(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Crossposting to challenging_god.

Is it fair to judge a religion on the basis of actions done by its followers? By this I mean of course weighing the good deeds as well as the bad ones. Or should this judgment be made simply on the basis of the teachings themselves?

Underlying this question is another one: to what extent is a religion defined by the people that make it up?

Comments

[rmwilliamsjr.livejournal.com]

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.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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.

[rmwilliamsjr.livejournal.com]

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.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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.