad. An example is the policy of "shunning" to enforce discipline in a religion. Many religions require friends and family to shun a person who deviates - very disgusting IMO.

 

[cloudyday2]

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.

I just don't see the problem that you see. When I wake up in the morning, I don't pretend to have any absolute universal knowledge or certainty. That doesn't prevent me from putting on my shoes and feeding my cat.

 

[SPF]

Religions that encourage their followers to meddle in the affairs of others are bad.

Could another term for this be accountability? Which would be a good thing. From a Christian perspective, I hold other Christian's accountable because I love them, want the best for them, and believe that I can help and encourage them. The point of church discipline is to help restore a person's relationship with Christ. That's a good thing.

 

[cloudyday2]

Could another term for this be accountability? Which would be a good thing. From a Christian perspective, I hold other Christian's accountable because I love them, want the best for them, and believe that I can help and encourage them. The point of church discipline is to help restore a person's relationship with Christ. That's a good thing.

Yes, "accountability" is a nice way of saying "meddling". It's best if people mind their own business. A Christian can go to confession and the priest might give advice, instructions, etc. That is the better way to go, because the "sinner" is requesting the meddling.

 

[dlamberth]

Could another term for this be accountability? Which would be a good thing. From a Christian perspective, I hold other Christian's accountable because I love them, want the best for them, and believe that I can help and encourage them. The point of church discipline is to help restore a person's relationship with Christ. That's a good thing.

I ran into this in my past life with others wanting to hold me accountable to correct beliefs playing a large part towards my deconversion. Today, I'd say that's turned out to be very good thing.

It seems that at the time as I grew spiritually my beliefs changed such that others felt I wasn't holding to correct Church Doctrine, as they believe them to be. The mystics I was studying at the time were changing my perspective. And there were some who were pretty outspoken as they made clear that they didn't like that very much.

 

[Robban]

I ran into this in my past life with others wanting to hold me accountable to correct beliefs playing a large part towards my deconversion. Today, I'd say that's turned out to be very good thing.

It seems that at the time as I grew spiritually my beliefs changed such that others felt I wasn't holding to correct Church Doctrine, as they believe them to be. The mystics I was studying at the time were changing my perspective. And there were some who were pretty outspoken as they made clear that they didn't like that very much.

I have read a couple of volumes of Lewi Pethrus,(Petrus Lewi Johansson) founder of pentecostal movement in Sweden, and his battles first with Baptists, of which he was one to begin with,

Lots of slander and other wickedness.
Not a good enviroment.

 

[Cearbhall]

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

The most dangerous pattern I see throughout history is when a religion applies unchanging moral judgment to a cultural value, and then the rational reasons why that value exists are forgotten or overshadowed. If there comes a time when those rational reasons no longer apply, the rule is still enforced, because at that point, the value is viewed as a religious law regardless of whether or not there's another reason for the rule to exist.

So, for example, let's say anal sex is shamed in a particular ancient culture because they're able to see the cause-and-effect of the spread of disease and infection when bodily fluids come into contact with tears in the skin. Because of the consequences of this act, a negative moral value is placed on it, and this is incorporated into the culture's religion and community values. Over the generations, people forget that the only reason why their culture adapted this value in the first place was because of the threat of disease and infection. They're unaware that humans assigned religious significance to it later in order to encourage people to be safe and healthy. Now you have people who think that this particular act is not only a health risk, but an affront to the King of the Universe. Because of this, some people aren't content with shrugging and saying "Well, they're allowed to risk their own health" or "Use a condom." They're personally offended on behalf of their religion and their deity, and they seek violent vengeance.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

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.

Two atheists who don't believe in god share a neutral position. A Christian and a Muslim do not share a neutral position, they have a point of potential conflict and we see that conflict play all the time everywhere, both with points to defend. Personally I see that as a bad thing from a globalised perspective. Also the police officer has a device to gauge your speed, to prove how fast you were going, so in that instance it takes precedence over what speed you believe you were doing.

 

[MehGuy]

Personally I do not worry much about any "bad" properties of religion. Whatever bad thing you can find religious people doing you can easily find secular people engaging in similar things as well. Much rather spend time going after the root causes and therefore having more universal knowledge to help people in all walks of life.

If you just scapegoat their religion you might very well find them falling into the same hole even if you do turn them to secularism. Often times I think, with a more dangerous freethinking/intelligent mindset.

