Organized Religion

[perspective]

ABOUT ORGANIZED RELIGION:
WHY IT INSPIRES SO MUCH GENOCIDE, OPPRESSION, etc.
WHY IT IS OUR GREATEST HOPE.

This article while not displaying the most professional website facade, offers some interesting views about why organized religions find themselves in the tightest spots in history.

Almost all religions already have an Ethic of Reciprocity. This is a statement that one should treat others as they would like to be treated; one should not harm others. Consider Christianity as one example:

It's Ethic of Reciprocity is called the Golden Rule.
One expression appears in Matthew 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."
If this rule were rigorously applied, then there would be little or no religiously-inspired violence. Unfortunately, followers of each religion often apply the Ethic only to fellow believers, and not to persons of other faiths.
In Luke 10:33-37, Jesus is recorded as delivering the parable of the Good Samaritan. In essence, it teaches that every other human being on earth is one's neighbor and has intrinsic worth -- whether or not that other person is of the same nationality, race, gender religion, etc.

Not to be provocative, but religious branches have long been transient in the followings of their own holy text(s). While I agree with many of the observations and points in this article, I still have trouble believing that religious organizations themselves will be the solution to the injustices they themselves heap upon others. The only way the church(es) have ever changed their ways was when they were drug - kicking and screaming - into the new world and smacked on the ass, where they procede to cry and then sulk, but eventually adapt or die. Religions can try to adapt into something ideal like this article would suggest, but they will never voluntarily give up "traditional" views of past generations just to adopt a fairer "live and let live" stance. Organized religion will forever read the bible to fit their own prejudices and fears. It's human nature.

Do you think it will ever be the case that the ancient holy texts will be interpreted in a non-discriminatory, tolerant way?

[veritas]

Not to be provocative, but religious branches have long been transient in the followings of their own holy text(s).

Well, the problem here is that you cannot blame the organization for the negative actions of the individuals in it, any more than you can credit the organization for the positive actions. What's that? You do credit or blame the group for the actions of its members? Well, to admit the truth, so do I. It's called categorization, and it's a human trait that we all do.

But while it is a human trait, and a common trait, it is not--strictly speaking--a logical trait. Organized groups, in and of themselves, do not have "ethics"--they have interests. Ethics are solely and strictly the purview of individual humans. Yet all of us tend to judge the value of a group by the ethics of its members.

Justin

[otseng]

However, issues such as loving others should not be discriminatory.

Yet, you are opposed to gay marriage.

They are not related. I should love a person even if that person is a homosexual. That does not mean though that I have to believe that homosexual marriages are right.

Two people who want to love each other, and you think they should not be welcomed and encouraged in our society, but shunned like lepers?

I do not believe homosexuals should be shunned like lepers. They should be treated with respect like all other people. But, that does not mean all their actions should be condoned.

I've already stated a lot of my arguments against homosexual marriages over on the other topic. However if you want to discuss the topic more, we can carry on over there.

[perspective]

Not to be provocative, but religious branches have long been transient in the followings of their own holy text(s).

Well, the problem here is that you cannot blame the organization for the negative actions of the individuals in it, any more than you can credit the organization for the positive actions. What's that? You do credit or blame the group for the actions of its members? Well, to admit the truth, so do I. It's called categorization, and it's a human trait that we all do.

But while it is a human trait, and a common trait, it is not--strictly speaking--a logical trait. Organized groups, in and of themselves, do not have "ethics"--they have interests. Ethics are solely and strictly the purview of individual humans. Yet all of us tend to judge the value of a group by the ethics of its members.

Justin

The religious texts in themselves are contradictory. So when the text cannot be followed exclusively, followers of a faith must turn to their leaders for interpretation.
Simply stated: the preachings of the leaders of a religion define that religion. I was not blaming the organization for negative actions of the individuals in it. I was pointing out that the organization as a whole has selectively ignored/followed the texts for thousands of years. They had to, for society would not allow them to follow the texts literally. Society has always had more power over the organizations of religions than the texts that define them.

They are not related. I should love a person even if that person is a homosexual. That does not mean though that I have to believe that homosexual marriages are right.

But homosexuals should not love each other - or they should, but society should not encourage it? You should love them, but not as much as yourself and your heterosexual neighbor - both of you whom you believe deserve protection and exhaultation in the eyes of society? But you love your homosexual neighbor - just not that much?

I do not believe homosexuals should be shunned like lepers. They should be treated with respect like all other people. But, that does not mean all their actions should be condoned.

