The Religion a Person Professes Predicts Nothing about That Person's Behavior.

[MineralMan]

That is something I've found to be true throughout my 69.5 years. It doesn't matter what religion is being discussed. It is for that reason that I do not judge entire religions based on the behavior of any of its members. I never argue whether someone is or is not an adherent of any religion. If someone declares an affiliation, I simply accept the declaration, but do not predict anything about how that person will act or behave, based on that declaration.

Regardless of religious affiliation, any person may be good or evil, a peacemaker or a terrorist, an asshole or an angel. The name of the religion matters not at all. It is the person who matters. I judge individuals based on their actions, their words, and their behavior. I do not take their religious declarations into any consideration at all.

People are as they behave.

[daredtowork]

1. Stated with dignity. nt

[Fumesucker]

2. I agree that people are what they say they are

I do find though that over-eagerness to inform me of what they are tends to bias me, bless their hearts. I was raised in the tradition that one's religion is a private matter not too much different than your sex life, not really a subject for polite conversation among casual acquaintances and strictly left out of business.

“The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

[MineralMan]

3. A little-known but excellent Emerson quote.

I've always liked that one.

Religion is irrelevant to me, since I am an atheist. So someone's declaration of allegiance to some religion is equally irrelevant. My experience teaches me that.

[Fumesucker]

5. I suspect if I met you in person unknowingly it would take me a while to figure out your atheism

Indeed we might become friends in real life and never realize the other was an atheist until some considerable time had passed.

[MineralMan]

6. It rarely comes up with people I know.

My atheism is not really important to me. I simply don't believe in anything supernatural.

I don't hate religion. I attend funerals, weddings, and sometimes go to a church to hear its pipe organ if it's an interesting one. I don't bring up religion in conversation. If someone does, the conversation soon moves to other subjects. I'm just not interested.

[madokie]

38. I was raised to believe that way too

The folks who carry their religion on their sleeve is the ones I steer clear of

[Coventina]

4. Agreed, to a large extent. I think there are very, very few truly devout practitioners of any

religion.

That is why I think a critique of the religion itself is perfectly fair.

And, I feel the entire Abrahamic family of religions is soaked in violence, misogyny, and racism.

All three of them stink.

[MineralMan]

7. You could well be right.

In general, I think criticism of individual religions is relatively invalid. Looking at Christianity, it's difficult to make many statements that generally apply to Christianity. Since that religion has splintered into so many denominations, each with a different doctrinal focus, pretty much anything you say about Christianity in general will be incorrect for a good portion of Christian denominations.

Whatever you might say about, say Russian Orthodox Christianity will probably be wrong about the Quaker denomination.

The same is true of Judaism and Islam. Both have their own factions. What you might say about Hasidic Judaism will have little to do with Reformed Judaism.

Again, I prefer to look at individuals as individuals and see how they behave. That is a much clearer representation of who they are.

While I would say that I believe all religions to be based on magical thinking, I would not say that they stink. I just don't believe what they believe. If they don't trouble me or others, I see no reason to trouble them.

[Coventina]

8. The reason I say the Abrahamic religions stink is because I am very well aquainted with their

scriptures.

Their foundational documents, as it were.

If you've read the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament), the "New" Testament, and Q'uran you'll know what I'm talking about.

Why on earth would anyone want to worship that god?

I was raised on that stuff, and it scared the crap out of me and very severely stunted my emotional and intellectual growth.

I don't claim to be an expert on all world religions, but I know those three intimately and the world would be better off without them.

on edit: typo

[MineralMan]

9. I have read them all, and multiple times.

They are capable of supporting any doctrine and attitudes you can imagine. And, so they do. My knowledge of them does not change my opinion.

[Coventina]

11. Really? You don't see that the God of Abraham demands violence, misogyny, and racism?

I've read your posts, I know you're a smart guy.

I don't see how you could have missed that.

Almost all the soft-cuddly stuff is the result of society changing, not the doctrines expressed in the scriptures.

[MineralMan]

14. The Old Testament contains a great deal of information,

much of which is no longer followed by anyone at all.

[Coventina]

15. Believe me, more follow it than you apparently think.

There are a LOT of Biblical literalists out there.

I was raised by two of them.

All the different churches I attended until I became an emancipated adult were literalists as well.

It's kind of hard to take a "religion" seriously, if your best defense for it is that they now ignore their scriptures that allegedly contain the words and commands of their god.

[MineralMan]

16. Your knowledge appears to be limited.

While some claim to be biblical literalists, very, very few actually are. Instead, they take some parts of scripture literally, while ignoring the rest of it. Most denominations of Christianity actually treat only a tiny part of the Bible as actual scripture. In most cases, even the leaders of those denominations aren't even that familiar with the bulk of scripture. Denominalization of Christianity has led to the Bible being divided up into smaller and smaller useful portions.

