originally posted by some bloke with several names Disregarding the word "Islam", is judging any religion based on its scripture alone valid? Given that the followers, such as they are, are the embodiment and representation of the religion itself, then it would appear to me that judging a religion purely by its written word is worthless. Shouldn't we simply judge it the same way most would Marxist or Lassez Faire economic systems - nice idea, but put humans into the equation and it doesn't work.
last one. --> No it is notworthless. It represents the ideology. How would can you understand the ideology behind communism(as u bring it up) through its failed practises? -->Religion does not beg practicality, unlike an economic system. The judgement of a religion is not through its practise/followers. Even if the scriptures of a religion were not mutilated in practise, you simply cannot judge it by how its followers practise it-- unless of course that religion was based on practicality (Scientology). I hope you understand I what i am trying say; if not I shall elaborate some more at a later date.
It seems to me that this is, in itself, a rather emotion laden and worthless judgement. The term 'religion' suggests both a set of doctrine and a social (or socio-political) institution based on that set of doctrine. Judge the latter using whatever moral compass you wish - I certainly do. But that says nothing about the accuracy of the doctrine, and to imply that it has some relevancy in this regard is simply a form of ad hominem.
Judge by scripture or behavior of adherents? Both, I say. Say, I find the 3rd book of the OT (Bible - Leviticus) absurd and uncivilised by todays standards, but since a minority of Christians adhere to this part of teh bible, I dont think it's a major problem or cause of criticism of christians.
Neither exclusively You cannot weigh the factors independently; they are interrelated. Muslim doctrine amid hard times equals hard results, as does Christian doctrine. One can point to Wahabbism in Islam as easily as one might point to the LRA in Uganda. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The question is what are you trying to judge ? 1)Is it the ideology ? Then you should use the Scriptures because only the scriptures hold the most relevant expression of the ideology . 2)Is it the movement ? Then you should use the adherents as they are the ones moving with Islam through time creating of such a movement you wish to judge . You say you judge the religion . The question then is do you consider the religion to be the ideology or the movement ? As this bloke with many names has put it , it is an ideological identification of religion that is made . Given that the followers, such as they are, are the embodiment and representation of the religion itself, then it would appear to me that judging a religion purely by its written word is worthless. And how would you know that they indeed are the enbodyment and representation , for you to say given the fact ? IMO they are far from representing the ideology , and without ideology its just a movement of anything , not worthy of being called Islam or Christianity or Judaism or any other . Shouldn't we simply judge it the same way most would Marxist or Lassez Faire economic systems - nice idea, but put humans into the equation and it doesn't work. But its not something that just should work , not even Marx ideas were such . Marx dialectic deals with historical logic of opposite forces and how mankind can embody these in the most positive way , and he thought that way would be communism . You see Marx just as religions and systems of life provide explenation of something (ontologic , epistemologic , moral etc ) , its not just implying what a man should do , it explains how things are , according to them . So this "not working" issue isnt at its place completely . Does evolution work ? Not the most relevant question at first hand now is it ?
I judge religion by the followers most definately. Because that is what the religion is. The scriptures are what it WAS.
Well I will judge atheism by its worst followers and see how it turns out. This is how I think you would want to judge religion right? We have to judge religion by its doctrin, however we might be able to gleam some of a prophet's teachings by the follower's actions. For example, we might look at the 12 apostles and the first generation disciples of them. Or we could look at first generation followers of Muhammed to see how they acted.
We should judge a religion by the overall quality of its followers. We can't judge it by a small group of them; i.e. the worst of its followers. If we do that, we will judge every single religion to be worthless. Examples in SF: Islam -> Flores, the hordes of Arab users here Christianity -> whatsupyall/muscleman We could keep on going and find worthless people in every religion. Judge them as a whole.
Dr. Lou I tend to agree to a certain point. How does the scripture and the history fit into the equation, though? For me it's a certifiable pain in the ass. At any given time, for instance, people of certain religions bear certain potential dangers to me; how much I dwell on them, of course, speaks much about my state of mind. (Paranoia will destroy ya.) But an annoying Christian in my face, for instance, is a sensitive call. If I can identify sect or faction, it helps with communication. If I understand something of the relationship between history, the paradigm itself, and the manifestation in any given person, that helps with communication. But I find I get along just fine, for instance, with Mormons, unless of course doctrinal points come into play. It is absolutely bizarre to listen to a woman argue that subordination of the gender is a privilege; kind of like a Republican in that sense. But that's the thing. As long as it's about the weather, and don't get me started about the bus schedules .... But living in a political climate where Christianity was a daily factor for several years (Oregon, '91 - '96) I've come to have a fair amount of contact with Christians outside the church setting, and I've never been pleased by what I've found. I had originally thought it was just because I was at a Catholic school, or before that in a Lutheran confirmation class. But I've found that anywhere principles will meet, they will collide. I keep hoping for a way around that, but in the end, people are on pins and needles about ridiculously abstract ideas bearing consequences ridiculously out of proportion for their potential of practical application. With something like Islam, it's even trickier; in addition to issues of culture, economy, and violence plaguing relations between groups, Islam bears the burden of being a monotheism in a field already spoiled by Christian manure. And trying to understand the scripture and history ... well, it involves a temporary adaptation of paradigm in order to sympathize with a culture that has long been viewed as foreign to the prevailing ideologies of my time. Something else goes here, but Friends just came on in the background and I must go destroy the television now. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