Of course there might be a few instances where religion is the main culprit, but by and large I do not think it is.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Personally I do not worry much about any "bad" properties of religion. Whatever bad thing you can find religious people doing you can easily find secular people engaging in similar things as well. Much rather spend time going after the root causes and therefore having more universal knowledge to help people in all walks of life.

On a individual level (and in light of your comment about root cause) if the secularist or the religious person gets an amount of power, then that power can potentially play out into manipulation and unjust control. This is why the golden rule is so relevant, and a point to ponder for us all.

 

[cloudyday2]

I just thought of this.
- A good trait of religion is its ability to inspire people to seek answers and behave better.
- A bad trait of religion is its claim to have answers, because people will no longer be listening.

 

[Proud Pagan]

Therefore, true Christian faith is knowing Jesus on a personal level and walking with Him throughout life. Anything else just merely a dead religion which is of no use at all other than being a member of a "club".

Christian faith is mere a salvation theology where there is an urgency to get saved.

 

[TheOldWays]

Religion can seem good as it gives a person purpose, community, etc but it comes at the cost of their soul in my belief. I have found when you dedicate yourself to the worship of God, you actually distance yourself from Him. Religion itself is not where God is. Religion is a power structure meant to direct you to an abstract idea of God. That idea, then becomes God to the person, when in reality, the idea is actually leading you away from God.

 

[Proud Pagan]

Religion is a power structure meant to direct you to an abstract idea of God

If religion demands total submission , slavish worship , tries to conquer then it aint religion .

 

[TheOldWays]

If religion demands total submission , slavish worship , tries to conquer then it aint religion .

Even a religion that leads it's adherents to great acts of kindness and altruism is still leading people away from God in my opinion. The content of the religion means little as well as if it is even referred to as religion or not. It all points to abstract ideas of God and asks that idea to be accepted as God.

That's all fine and dandy. I have been an adherent of many religions. It's what lead me to discover they all have similar attributes.

 

[Proud Pagan]

care to drop the names of religions you have been adherent of ?

 

[cloudyday2]

I have found when you dedicate yourself to the worship of God, you actually distance yourself from Him.

I'm not sure if you mean this, but it almost sounds like you're suggesting that an "eat, drink, and be merry" atheist would be the closest to God?

 

[TheOldWays]

I'm not sure if you mean this, but it almost sounds like you're suggesting that an "eat, drink, and be merry" atheist would be the closest to God?

I just meant that religions take abstract ideas and say 'this is God'. I don't think that's possible. What God is can't be contained like that. So a religion would then be worshipping these abstract ideas. Basically limiting themselves from the full freedom that God offers to explore his many facets.

Imagine someone took you out into a beautiful meadow and said 'Here is God! All of this! Go play and explore! Discover God!"

Now you struggle to comprehend this. There is so much to see and you can't wrap your head around it but then you see a plant that really strikes you as divine. So you proclaim that is truly what God is. And you focus all your attention on it. So while you worship this one idea of what God is, your ability to see God all around you and in different ways and expressions dims. So in essence you are distancing yourself from God by limiting yourself to one idea.

 

[cloudyday2]

I just meant that religions take abstract ideas and say 'this is God'. I don't think that's possible. What God is can't be contained like that. So a religion would then be worshipping these abstract ideas. Basically limiting themselves from the full freedom that God offers to explore his many facets.

Imagine someone took you out into a beautiful meadow and said 'Here is God! All of this! Go play and explore! Discover God!"

Now you struggle to comprehend this. There is so much to see and you can't wrap your head around it but then you see a plant that really strikes you as divine. So you proclaim that is truly what God is. And you focus all your attention on it. So while you worship this one idea of what God is, your ability to see God all around you and in different ways and expressions dims. So in essence you are distancing yourself from God by limiting yourself to one idea.

I believe something slightly different. I think it doesn't matter if the person is a Fundamentalist Christian or a Wiccan or anything else. What matters is whether that person is seeking God/gods or seeking to be a certain type of person or a member of a group. For example, when I joined an Eastern Orthodox church, I began buying and reading books about Orthodoxy. That was a mistake, because my goal became Orthodoxy instead of God. On the other hand, it can help to get advice from other people and try what others have found effective. It's a fine line between utilizing the group knowledge base to seek God and seeking the group as a proxy for God.