sophiaserpentia | (no subject)

I believe it is fair. A religion is an abstract concept, made concrete by the faithful, not an entity in and of itself.. I'd probably construct an argument similar to the "there is no hidden Self other than the sum of our actions" argument (Sartre?) as an analogy

Do you think there should be a reasonable limit?

For example, throughout much of history many Christians were slaveowners. Is this in itself a reflection on Christianity -- or does it only reflect on Christianity when slaveowners appeal to Christian teaching to justify the practice of slavery?

"For example, throughout much of history many Christians were slaveowners. Is this in itself a reflection on Christianity -- or does it only reflect on Christianity when slaveowners appeal to Christian teaching to justify the practice of slavery?"

Slavery and the praise of virtuous slaves and servants, is written deeply into the Christian religion. I find it no surprise that it was so easy to use the Bible to justify slavery, since the Bible in fact, does justify slavery - or rather, it does not even question whether or not slavery is a good thing, it accepts slavery as part of the natural order of things. The concepts that there must be a dominant person and a submissive person in every human relationship, i.e., all relationships are hierarchal by nature, is an unexamined assumption throughout much of the Bible. Only in the New Testament do we see any hint of a "kinder gentler" view, and that little neough, verses meant to emphasize all Christians are equal before Christ in Ephesians, I believe - yet this is not meant to supercede the slave/master dichotomy here on earth, only in heaven.

The only text in the Bible that could conceivably be used to demonstrate that slavery is unchristian is Paul's letter to Philemon, which he sent back to Philemon along with the escaped slave Onesimus. In that letter he pleaded with Philemon to treat Onesimus with fairness "as a brother in Christ" or to perhaps even consider freeing him.

It could be that Paul simply didn't have the guts to tell people to stop owning slaves. It's far more likely that he didn't see anything wrong with slavery per se, just the mistreatment of slaves.

"It's far more likely that he didn't see anything wrong with slavery per se, just the mistreatment of slaves."

Paul was a Roman, and from the rest of his writings, it is apparent he had no desire to change the Roman culture, which included slavery and oppression of women. So I think you are correct in your guess that he saw nothing wrong with the ownership of slaves.

There is an old Latin phrase:
"Abusus non tollit usum" (Abuse does not nullify use)
that is a summary of this logical error and argument.

So, basically your answer is "no"? Just to clarify.

Yes. When i see this form of argument. It's common, like the thread that Christianity is wrong because of the Crusades or burning witches or whatever.

i chant the phrase "Abusus non tollit usum"
several times before replying...*grin*

To show, for example, that the Crusades are an argument against Christianity you must
show that the ideals give rise to the actions.
And that the reasons for the Crusades are not in fact extraneous to the faith, or worse yet(to the argument), contradictory to the faith. Which in fact they are.
Sort of like showing logical entailment, or cause-effect. Simply stating that the Crusades invalidate the principles of Christianity is falling for this "Abusus non tollit usum" logical error.

Simply stating that the Crusades invalidate the principles of Christianity is falling for this "Abusus non tollit usum" logical error.

Actually that is not what I'm asking. I'm asking to what extent we can judge Christianity because events were (a) carried out by Christians, (b) initiated by Christian leaders, and/or (c) justified by appeals to Christian teaching. My critique is also not meant to involve just Christianity, but all religions.

We can argue after the fact that the Crusades or the actions of the Conquistadores or slavetraders were not consistent with Christian reasoning, but they were to some extent initiated or blessed by Christian leaders at the time, were considered "good Christian things to do," and were justified with appeals to the Bible.

This would be weighed against, for example, the long history of altruism conducted by Catholics, Mennonites, Quakers, Protestant missionaries, etc. Surely these good things are used by many Christians as evidence of the goodness which comes from the Christian faith.

I'm particularly concerned with the possibility of using scripture to justify deeds both good and bad.

I'm particularly concerned with the possibility of using scripture to justify deeds both good and bad.

Slavery is an excellent topic to work on with this desire. The big problem in my mind is that justification seems oftentimes as you put it after the fact. With slavery in the US the problem is complex and i for one have put a lot of time into it without coming to any firm conclusions.

With slavery in the US the problem is complex and i for one have put a lot of time into it without coming to any firm conclusions.

People on both sides of the debate made considerable appeals to scripture in support of their position. One could even, with strategic selection of passages, make a case that scripture opposes economic exploitation in all forms. An interesting example here might be the OT prohibition of usury, or rules regarding forgiveness of debts when suing poor people.

But, that just highlights one of the things that makes examination of scripture so difficult for me. The fact that Biblical scripture can be used to support just about any position one takes is to my mind a knock against it. One cannot make a similar claim about, say, Buddhist or Taoist scripture.

Yes.

Why?

