The corruption of religion implies that there is a more, for lack of a better term, pure form of it that exists, or at least existed. However, every denomination and sect of each individual religion claims to be this “pure” form. If I were to be cynical, I would say that religion has been corrupt since it’s inception, as it was used primarily as a tool to establish authority and “order,” but under the guise of “truth” or “morality.” — Pinprick
considering this an online forum, i have no basis to argue with you right now. If you have never met a decent religionist in the flesh, then i have no argument at this point. — christian2017
considering this an online forum, i have no basis to argue with you right now. If you have never met a decent religionist in the flesh, then i have no argument at this point.
— christian2017
I've been an agnostic for over 60 years now...and I have known MANY people who are religious who are decent, reasonable, intelligent people...some of whom go out of their way to help with the needs of their fellow human.
Anyone (like Pinprick, apparently) who thinks "religious = mostly bad" and "without religion = mostly good" is simply not giving the issue sufficient reflection.
Good, decent, bad, evil, generous, envious, caring, oblivious, moral, depraved, merciful, resentful, kind, malevolent, considerate, compassionate...are traits shared equally by theists, agnostics, and atheists.
It is time we all come to realize that. — Frank Apisa
conflict between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism. — Wayfarer
But the way I see it now, they are examples of how human nature can corrupt the most noble of intentions. — Wayfarer
But, there's a great book around, God's Philosophers, by James Hannam, which shows how essential the fundamental tenets of Christian Platonism were in the development of modern science. There are many others as well. Look into Stanley Jaki, an Hungarian Benedictine monk with PHDs in physics, philosophy and theology; he mounts an argument that modern science could only have sprung from Christian roots. (I myself think that Platonism and its Aristotelian descendants were indispensable in that.) — Wayfarer
it's more like an Hegelian dialectic, of thesis (divine creation), anti-thesis (scientific materialism) and now an emerging synthesis (which I see in various disciplines like systems science, biosemiotics, and environmentalism which are neither theistic in the traditional sense nor materialistic in the modern sense.) — Wayfarer
I think there was a really unfortunate emphasis in Western religion on orthodoxy, which basically means right belief; the experiential and gnostic facets of religious experience, which were preserved in Indian and Chinese religions, were suppressed, forced underground. I think, arguably, this is because belief is a much easier thing to manage than knowledge; once you can convince the populace that they must believe what you tell them, then control is much easier to maintain. The reaction against that, the wall of separation between the sacred and profane that became necessary - all of this is part of that deep picture. Which, very handily, comes right back to the OP. — Wayfarer
The Pope and Stalin have killed for not being Catholic/Athiest.
I would argue the corruption of religion dates back to whether a religion becomes like the religions of ancient Iraq. Temple prostitution in modern hinduism is an example of this.
Americans typically don't get violent over religion in modern times. Alot of American violence is over economic or on the other hand domestic issues. — christian2017
The Pope and Stalin have killed for not being Catholic/Athiest.
I would argue the corruption of religion dates back to whether a religion becomes like the religions of ancient Iraq. Temple prostitution in modern hinduism is an example of this.
Americans typically don't get violent over religion in modern times. Alot of American violence is over economic or on the other hand domestic issues.
— christian2017
The problem I see re corruption and religion is that the latter is about submission to a higher power and this acts as a magnet to politicians and statesmen - people who'd like nothing more than to legitimize and consolidate power through divine association.
Perhaps I digress. — TheMadFool
That’s not at all what I am saying or implying. The overwhelming majority of people in general are at least decent. I just don’t understand what christian2017meant by religious corruption. As far as I know, there is absolutely no agreement in any religion as to what is the correct doctrine, and which doctrine is corrupt. That’s precisely why there are so many different sects and denominations within each religion. Therefore, who is to say that Jihadism is a corrupted form of Islam, for example? Those Muslims that are not Jihadists may think so, but the reverse is also true. I guess the more direct questions I was asking were when was religion corrupted, and by who? And what is your reasoning to back up whatever your claim is? — Pinprick
If the freedom to practice religion is a fundamental right, doesn't that mean religion is still prevalent in the general populace? — TheMadFool
Chistianity and Islam is drastically different. — christian2017
There is a concept in Christianity called the Pale of orthodoxy, which to make an overly simple statement "There are about 10 or so accepted denominations or relative theology sets that even though they have significant differences, the interpretations aren't deemed heretical". — christian2017
Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement. — christian2017
Actually Jihadism is in the Koran. Are you saying otherwise? Mohomad the founder of Islam was a "great" general/warlord. — christian2017
Chistianity and Islam is drastically different.
— christian2017
Sure, but I don’t see the relevance here. You mentioned the corruption of religion, but not of a specific religion.
There is a concept in Christianity called the Pale of orthodoxy, which to make an overly simple statement "There are about 10 or so accepted denominations or relative theology sets that even though they have significant differences, the interpretations aren't deemed heretical".
— christian2017
They aren’t deemed heretical by who? Accepted by who? Are there other denominations that claim to be Christian, but are not accepted? If so, on what grounds?
Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement.
— christian2017
Sure, but I meant total agreement.
Actually Jihadism is in the Koran. Are you saying otherwise? Mohomad the founder of Islam was a "great" general/warlord.
— christian2017
There are many statements in all of the religions texts, but people interpret them differently. Usually some mixture of literal and metaphorical/allegorical. I know Jihadism is in the Koran, but not all Muslims practice it. My point is there is no way to determine who is following the “correct” or “uncorrupted” doctrine. Perhaps Jihadism should be taken literally, or perhaps not. It is very easy and convenient for a Theist of a particular religion to sit back and denounce all aspects of their religion as corrupt that they disagree with. — Pinprick
Absolutely no agreement? Lets embrace the spectrum idea, ofcourse there is atleast some agreement.