Should be treated with respect like all other people. But homosexuals should not be treated with the respect that your heterosexual friends deserve. They don't deserve the respect of having family legal protections. That's only for you and your heterosexual friends. Their attractions are not worthy of your respect. You are attracted to people of the opposite sex, which you cannot help. The same attraction that they cannot help is not worthy of respect. Interesting. Yeah, I'm through with this gay marriage thing. Such righteousness.

[Corvus]

Not to be provocative, but religious branches have long been transient in the followings of their own holy text(s).

Well, the problem here is that you cannot blame the organization for the negative actions of the individuals in it, any more than you can credit the organization for the positive actions. What's that? You do credit or blame the group for the actions of its members? Well, to admit the truth, so do I. It's called categorization, and it's a human trait that we all do.

But while it is a human trait, and a common trait, it is not--strictly speaking--a logical trait. Organized groups, in and of themselves, do not have "ethics"--they have interests. Ethics are solely and strictly the purview of individual humans. Yet all of us tend to judge the value of a group by the ethics of its members.

Justin

Why wouldn't it be logical? A religious doctrine prescribes a series of maxims, implications, motivations... even inspiration. If a group can manipulate this ethical framework, and justify questionable deeds just as they can justify good ones, then the framework is quite obviously faulty along with the behaviour of the group. The fact that the individuals are actuating themselves to do these deeds does not remove the fact that the deeds may be encouraged.

[veritas]

Not to be provocative, but religious branches have long been transient in the followings of their own holy text(s).

Well, the problem here is that you cannot blame the organization for the negative actions of the individuals in it, any more than you can credit the organization for the positive actions. What's that? You do credit or blame the group for the actions of its members? Well, to admit the truth, so do I. It's called categorization, and it's a human trait that we all do.

But while it is a human trait, and a common trait, it is not--strictly speaking--a logical trait. Organized groups, in and of themselves, do not have "ethics"--they have interests. Ethics are solely and strictly the purview of individual humans. Yet all of us tend to judge the value of a group by the ethics of its members.

Justin

The religious texts in themselves are contradictory. So when the text cannot be followed exclusively, followers of a faith must turn to their leaders for interpretation.

Some do--some interpret the texts themselves. I happen to prefer the latter course, but I know that the former has been more historically common.

But here we go right back to my argument: if the individuals who are the leaders have poor ethics, or are "swayed by every wind of doctrine," then you have the transience that you seem to find so distasteful.

Simply stated: the preachings of the leaders of a religion define that religion. I was not blaming the organization for negative actions of the individuals in it. I was pointing out that the organization as a whole has selectively ignored/followed the texts for thousands of years. They had to, for society would not allow them to follow the texts literally. Society has always had more power over the organizations of religions than the texts that define them.

:nods: Now on this, we agree--at least, on the results. In my case, I happen to feel that the leaders of various organized religions follow cultural trends because they are raised in the culture. Frankly, a splendid example of that is the recent "fundamentalist rebound" that America is experiencing as a reaction against the liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s.

Justin

[veritas]

But while [categorization] is a human trait, and a common trait, it is not--strictly speaking--a logical trait. Organized groups, in and of themselves, do not have "ethics"--they have interests. Ethics are solely and strictly the purview of individual humans. Yet all of us tend to judge the value of a group by the ethics of its members.

Justin

Why wouldn't it be logical?

In part, it is not logical because categorization like this runs the grave (and almost unavoidable) risk of "broad-rush generalization." When we hear about "Muslim terrorists" on the news, many people automatically assume that this is typical of Islam, when in truth, Islam is a religion that preaches peace, and where most of the believers follow that doctrine. (The same could be said of so-called "Christian radicals," like Operation Save America or any of the various Christian Identity movements; it could also be said of some Neo-Pagan radicals that I have heard of).

A religious doctrine prescribes a series of maxims, implications, motivations... even inspiration. If a group can manipulate this ethical framework, and justify questionable deeds just as they can justify good ones, then the framework is quite obviously faulty along with the behaviour of the group.

It's certainly a just accusation of the people who twist the basic doctrines of their religions; but it cannot be a just accusation towards either the specific groups that twist their precepts to justify behavior, or the concept of "organized religion," as a whole. The reason for that: it is the people who make these decisions. Groups and cultural phenomena are not capable of making choices.

Justin

[Corvus]

But while [categorization] is a human trait, and a common trait, it is not--strictly speaking--a logical trait. Organized groups, in and of themselves, do not have "ethics"--they have interests. Ethics are solely and strictly the purview of individual humans. Yet all of us tend to judge the value of a group by the ethics of its members.

Justin

Why wouldn't it be logical?

In part, it is not logical because categorization like this runs the grave (and almost unavoidable) risk of "broad-rush generalization." When we hear about "Muslim terrorists" on the news, many people automatically assume that this is typical of Islam, when in truth, Islam is a religion that preaches peace, and where most of the believers follow that doctrine..