While your parents and churches may have appeared to be biblical literalists, it was only a small subset of the Bible that they were literal about. I know of no denominations that even attempt to follow all of the precepts of the Bible. I know of many that focus on very narrow sections of it, though.

[Coventina]

21. I'm pretty sure I understand my religious upbringing better than you do.

Yes, I am well aware of the contradictions embedded in "biblical literacy".
(Trees of the field don't have hands with which to clap, etc.).

But let me disabuse you of the notion that large portions of the scripture are ignored.

I was REQUIRED to read the Bible CONSTANTLY COVER TO COVER.
For every "fun" or school book I wanted to read, I had to read the next book of the bible and explicate it.

I'm pretty darn sure most leaders of denominations know their bible as well.

My dad attended seminary (has a Master's of Divinity) and not only had extensive courses on the bible, but had to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek in order to read the original texts.

I cannot fathom from whence your information comes.

[MineralMan]

22. OK. No shrimp for you.

Your experience is limited to your experience, really. Very few people share your background in a religious sense.

[Coventina]

29. Really? Try Acts 10:11-14

The biblical literalists of my upbringing took those words of God telling Peter (and thus all Christians) that the dietary restrictions had been abolished.

This is my ground, I know it very, very well.

If my experience is limited, yours is as well.

[MineralMan]

31. Yes, I'm familiar with that.

Many Jews would disagree, though.

Some so-called "Messianic Jews" also attempt to observe the dietary laws.

There is an enormous doctrinal range in Christianity. You don't know my background, so you also do not know what I do and do not know. You have one experience, but it is only one experience.

[Coventina]

34. Well OF COURSE Jews would disagree, the New Testament is not their scripture!

Can you be any more condescending?

I'm very disappointed. I thought better of you than this.

Go ahead, keep your "sources" and background secret, so that you can claim omniscience.

But I'll remind you that YOU have only one experience as well.

I never claimed to know everything, but *gasp*, there is the possibility that I know things you don't.

[MineralMan]

37. I'm not talking about Christianity, alone.

I'm talking about all religions. I'm not going to get into a biblical argument with you. I don't do that on this forum. Some Christians claim to be biblical literalists. They are not the majority of Christians, however. Not by a long shot. And even they aren't really literalists. Instead they apply their own interpretations to the scriptures, which other so-called "literalists" dispute. If that were not so, there would not be the thousands of denominations and sects of Christianity.

I have no idea what denomination your parents belonged to, and don't really care. My interests have led me to study the doctrines of a wide range of Christian denomnations. I'm an atheist, but have a life-long interest in religions. As I said, you do not know me, and I'm not about to turn this thread into an esoteric discussion about doctrinal interpretations of scripture. That would be something for a very different forum than DU.

[Coventina]

39. You were the one that is making the argument that scripture doesn't matter.

I was making the counter-argument that I think it matters a lot more than you think it does.

I never wanted to get into "an esoteric discussion about doctrinal interpretations of scripture." That was all you, bringing shrimp into it.


I'm not saying that they practice or follow every word of it, but I do think that what the foundational documents say is considered to be important, and they are followed to varying degrees.


So, go ahead and believe that the billions of Jews, Christians, and Muslims think that their Holy Books are not to be taken seriously.
That's as big a leap as believing in any deity.

[LostOne4Ever]

10. I think that many DUers are using different definitions for the word "religion" in these discussions

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] When critiquing a "religion" I am often referring to their shared foundational texts and their shared doctrines. These texts often promote violence, sexism, racism, and homophobia.

Others, however, others seem to assume that when one says "religion" that they are referring to the adherents of a religion as a monolithic group.

Then another group of posters might be referring to a certain groups within a religion but not others. And then there are posters who meaning might be some combinations of all of the above or something totally different from that.

It all gets very confusing and leads to misunderstandings and bad assumptions all around. Throw in that we as human beings have a love to generalize and it is understandable why such heated discussions break out.

I, personally, don't think that EVERY member of a religion adhere to EVERY tenet of their religion. I don't think that is even possible with all the contradictions that exist in some religions. But I do think many (weasel word I know) people do get justification for their actions from said texts, and that some people are influenced to support bigoted positions because of those passages.

So I think it is important to point out these passages and critique the religions (again foundational texts and shared doctrines) that promote such things. [/font]

[MineralMan]

12. Again, it is individuals who act.

I judge individuals, not groups, generally, unless the group acts as a group in some way. For example, I'm very unfond of the Southern Baptist denomination of Christianity, but quite supportive of Quakers, generally. That is based on the actions of both, which are both denominations of Christianity. That is why I avoid blanket criticism or praise of any overall religion. I criticize or praise people's actions, not their professed affiliations.

