When is practicing a religion unreasonable?

[philonightmare]

When is practicing a religion unreasonable? Especially when the actions one must take part in to "believe" in that religion are not considered morally/ethically right?

This thread is not: "Belief in Religion-Rational, or Irrational." It is: What if the actions one must take part in, in order to "believe/practice" a religion are morally wrong? And not the subjective kind of morality, I'm referring to Mill's definition as a standard.

(This stems from a comment I made in Slender Speedwell's thread on Christianity. Also, sorry if this thread topic has already been addressed, I'm very curious to hear your opinions and too lazy to go back 20 pages to check)

[euterpenc]

Then practicing a religion is bad, and unreasonable. It defeats the objective of a religion when it causes damage to the outside world. he objective of religion is inner unity and peace, at least in all respectable world religions.

[Claverhouse]

Well, cursorily, when it involves sacrifice. Apart from the inherent cruelty, whether of hetacombs of bulls in Rome, or chickens in Voodoo and antique judaism*, or Abraham preparing to slit his son's throat ( delightful stories in the Old Testament --- Jael driving a nail through a sleeping guest; Jahweh punishing David for counting his subjects by slaying 70,000 people at once; Moses executing all the Midianite women and children ( except most of the virgins ) --- to bring up the kiddies with ): it always involves not your own sacrifice, physical or of your passions, but that of someone else. So it doesn't count.



Claverhouse :ph34r:



* Christians may note that at least Jesus Christ ended such sacrifice for his followers by his One Oblation. Otherwise I fear christians would have continued the practice of animal sacrifice. Although a cursory reading of the Old Testament does make it clear that God much preferred humans dying.

[philonightmare]

Then practicing a religion is bad, and unreasonable. It defeats the objective of a religion when it causes damage to the outside world. he objective of religion is inner unity and peace, at least in all respectable world religions.

Most religious folk would say that their actions are aimed towards the common-good. They would say that even if it seems, based on surface observation, to be "bad" that it actually leads to something good, such as soul-building (Hick says "soul-making" just to clarify), thereby making it a "good" action.

Respectable world religions is key here, I think. Here's an example of a "religion" that most would say promotes brain-washing techniques and is the most extreme example I could come up with:

In satanic cults, they kidnap little children (this I'm not making up, it actually has happened in the recent past) and brainwash them into practicing their religion of following satan and all he stands for. Some of these actions that one of the cult must follow is rape and murder of babies that come from these rapes. This is ritual sacrificing and is observed in most archaic religions (if you're a history buff, you'll know what I'm talking about).

So...in situations like that, how can practicing the religion be reasonable. I understand what you're saying about "respectable religions" however, some would say that some of the actions of those "respectable" religious folk (and are actions that are supported by the church/mosque/temple/etc) border on "non-respectability."

[philonightmare]

* Christians may note that at least Jesus Christ ended such sacrifice for his followers by his One Oblation. Otherwise I fear christians would have continued the practice of animal sacrifice. Although a cursory reading of the Old Testament does make it clear that God much preferred humans dying.
Loved the examples you gave. :)

And something about letting Jesus do all the spiritual work for someone's soul is slightly frightening. I'd think that a concept like that of Islam's or of Buddhism's would appeal to those who seek self-sacrifice or spiritual growth.

I've often heard Christians defending their bad behavior by saying that Jesus made all the sacrifices in this world for them and therefore they feel no need to make their own. I understand that they could just be practicing their own little made up sect of Christianity and then not technically "count."

I don't disagree wholly with the concepts presented in the Bible, but some of the things in it have clearly, and from a historical pov, been changed by humans over the years to suit political needs, not maintaining the original meat it once had (which really means that the Bible of today is not the one sent down to Earth by God since humans fucked it up with their own Earthly ideas).

[sandwich]

I've often heard Christians defending their bad behavior by saying that Jesus made all the sacrifices in this world for them and therefore they feel no need to make their own. I understand that they could just be practicing their own little made up sect of Christianity and then not technically "count."

Definitely an un-Biblical concept. The Apostle Paul would have some harsh words of reprimand for them. If they feel no need to make sacrifices, then they have horribly misunderstood the nature of Christ.

"By this they know you are my disciples, that you love one another"

-Jesus

What is love without sacrifice?

[LuridLemur]

I just don't understand why so many religions rule out so many fun activities as "immoral". I'm sure this negatively affects many of my friends, especially the mormon ones. Some things should just be left to personal decision.

[philonightmare]

I just don't understand why so many religions rule out so many fun activities as "immoral". I'm sure this negatively affects many of my friends, especially the mormon ones. Some things should just be left to personal decision.
Fun activities=promiscuous sex/drugs/alcohol? Well, religions tend to rule all of that out because it can a. lead to more harmful behavior b. damages your soul c. harms others (potentially). I can understand why religions promote good "moral" behavior when it comes to things like that.

I think one of the effects on a religious person (when in a society that promotes "fun activities") is frustration. Frustration that they aren't allowed to behave in such a manner and act out their fantasies (heck, even murdering someone could be considered a "fun activity").

So perhaps having some boundaries on what is considered "good" or "bad" moral behavior is necessary to some degree. To say otherwise is to promote absolute chaos in the world.