Is it? Mohammed himself called for a jihad from his death bed. Islam, for a long time, was spread by fire and sword. It also had a charming slave trade that lasted into the 19th century. But it is trying to reinvent itself in a new century to become more palatable to a world that is becoming more sensitive, as religion does.

What you're stating isn't a logical flaw. It's a miscommunication error. They are "muslim terrorists". Just as most other muslims are "muslim pacifists". I still condemn the Koran for propagating violence, just as I condemn the bible for doing it. Yes, the religion is at fault for inspiring the violence and the individuals are at fault for acting on the inspiration. Yes, the religion can be worthy of praise for inspiring good deeds, and so would the individuals. Thus I believe the texts to be unreliable at best.

A religious doctrine prescribes a series of maxims, implications, motivations... even inspiration. If a group can manipulate this ethical framework, and justify questionable deeds just as they can justify good ones, then the framework is quite obviously faulty along with the behaviour of the group.

It's certainly a just accusation of the people who twist the basic doctrines of their religions; but it cannot be a just accusation towards either the specific groups that twist their precepts to justify behavior, or the concept of "organized religion," as a whole. The reason for that: it is the people who make these decisions. Groups and cultural phenomena are not capable of making choices.

This is like saying that if someone told a group of people to go and kill another group of people, the individuals of the group would be guilty of murder, but the leader would be blameless. The only difference is that the leaders of organised religion are either long since dead or ascended to heaven.

Every denomination has a different interpretation of the bible.What I say is that if the messages in the bible are ambiguous enough to influence these sorts of actions, the christian framework is obviously flawed. Who is to say that the messages are actually skewed? Who's to say what the real message is?

What you seem to be saying is that a messenger bares no blame for the message, because it's the listener's choice whether to act on the message. Sure enough, it's partially true, but if that was entirely true, all sorts of guidelines for television, movie and games could be thrown away. The creators of products and productions have a social responsibility to the consumer, and are not blameless if they influence negative actions. So it is too with the bible and its authors. The bible did not fall out of the sky, it was writen by people with motives and biases.

As for organised religion, as a generalisation, being to blame... I express distrust of the actions of any organisation with a claim to being the only truth. Christianity's lack of cohesion is to blame for such confused interpretations.

[veritas]

In part, it is not logical because categorization like this runs the grave (and almost unavoidable) risk of "broad-rush generalization." When we hear about "Muslim terrorists" on the news, many people automatically assume that this is typical of Islam, when in truth, Islam is a religion that preaches peace, and where most of the believers follow that doctrine..

Is it? Mohammed himself called for a jihad from his death bed. Islam, for a long time, was spread by fire and sword.

Mohammad called for jihad several times in his life: however, the word jihad does not mean "holy war." Jihad is "struggle," and the most fundamental struggle that Mohammad called for was the individual's moral struggle [jihad] against immorality. Defensive warfare was allowed (even encouraged), but the concept of an agressive "holy war" is forbidden in Islam.

"Forbidden" doesn't mean it never happened, as history demonstrates. But it does mean that those who engaged in such actions had to go against the actual tenets of their scriptures to do so.

"Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Indeed God does not love transgressors (Koran 2:192-193)."

And while you are quite correct that the Islamic state was spread by fire and sword, their own scriptures forbid their religion to be spread in such a manner.

"There is no compulsion in religion. Truth is clear from falsehood (KORAN 2:256)

"Let him (her) who will believe, and let him (her) who will disbelieve."
(KORAN 18:29).

"You are in no way a compellor over them; but warn by the Koran him who fears my threat
(KORAN 50:45)."

It also had a charming slave trade that lasted into the 19th century. But it is trying to reinvent itself in a new century to become more palatable to a world that is becoming more sensitive, as religion does.

Well, that's a bit more cynical than I would put it, to be sure.

What you're stating isn't a logical flaw. It's a miscommunication error. They are "muslim terrorists". Just as most other muslims are "muslim pacifists". I still condemn the Koran for propagating violence, just as I condemn the bible for doing it. Yes, the religion is at fault for inspiring the violence and the individuals are at fault for acting on the inspiration. Yes, the religion can be worthy of praise for inspiring good deeds, and so would the individuals. Thus I believe the texts to be unreliable at best.

Corvus, from what you're presenting here, your logical chain has a glaring non-sequiter in it. You're still stating that because a text has been used to excuse violence that the text is unreliable. Now, I happen to also feel that the Bible and the Koran are not necessarily historically reliable, but by the same token, I've seen the historical evidence. You're not even stating what kind of context you view them to be "unreliable." Morally unreliable? Historically unreliable?

