Test For Determining Whether A Religion Is Bad

[indian_blues]

from db

They date back to the beginning of Indian civilization and are the earliest literary records of the whole Aryan race which moved to North India from Persian plains. They are supposed to have been passed through oral tradition for over 100,000 years. They came to us in written form between 4-6,000 years ago.

The Vedas itself came from Zartosht, Zarathustra,The Persian Prophet.

beloved db... r u kidding? ... well if it's a joke.. i had a good time.

First there is no Indian civilization exist but Indus valley civilization (the whole indian subcontinent and parts of persia). I doubt vedas really say that aryan race moved to India. In vedas the word Arya means noble... Aryan means noble man....brahamins. The speculated Saraswathi river Civilization theory says birth place for aryans, and Max muller theory of arayan invasion is debunked, and its funny to hear that whole vedas came from persia through oral tradition... .... I think u need some research.

Well India not a country which inherited but it is the source... time to awake.

sorry for being off topic.

---------------------

well my brain couldn't understand the objective of this thread... it would be great if someone could explain.

[zubin]

from db


beloved db... r u kidding? ... well if it's a joke.. i had a good time.

First there is no Indian civilization exist but Indus valley civilization (the whole indian subcontinent and parts of persia). I doubt vedas really say that aryan race moved to India. In vedas the word Arya means noble... Aryan means noble man....brahamins. The speculated Saraswathi river Civilization theory says birth place for aryans, and Max muller theory of arayan invasion is debunked, and its funny to hear that whole vedas came from persia through oral tradition... .... I think u need some research.

Well India not a country which inherited but it is the source... time to awake.

sorry for being off topic.

---------------------

who cares people? India and Persia are undisputably the source for many great concepts that made civilization.

I agree Persians are a bit biggoted on this, but Hari you have to understand that our great contributions are repressed from all sides. This rightly causes us to lose all meaning in self and life. We are trying to get it all back,and we will.

well my brain couldn't understand the objective of this thread... it would be great if someone could explain.

The point of the thread is to devise a test on whether one can say "a religion is bad", as people just throw around the idea and defame each other, causing war, without any basis. With an objective test of "goodness" and "badness" of a religion, this problem is SOLVED.

Objectivity is truly achieved through the test I provided at the beginning, though I can't say for sure its the only good test.

[Dokhtar Bandari]

Maryam jaan U R right.

Indian jaan U R right.

Mike jaan U R. Right.

[zubin]

Dokhtar Bandari,

Is your argument that Islam is evil because it ravaged Zoroastrianism?

If there is injustice, isn't that a different matter from saying whether it is inherently good or bad?

Can't we say: "Let's let Islam reform and see if it turns to anything good. At the same time, Islam has to pay it dues"?

[mike435]

Dokhtar Bandari,

Is your argument that Islam is evil because it ravaged Zoroastrianism?

If there is injustice, isn't that a different matter from saying whether it is inherently good or bad?

Can't we say: "Let's let Islam reform and see if it turns to anything good. At the same time, Islam has to pay it dues"?

the action islam takes is becuase of what it is

if you reform islam is that still islam, you now have reform islam

depending on what the relligion is wether good or bad it will produce results

dont get me wrong man still plays a huge roll

[zubin]

the action islam takes is becuase of what it is

if you reform islam is that still islam, you now have reform islam

depending on what the relligion is wether good or bad it will produce results

dont get me wrong man still plays a huge roll

Mike, the least you could have done was read the first post. I already gave opinion to that question. If you reform Islam and find its "essence" it is still Islam...

[mike435]

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.

zubin i did read your first post and tht is why i used the word reform

what is essence? reform takes and wipes off the dust of religion, and still keeps the relligion the same becuase it holds on to essence(which i still dont know if we both are clear on the same definition) but still it is the essance that will dictate the relligions macro direction

example judisum: all jews are jews but some have reformed it and it is constantly being reformed, but the essance is still the same so whether if it is a female rabbi preaching or an ultra orthodox jews the major concepts are the same, like tikunolam, jeruslam, afterlife, mitzva, marriage

what i mean is define what essance is?

[zubin]

zubin i did read your first post and tht is why i used the word reform

what is essence? reform takes and wipes off the dust of religion, and still keeps the relligion the same becuase it holds on to essence(which i still dont know if we both are clear on the same definition) but still it is the essance that will dictate the relligions macro direction

example judisum: all jews are jews but some have reformed it and it is constantly being reformed, but the essance is still the same so whether if it is a female rabbi preaching or an ultra orthodox jews the major concepts are the same, like tikunolam, jeruslam, afterlife, mitzva, marriage

what i mean is define what essance is?

awesome question. essence is purpose.

a religion can LOSE its purpose. the question in the case of Islam is whether its purpose is made better through reform, and the answer to me and MANY others is clearly yes.