I believe that when one is of a sound mind (and not brainwashed) they can choose at will what they want to believe. If that means not believing in that particular religion because it doesn't give them room to move, then so be it...they can declare that and that means acting on their own volition.

[Claverhouse]

I've often heard Christians defending their bad behavior by saying that Jesus made all the sacrifices in this world for them and therefore they feel no need to make their own. I understand that they could just be practicing their own little made up sect of Christianity and then not technically "count." Definitely an un-Biblical concept. The Apostle Paul would have some harsh words of reprimand for them. If they feel no need to make sacrifices, then they have horribly misunderstood the nature of Christ.
Quite definitely. Christ's Passion enables one to shed the guilt for the sins for which one would otherwise be condemned, but it is not a free get-out-of jail card for future sinning. Saying which, one of the major criticisms of Roman catholicism is that the practice of confession and due penance being paid as laid down by the confessor does to some extent --- or did amongst the simpler faithful of the past, more certainly in poorer countries like Ireland or Spain --- create an understanding that one can sin during the week, at least venially, in the sure knowledge that one's next confession will make one as white as the driven snow.

This is not catholic doctrine, and I feel quite sure that all priests loathe and detest such thinking as much as any other unmeant but present manipulation of the simple ( as much as they loathe, say, the unconscious use of power given to the priest by his singular knowledge of his people's sins and souls ); but it's bound to follow from any general use of confession as a tool.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Jacque]

"If God should really speak to man, man could still never know that it was God speaking. It is quite impossible for man to apprehend the infinite by his senses, distinguish it from sensible beings, and recognize it as such. But in some cases man can be sure the voice he hears is not God’s. For if the voice commands him to do something contrary to moral law, then no matter how majestic the apparition may be, and no matter how it may seem to surpass the whole of nature, he must consider it an illusion." ~ Kant

"Remembering, however, as I have already said, that the natural light is to be trusted only in so far as nothing to the contrary is revealed by God Himself. … Moreover, it must be fixed in one's memory as the highest rule, that what has been revealed to us by God is to be believed as the most certain of all things; and even though the light of reason should seem most clearly to suggest something else, we must nevertheless give creedence to the divine authority only, rather than our own judgment." ~ Descartes

"Therefore, though Abraham arouses my admiration, he at the same time appalls me. He who denies himself and sacrifices himself for duty gives up the finite in order to grasp the infinite, and that man is secure enough. The tragic hero gives up the certain for the still more certain, and the eye of the beholder rests upon him confidently. But he who gives up the universal in order to grasp something still higher which is not the universal–what is he doing? Is it possible that this can be anything else but a temptation (Anfechtung)?" ~ Kierkegaard

[philonightmare]

"If God should really speak to man, man could still never know that it was God speaking. It is quite impossible for man to apprehend the infinite by his senses, distinguish it from sensible beings, and recognize it as such. But in some cases man can be sure the voice he hears is not God’s. For if the voice commands him to do something contrary to moral law, then no matter how majestic the apparition may be, and no matter how it may seem to surpass the whole of nature, he must consider it an illusion." ~ Kant

"Remembering, however, as I have already said, that the natural light is to be trusted only in so far as nothing to the contrary is revealed by God Himself. … Moreover, it must be fixed in one's memory as the highest rule, that what has been revealed to us by God is to be believed as the most certain of all things; and even though the light of reason should seem most clearly to suggest something else, we must nevertheless give creedence to the divine authority only, rather than our own judgment." ~ Descartes

"Therefore, though Abraham arouses my admiration, he at the same time appalls me. He who denies himself and sacrifices himself for duty gives up the finite in order to grasp the infinite, and that man is secure enough. The tragic hero gives up the certain for the still more certain, and the eye of the beholder rests upon him confidently. But he who gives up the universal in order to grasp something still higher which is not the universal–what is he doing? Is it possible that this can be anything else but a temptation (Anfechtung)?" ~ Kierkegaard

Nice quotes... I infer from them that we mortal, simplistic humans are fallible and thus susceptible to other illusory taints that can obscure what religion is really meant to achieve and that we are easily misled (and therefore, the actions that are wrong are really not religious in nature).

However, some people find fault with some religious actions that the people who practice them do not believe are wrong. Some view confessing sins to a priest as wrong, the list in endless and I definitely know that according to some major world religions confessing to a priest is considered mandatory. The opposing view on confessing sins to a person is that they have control over you and can therefore, dictate what you are allowed to be (as an individual). This can prove harmful in some cases, even appear as a form of brain-washing, albeit a more indirect way.

This is what I take issue with. Actions that "appear" on the surface to be good, but are really actions that could potentially lead to harm.

[philonightmare]

[....] This is not catholic doctrine, and I feel quite sure that all priests loathe and detest such thinking as much as any other unmeant but present manipulation of the simple ( as much as they loathe, say, the unconscious use of power given to the priest by his singular knowledge of his people's sins and souls ); but it's bound to follow from any general use of confession as a tool.

I can only say, I agree that this manipulation of the system is bound to follow by using confession. Problem: if the system don't work, fix it. :)