Test For Determining Whether A Religion Is Bad

[zubin]

The first step in determining whether a religion is bad is to give an "essential" interpretation, ie to find the essence of the religion.

If...

(1) the essence of the religion is bad

OR

(2) the good essence of the religion is prevented from being applied in practice...

the religion can be said to be bad.

The controversy over Islam is more likely to be over (2) than (1). Even in that regard, however, current malpractice is not evidence for it. If there is a way to not only interpret the religion well, but also to apply it, even if it is unprecedented, it can not be said to be a "bad" religion.

[Dokhtar Bandari]

Are you suggesting that Religion is either good or bad? and not necessary or unnecessary?

And for something that has cause so much suffering in the lives of Man your test is rather short...don't u think so?

[zubin]

Are you suggesting that Religion is either good or bad? and not necessary or unnecessary?

the second question is really interesting. about the first, all that matters should be the essence of the religion and whether that essence can ever come to life. If EG Islam has a great essence, great purpose, and there is a way to make the laws conform to this great essence, then its not essentially/fundamentally bad. that's the idea.

the second question on necessity... some have found it necessary indeed. perhaps its necessity is waning in the conventional sense however. I personally agree with that.

And for something that has cause so much suffering in the lives of Man your test is rather short...don't u think so?

this is also really interesting. but CAUSE is a scientific (but easy) concept. we can't throw it around like pancakes. we constantly say X Caused Z, while we don't know if its a correlation or as BIG a factors as say, D.

Regarding religion, since it WAS necessary for man's survival, the notion that it has CAUSED suffering is somewhat problematic because one can say it CAUSED good too.

its a double edged sword. it provided unity in community and conflict outside the community. it can be seen as an evolutionary concept that was necessary in certain circumstances. but what else do you suggest for the historical context?

in today's context, it is admittedly less necessary.


Also, religion was ITSELF caused by circumstances of uncertainty and anxiety. Those are the main causes of strife.

[Dokhtar Bandari]

You asked for it...LOL

You want me to give u historical background? As in things that they teach in schools or things they hide from education???? because in regards to the historical recount in the main stream you need to ask who wrote the history and for what purpose was it written?

I have an essay would like me to post it????

[zubin]

You want me to give u historical background? As in things that they teach in schools or things they hide from education???? because in regards to the historical recount in the main stream you need to ask who wrote the history and for what purpose was it written?

I have an essay would like me to post it????

i would want to make good use of your essay instead of just a simple post.

what I mean is that if you look deep into history, tribes have always had the need to unite and God provides that mechanism. Whether you believe in God or not there is a sound basis of religion from an evolutionary perspective.

However, as what is "strong" changes, I personally agree that the need for religion is less now.

I want to get your information, but I want it to come when its relevant. How is your information relevant to this?

[zubin]

I mean, I know you don't like cultish religions tactics and distortions. that's fair. but there are factors that cause religion to do that, that's all I'm saying.

[Dokhtar Bandari]

I don't understand why do people think if you are for freedom from religion then it would mean that you are against religion... or that if you don't believe in religion you don't believe in God????

All religions are inconsistent with freedom of thoughts. And I am not against anything but I am for freedom of Man from bondage.

My essay is on the history of Religion "The untold stories"... do you want it or not? aslan behet nemidamesh... hala harchi mikhy bego...LOL

And you know very well that I am a huge advocate of those who can not fight for themselves which in a large numbers include the Indigenous people. I asked you once before whether you consider Persians to be Indigenous... you never answered....evasive!

[zubin]

I swear you never asked me that. ofcourse persians are indigenous. we've been there so long!

I want to use your essay usefully. its serious to me, seriously

About "freedom of thought"... how do you explain the fact that SOME people achieve freedom through religion? Or do you dispute that fact?

I don't understand why do people think if you are for freedom from religion then it would mean that you are against religion... or that if you don't believe in religion you don't believe in God????