It's certainly a just accusation of the people who twist the basic doctrines of their religions; but it cannot be a just accusation towards either the specific groups that twist their precepts to justify behavior, or the concept of "organized religion," as a whole. The reason for that: it is the people who make these decisions. Groups and cultural phenomena are not capable of making choices.

This is like saying that if someone told a group of people to go and kill another group of people, the individuals of the group would be guilty of murder, but the leader would be blameless. The only difference is that the leaders of organised religion are either long since dead or ascended to heaven.[/quote]

Not even close. A better analogy would be that the individuals in the group are culpable, and the leader is culpable: the texts did not call for this hypothetical murder, so not only did the leader incite murder, he lied to do it.

Every denomination has a different interpretation of the bible.What I say is that if the messages in the bible are ambiguous enough to influence these sorts of actions, the christian framework is obviously flawed. Who is to say that the messages are actually skewed? Who's to say what the real message is?

Well, you could make that argument, but then you would also have to apply the same reasoning to the constitutions of America, Australia, Canada, the European Union and even to the codes of English common law. All of these documents are ambiguous, open to human interpretation, and have been the subject to the same questions that you pose for the Christian Bible.

I'm going to pass on the other statements for now due to time restrictions on my end--I'll try to get back to it as soon as I can.

Justin

[Corvus]

Corvus, from what you're presenting here, your logical chain has a glaring non-sequiter in it. You're still stating that because a text has been used to excuse violence that the text is unreliable. Now, I happen to also feel that the Bible and the Koran are not necessarily historically reliable, but by the same token, I've seen the historical evidence. You're not even stating what kind of context you view them to be "unreliable." Morally unreliable? Historically unreliable?

Morally unreliable, ideologically unreliable. We're talking about these texts being responsible for wars, so it would follow we're debating its moral influence. We're also talking about texts that tell you how to live your life by.

As historical perspectives change, however, I believe the influence of these religious texts will become more benign.

It's certainly a just accusation of the people who twist the basic doctrines of their religions; but it cannot be a just accusation towards either the specific groups that twist their precepts to justify behavior, or the concept of "organized religion," as a whole. The reason for that: it is the people who make these decisions. Groups and cultural phenomena are not capable of making choices.

This is like saying that if someone told a group of people to go and kill another group of people, the individuals of the group would be guilty of murder, but the leader would be blameless. The only difference is that the leaders of organised religion are either long since dead or ascended to heaven.

Not even close. A better analogy would be that the individuals in the group are culpable, and the leader is culpable: the texts did not call for this hypothetical murder, so not only did the leader incite murder, he lied to do it.[/quote]

But how can we say that? We could just as easily say the texts did not call for acts of benevolance, thus the church is lying when it interprets texts to say this. Certain authors of the bible may well have been imlpying murder, hatred towards a people, and so on. Since all the followers of the text have access to the text, and they can interpret the text in such a way as to excuse murder, the text is culpable as inspiration. The leader in this case is the text.

Every denomination has a different interpretation of the bible.What I say is that if the messages in the bible are ambiguous enough to influence these sorts of actions, the christian framework is obviously flawed. Who is to say that the messages are actually skewed? Who's to say what the real message is?

Well, you could make that argument, but then you would also have to apply the same reasoning to the constitutions of America, Australia, Canada, the European Union and even to the codes of English common law. All of these documents are ambiguous, open to human interpretation, and have been the subject to the same questions that you pose for the Christian Bible.

I do. Every system has some flaw in it. But here, because these are more modern texts, we can go back to intent of the authors of the constitutions, get a better look at historical influences, &c. Also, these documents, although open to interpretation, are also open to revision. They are also far clearer and more reliable than old religious documents, such as the bible, which was written by numerous people.

[Barbie]

Many horrible things have been and are done in the name of religion, for the sake of religion. Even during the time of Jesus, the religious leaders were not reflecting the Lord. So often we find it easiest to point fingers at religion. Religion has NEVER been a part of God's plan, in fact He scorns those who appear religious!

Religion brings to mind mans rules, mans way. Christianity, on the other hand is to be God's rules, God's way. Do many profess to be Christians and still do evil? Of course!! Christian does not mean perfect, just forgiven and in the process of sanctification.

There are Christian groups today that have no business attaching the name of Christ to their group. And with all the redefining going on I am not even sure what Christian means anymore, at least not from the worlds perspective.

It is way past time to move past religion and step into a RELATIONSHIP with Jesus. Debates are great, but all the debating in the world will not answer the questions of the heart. All the debates in the world will not make a difference when eternity stares you in the face.

Religion? Throw it out!

Afterall, Jesus was NOT religious. Was He?