Because the followers ARE the religion. The religion may start off with a small group of people who wish to share the love and joy brought to them by a particular revelation or event, as in Christianity. But a religion can be hijacked by people who change it to something entirely different over time.

If the vast majority of popele who claim Christianity display a characteristic which they believe and preach as central to their faith, even though they have scant Biblical justification, is that not a Christian concept?

Is a religion more than its teachings, or is it also the culture that springs up to surround its teachings?

To be more specific, is Christinaity the Bible, or is it the people who claim the Bible as their holy manuscript?

Your questions cut right to the heart of the matter.

See my recent post for the thoughts and questions you provoked... :)

To some extent I think it has to be; if there is a great discrepancy between what the religion teaches and what its followers practice, there is a problem somewhere.

In my mind, a religion is responsible for teachings its followers how to act. When people of a religious bent abuse others, and are chastised for it by the leadership, a religion is doing its job. But when the church does not chastize or curb the abuses, I feel that religion should lose societal privilege -- such as tax exempt status.

Religions often begin with individuals claiming divine inspiration for their lives &/or their writings. When those individuals die, power begins to accumulate into the hands of people more interested in power than sanctity. At some point in the evolution of a church, the church must curb its own people, or the church must be curbed by society -- else the sham corrupt racket calling itself a religion destroys all of society.

(deleted comment)

" Each individual person is responsible for their own actions, and each individual person is responsible for evaluating their religion."

Yes, but ...

"A religion is a collection of philosophies and beliefs, it cannot dictate how a person acts."

A religion can not only dictate the actions of a person, it usually does. This can range from what you eat (no meat for Hindus and Buddhists, no pork for Jews and Muslims) to who you associate with, what you can do in your private life -- i. e. sex -- and almost always backs up the ruling powers, with which it usually has a symbiotic relationship. (Not doing so can be hazardous to the survival of the religion.)

If there is scripture "revealed directly from God" then there is a problem getting around things that are no longer acceptable in the society. You either ignore them -- as Christians do with circumcision and the dietary laws, and, more recently, chattel slavery -- or legislate around it by claiming a parallel tradition (The Mishnah vs. the Torah in Judaism)or "deducing" new rulings from the revealed text. This usually creates a lot of heat, as the current debate over legalizing homosexual sex shows.

"I think saying that Christianity is reprehensible for the Crusades, or that any religion is reprehensible because it has zealots (and they all do) is a way of taking responsibility away from individuals, and a way of furthering religious intolerance."

True ,but again, the emphasis is on following the dictates of the religions authorities and their rulings -- at least if you want to remain a member of that community. Otherwise, you have to leave the religion -- if you can do so without repercussions in the society at large.

Religious intolerance often starts with the religion's authorities -- especially when they have to cover their ass about something embarassing that they've done or when the faithful begin to notice the emperor's lack of clothing.

" I have a problem with blanket statements about any religion, because too often we make them without familiarizing ourselves with the religion we are bashing (ex: Islam post 9/11)."

But if you are kept ignorant of the other fellow's religion, it is so much easier for the authorities to use blanket statements to manipulate you into supporting some damnfool crusade.

I would tend to judge a religion more on the tenets, beliefs, and rules that the hierarchy, or whoever defines the ideals of the religion, set rather than on the actions of the individual followers. I would have to say that I have encountered both enlightened kind individuals and out right bastards from many different religions. The choices and actions of an individual are the sole responsibility of that individual, even if it means standing for something other than what the leaders of your religion tell you to.

I do have to admit that sometimes in conversation it is too easy to generalize and just overlook this fact, however.

Many people above have been listing the crimes of Chrisitianity and specifically Catholicism. I feel it is necessary to point out that these religions have always been tightly interwoven with the government. In fact, it is only a recent development that the people have been fed the line and even try to pretend that church and state are separate. The Crusades and slavery were political and social question just as much if not more than religious questions in their day. Thus the Church and State backed each other. I feel today, the same thing is happening with questions of homosexuality, polyamory, pornography, and and recreational drug use. The more traditional churches tend to side with the state and the state in turn usese it as justification. When enough people become enlightened, it will no longer be a political or religious issue -- the most recent examples being that until recently the Catholic church would not allow inter-racial marriage on supposed "religious" grounds until it became largely a non-issue, due to INDIVIDUALS, many of them followers of the church, taking a stand.

excellent question, i just tripped across your journal after you gave some rivetting posts in Philosophy community. this post might also be well suited for a community called theologia (i dont know how to directly link to the community, sorry)

I guess it depends on the religion. Some religions have actions at their core (like Catholicism), while others (like Zen) focuses more on understanding. You have bad apples in every religion I think, so the people can't always determine the value of the religion. Look at Osama Bin Ladden, he was a muslim, but by all accounts, he didn't act according to the religion. It doesn't make the religion any less accountable just because he was a nutcase.