— christian2017
Sure, but I meant total agreement. — Pinprick
Would you agree that certain aspects of a belief system, like associated claims of exclusive rights to the truth and infallibility make them easier to corrupt, especially in combination with human weaknesses among which the most relevant here are abhorring being contradicted and a proclivity to strongly identify our person with our beliefs, the two reinforcing each other? — TheMadFool
there's no denying the existence of a deep flaw in religion, — TheMadFool
(a) There is a paramount end or aim of human life relative to which other aims are vain.
b) Man as he now is, or naturally is, is in danger of missing his highest aim, his highest good.
To hold that man needs salvation is to hold both of (a) and (b). I would put it like this. The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped.
How do you feel about the US Constituion and the Bill of Rights? I understand its not perfect but how do you feel about the document itself rather than how history played out? — christian2017
How do you feel about the US Constituion and the Bill of Rights? I understand its not perfect but how do you feel about the document itself rather than how history played out?
— christian2017
Sorry. I'm too ignorant to make a sensible comment on the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. All I know is Kurt Godel, the mathematician, is believed to have discovered a loophole in the US constitution that could change the world's greatest democracy into a totalitarian dictatorship. He is said to have tried to make this known to the judge responsible for his US citizenship but was talked out of it by Albert Einstein who thought it would upset the judge and make Godel lose his chance to become an American citizen. Perhaps it's apocryphal. I don't know but you never know... — TheMadFool
How do you feel about the US Constituion and the Bill of Rights? I understand its not perfect but how do you feel about the document itself rather than how history played out?
— christian2017
Sorry. I'm too ignorant to make a sensible comment on the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. All I know is Kurt Godel, the mathematician, is believed to have discovered a loophole in the US constitution that could change the world's greatest democracy into a totalitarian dictatorship. He is said to have tried to make this known to the judge responsible for his US citizenship but was talked out of it by Albert Einstein who thought it would upset the judge and make Godel lose his chance to become an American citizen. Perhaps it's apocryphal. I don't know but you never know... — TheMadFool
I'm curious as to what that loop hole is. — christian2017
I'm curious as to what that loop hole is.
— christian2017
I have no idea. Nevertheles, if Godel was right, it exists, waiting to be discovered by a person who means business as far as making faerself an absolute dictator is concerned. — TheMadFool
probably one of the more plausible conspiracy theories. — christian2017
probably one of the more plausible conspiracy theories.
— christian2017
Is it a conspiracy theory? No truth? Not even a teensy weensy bit? You needn't answer. — TheMadFool
I believe alot of conspiracy theories are true. I guess we are defining conspiracy theory differently. — christian2017
Establishment Clause
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, public funds to be used for private religious school bussing and textbooks, and university funds to be used to print and public student religious groups' publications. Conversely, the Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.
So how do you know that what they present as justification for their actions is not what the actual author of the text meant, or would nonetheless condone? — Pinprick
7 Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof.
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Would any of you care to explain what a corrupt religion is, and how you determine it to be so? — Pinprick
Would any of you care to explain what a corrupt religion is, and how you determine it to be so? What is your method for distinguishing what is exactly meant in any religions holy book? I assume that you all mean that a religion is corrupted when people use it to justify doing despicable things to those that they oppose. However, often when people do that sort of justifying, they present specific passages from their holy book. So how do you know that what they present as justification for their actions is not what the actual author of the text meant, or would nonetheless condone? — Pinprick
how do you know that what they present as justification for their actions is not what the actual author of the text meant, or would nonetheless condone? — Pinprick
My point is there is no way to determine who is following the “correct” or “uncorrupted” doctrine. — Pinprick
What is your method for distinguishing what is exactly meant in any religions holy book? — Pinprick
In some ways for you to accept my explanation of corrupt religion you would first have to believe there is a possibility that there is a religion that is not corrupt. — christian2017
However for the fun of it i'll play this game anyway. A corrupt religion might have temple prostitution like ancient iraq, founders of the religion who were severe sex offenders (i'm sure you'll ask me to define sex offender), child sacrifice, unwarranted decimation of cities (Joshua didn't commit genocide because he didn't target the amorites in ancient iraq), rejection of just laws, rejection of their own key holy books and i could go on but i'll stop for now. — christian2017
In addition to this i would like to add that if you murder someones parents and the adopt them you shouldn't tell them "i murdered your parents but when you are a teenager you'll understand all of these adult things".
Were there adoption agencies in 1300 BC? — christian2017
In some ways for you to accept my explanation of corrupt religion you would first have to believe there is a possibility that there is a religion that is not corrupt.
— christian2017
If you try, I could be persuaded. Of course, I’m not implying that the founders of any religion were corrupt, I don’t think that’s even possible, unless we have different ideas of what corrupt means.
However for the fun of it i'll play this game anyway. A corrupt religion might have temple prostitution like ancient iraq, founders of the religion who were severe sex offenders (i'm sure you'll ask me to define sex offender), child sacrifice, unwarranted decimation of cities (Joshua didn't commit genocide because he didn't target the amorites in ancient iraq), rejection of just laws, rejection of their own key holy books and i could go on but i'll stop for now.
— christian2017
With the exception of rejecting their own holy books, none of these things necessarily make a religion corrupt. If the founder of the religion intended for its adherents to practice temple prostitution, sex abuse, etc. then those practices would be completely in line with that religions doctrine. Have there been religions that have rejected their own holy books?
In addition to this i would like to add that if you murder someones parents and the adopt them you shouldn't tell them "i murdered your parents but when you are a teenager you'll understand all of these adult things".
Were there adoption agencies in 1300 BC?
— christian2017
I literally have no clue what you’re trying to get at here... — Pinprick
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.