All religions are inconsistent with freedom of thoughts. And I am not against anything but I am for freedom of Man from bondage.

My essay is on the history of Religion "The untold stories"... do you want it or not? aslan behet nemidamesh... hala harchi mikhy bego...LOL

And you know very well that I am a huge advocate of those who can not fight for themselves which in a large numbers include the Indigenous people. I asked you once before whether you consider Persians to be Indigenous... you never answered....evasive!

[Dokhtar Bandari]

I guess you must have a different definition of Freedom than I do. Since when Religion gives u freedom of thoughts???? name one.

[zubin]

I guess you must have a different definition of Freedom than I do. Since when Religion gives u freedom of thoughts???? name one.

its a very basic freedom. its been historically helpful as a freedom from unwanted temptation, and simultaneously freedom to one's true, strong "self".

when conditions are anxious and uncertain and no one is there to lead, people have traditionally (and even now) needed a God to tell them what to do, what is right and wrong. This liberates them from unwanted physiological things.

Admittedly, again, this is less relevant now. But it is at the root of religion's existence. Historically the conditions made it hard to find a solution without a God. This is purely from an evolutionary perspective, not religious. Even the most radical atheists say this.

[Dokhtar Bandari]

OK...then why mix God with Religion. God is ONE eternal truth...religion is a man made tool which has nothing to do with God... but more or less with the representatives of God (more or less self declared too).

Baradar separate the God from Religion and what have u got???? And you still have not given me a single example of any religion which allows freedom of thought for its followers.

What are we measuring here? How obsolete a religion is or how God fits into religion of Man?

[zubin]

OK...then why mix God with Religion. God is ONE eternal truth...religion is a man made tool which has nothing to do with God... but more or less with the representatives of God (more or less self declared too).

Baradar separate the God from Religion and what have u got???? And you still have not given me a single example of any religion which allows freedom of thought for its followers.

What are we measuring here? How obsolete a religion is or how God fits into religion of Man?

they allege to allow freedom of thought by providing the mechanisms for thought control.

if all you are saying is that the belief of God should not be controlled through religious mechanisms, and is thus a private thing, their rebuttal is that that would lead to a loss of faith in God.

the bottom line, I agree with you. what i'm referring to as the "essence" of religion is the more core meanings of it, something similar to the belief in God without any controlling mechanisms. so we're in agreement about it. its just that you define religion as the rules, I define it as the essence and rules together.

[mike435]

what about relligion being a celebration

also another good test is if the relligion dosent promote killing

[zubin]

what about relligion being a celebration

also another good test is if the relligion dosent promote killing

but "promoting killing" is quite subjective. one can interpret mention of violence as a minor historical artifact OR as imperative.

the thesis is that it is the PEOPLE, due to political and economic circumstances, that are the problem, as they interpret the religion to include violence.

there is one issue in which I might agree. if a religion "promotes violence" UNNECESSARILY, then it has simply been "not the most perfect" religion. It might have other qualities that were great, but it would have been better if some other elements never existed. But that's not enough to say the religion is "bad". If its an error and can be fixed for the sake of the rest, I'm saying its "good" but I'm saying its not "bad".

[mike435]

but "promoting killing" is quite subjective. one can interpret mention of violence as a minor historical artifact OR as imperative.

the thesis is that it is the PEOPLE, due to political and economic circumstances, that are the problem, as they interpret the religion to include violence.

there is one issue in which I might agree. if a religion "promotes violence" UNNECESSARILY, then it has simply been "not the most perfect" religion. It might have other qualities that were great, but it would have been better if some other elements never existed. But that's not enough to say the religion is "bad". If its an error and can be fixed for the sake of the rest, I'm saying its "good" but I'm saying its not "bad".

zubin you are right peoples inturpatation is a factor but
history showes that it could be irrelavant at the same time

you also have all types of people from all types of backgrounds and states that intrpuet relligion the same way