It's a mistake to read the scriptures of various religions and assign everything in those scriptures to the entire religion. Vast blocks of the Old Testament are completely ignored, even by Jews, generally. They no longer apply. By the same token, much of the book of Matthew is ignored by many Christian denominations, despite the fact that it contains the purported words of Jesus. Many denominations tend to focus more closely on the writings of Paul.

A scripture does not define a religion. It is called on by religions, but only in fits and starts. While it can be informative to study the scriptures of the world's religions, one should not expect those religions to actually follow all of the teachings in those scriptures. That doesn't happen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.… Matthew 7:16

[MineralMan]

18. Yes. There's much wisdom in Matthew, which is probably why it's not

the focus for many Christian denominations. There's too much in there that's inconvenient, really.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I think that's true for most religions/philosophies. Different people find different things.

I'm a Buddhist (not a very "good" one) because I feel comfortable and agree with the overall philosophy I find there.

Which is also true of most people and their religions. They look for, and usually find, what they're comfortable with. For good or ill.

[MineralMan]

27. Exactly my point.

Individuals are, well, individual in pretty much everything.

[oberliner]

17. Could not disagree more

If someone is a devout follower of a particular religion, one can pretty much predict exactly how that person will behave in relation to most circumstances based on the doctrine of their faith.

[MineralMan]

19. There is no universal Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

I am speaking of religions, not denominations. There is a real difference.

[oberliner]

24. There are basic core teachings

I am just respectfully arguing that one's faith can certainly give some pretty strong clues at the very least as to one's behavior - especially among the extremely devout (perhaps only among that category).

[MineralMan]

25. True, but they are observed selectively in general.

As I said, there's no way to predict the behavior of anyone just based on their basic religion. A Christian can be anyone and anyone can be a Christian.

[oberliner]

28. Agreed

However, if you told me that person A was a Born Again Christian and person B was an Orthodox Jew and person C was a Sunni Muslim, I could make some educated guesses as to how they would behave in certain situations.

Like if you told me someone was a Conservative Republican vs. a Liberal Democrat vs. a Libertarian and so forth.

[MineralMan]

33. I'm not speaking of denominations, but of religions, once again.

The farther a person goes in stating their denomination, the more I know about that person, of course. But even then, you will find people who declare an affiliation but who act as they choose. "Born again Christian," however, is not a denomination, it is a description of a loosely-defined class of Christianity that fits a wide range of denominations and doctrines.

I'm only speaking of broad religions, not denominations or sects of those religions.

[oberliner]

36. OK fair enough

What is the larger point that you are making here? Does it tie in to the Charlie H cartoon shootings in some way?

[MineralMan]

40. Sure it has to do with that.

The average Muslim has nothing to do with extremists. They're just trying to get in with their lives.

[oberliner]

41. Agreed

I agree that the average Muslim has nothing to do with extremists. But I do think that the extremists themselves do have something to do with the religious doctrine.

[MineralMan]

42. Individuals do awful things.

Sometimes they use religion as a reason. All religions.

[oberliner]

43. Some religious doctrines encourage individuals to do awful things

Sadly, these are some of the most widely followed ones in the world.

[jeff47]

20. Ok, you show a devout Muslim a picture of Mohammed. How will they react?

I suspect you'd say they would be offended.

Problem is if they are Shi'ite, they would not be offended at all. The prohibition of depicting Mohammed is in Sunni Islam. Shi'ites have pictures and status of Mohammed similarly to Christians having pictures and statues of Jesus.

These attacks aren't about religion. They're about power.

[oberliner]

23. It is a crime punishable by death in Iran to defame the prophet

And Iran, as I'm sure you know, is a Shi'ite country (almost entirely). In fact, nearly 40 percent of all Shi'ite Muslims in the world live there.

In response to the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005:

Iran amended §224-1 of its penal code (prohibition of apostasy, magic and religious innovation, punishable by death, no evidence or witness testimony required - only "the judge's views and impressions&quot to also cover Defamation of the Prophet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#.C2.A0Iran

Note the statement from an Iranian government spokesperson:

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham condemned the attack, saying, “Any terrorist act against innocent civilians is foreign to the teachings of Islam.” However, Afkham also said it was unacceptable “to take advantage of freedom of speech” and to “insult divine religions and the symbols of these religions.”

ttp://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/01/iran-condemns-paris-shooting.html#ixzz3OSICaYMs

[jeff47]

30. Do I need to link the definition of "Defame" for you, so that you can see it doesn't mean "draw"?

[oberliner]

32. From a Shia Grand Ayatollah

"In the name of Allah: in regards to the images which are attributed to the holy infallibles I have repeatedly emphasized that drawing and attributing them to the holy infallibles (as) is absolutely forbidden but ignorance prevails in most people and pushes them to continue to act this way"

His Eminence Sheikh Bashir Hussein Al Najafy

[wingzeroday]

35. :(

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/03/iranian-blogger-soheil-arabi_n_6261904.html