[maryam9]

To reform is to deviate away from the original teachings of that religion

awesome question. essence is purpose.

a religion can LOSE its purpose. the question in the case of Islam is whether its purpose is made better through reform, and the answer to me and MANY others is clearly yes.

1. But not to me though! Rather than re-forming, howabout sticking to the original teachings of the religion concerned. Surely God knows better than you and I.

Isn't the whole reason why some people try to re-form a religion because they are trying to correct some errors or things that theyre not happy about?
But havent those errors occured because of human-beings themselves and their interpretation which has gone a little too far.

2. A religion can never lose its purpose. Its purpose remains unchanged. You should really have said "human beings can forget the meaning of religion" (which is, ofcourse, unity).

3. An increase in different people reforming = an increase in opinion = division amongst people. Thats how different sects arise within a religion. Take Christianity as an example.
Ultimately it will result in disunity, since there will be differing opinion amongst the people.

[zubin]

1. But not to me though! Rather than re-forming, howabout sticking to the original teachings of the religion concerned. Surely God knows better than you and I.

I'm not saying the main principles and purpose of a religion should be reformed. But every religion has LAWS that are meant to change given the circumstances. They are not meant to be applied in every situation.

Also, EG, the principle that men and women are EQUAL in Islam is fundamental. The laws regulating equality must conform to how this equality CAN be achieved in current circumstances.

The point is proved by the fact that most Islamic laws are through clerics and NOT the Quran or Islam's Messenger.

Isn't the whole reason why some people try to re-form a religion because they are trying to correct some errors or things that theyre not happy about?

If that was reform it would not be righteous. I'm saying that some reform is meant to make the laws more in line with the religion's main teachings and essence. Surely the essence of a religion is more important than its details.

But havent those errors occured because of human-beings themselves and their interpretation which has gone a little too far.

yes, and that's why they should be interpreted right, given the main purpose of the religion.

2. A religion can never lose its purpose. Its purpose remains unchanged. You should really have said "human beings can forget the meaning of religion" (which is, ofcourse, unity).

A religion can't lose its purpose? Why not? Anyone can interpret and apply a religion exact opposite to its original purpose! You admit that, don't you?

3. An increase in different people reforming = an increase in opinion = division amongst people. Thats how different sects arise within a religion. Take Christianity as an example.
Ultimately it will result in disunity, since there will be differing opinion amongst the people.

The difference in opinion is inevitable though. No religion has been absolutely clear about all its teachings' application, so there is inevitably different interpretation. The only hope is to look at the ORIGINAL, PURPOSE of the religion. One simply has to ask the question why was the religion made in the first place? Its not just unity in some cases. Its documented that many religions were made for EG order, dignity, and strength.

MY BOTTOM LINE THUS FAR, just to simplify the argument:

For reform to be said to corrupt the original teachings of a religion, one must find out what the original teachings are, or better, what the religions's purpose is first. If the reform is in line with the original purpose, its good. If it strays, you're right.

[maryam9]

any more than this and my head will explode.

just to simplify the argument:

For reform to be said to corrupt the original teachings of a religion, one must find out what the original teachings are, or better, what the religions's purpose is first. If the reform is in line with the original purpose, its good. If it strays, you're right.

i agree

please NO MORE!!!!!!


(note exclamation point above my message).
seriously. dareh saram soot mikeshe ROFL

[maryam9]

you know i u really

[zubin]

you know i u really

you're just saying that because I made your head explode.

or the heart and head are a bit conflicted

[mike435]

so what is pourpous

islam and judisam one of their most basic and major pourpous is to dictate how one should live their daily life, if you reform that you have destroyed its original pourpouse

off course this is just one porpous

spreading g-dly ness, is another porpuse

zubin i think unless reform is inbeded into the working of the relligion, any reform you apply is going against the religion

[zubin]

so what is pourpous

islam and judisam one of their most basic and major pourpous is to dictate how one should live their daily life, if you reform that you have destroyed its original pourpouse

off course this is just one porpous

spreading g-dly ness, is another porpuse

zubin i think unless reform is inbeded into the working of the relligion, any reform you apply is going against the religion

First, reform is emedded in the religion. Second, those are not purposes, I will explain later tonight.