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

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.

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?

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) (Show 1 comment)

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.