Is A Religion Equivalent to the Actions and Beliefs of its Followers? (moral, choice)

[doppelgänger]

In order for it to be a religion, the words of the mythology must be interpreted. The interpretation is what followers of a religion "believe in." This is necessarily so because words only activate as words when they are interpreted to have some meaning. So the meaning given the words to the people who follow the religion IS the religion. I personally enjoy tossing out authoritative interpretations and trying to take a tableau rasa approach that only uses my own experiences and aesthetics as the contextual framework for understanding other peoples' metaphors. And lo and behold, they actually all start to come alive with real meaning to me without the need to "believe in" them.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by wednesday

Religious perception is based on its followers as without followers the religion would not exist. Its up to the "responsible and powerful" players within the religion to make sure their followers do not take the message the wrong way. On the bombing quote, if its not the fault of Islam (who constantly distance themselves from these people and rightfully so) whose fault is it? You can blame "terrorists" all you want but in the end they're servants of Allah in some way shape of form arent they or at least claim to be?

I'm a servant of Allah, too; but I am not a Muslim at all.

My faith says we are ALL servants of Allah(God) whether we like it or not since the will of God cannot be thwarted.

It's God's will we figure it out on our own. That implies being wrong as well as being right.

Regards,
Scott

[wednesday]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

I'm a servant of Allah, too; but I am not a Muslim at all.

My faith says we are ALL servants of Allah(God) whether we like it or not since the will of God cannot be thwarted.

It's God's will we figure it out on our own. That implies being wrong as well as being right.

Regards,
Scott

Sorry, i meant that the terrorists are distanced from Islam by other muslims when the terrorists claim to be doing the work of Allah. How can Islam deny these actions when these people believe what other muslims believe? Using Catholics as an example just because a few priests touched their subjects doesn't mean all priests do, but they're still catholic and the church did its upmost to deal with it. In saying that Islamic leaders need to do more to stop these stupid acts of violence.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by wednesday

Sorry, i meant that the terrorists are distanced from Islam by other muslims when the terrorists claim to be doing the work of Allah. How can Islam deny these actions when these people believe what other muslims believe? Using Catholics as an example just because a few priests touched their subjects doesn't mean all priests do, but they're still catholic and the church did its upmost to deal with it. In saying that Islamic leaders need to do more to stop these stupid acts of violence.

Probably you would be surprised how many responsible clerics DO speak out.

Your comparison to molestation charges within the RC Church, well--a secret crime like molestation is a little different than the crime of politicizing one's faith as an incitement to mob behavior.

You'd probably be more persuasive looking at the stress "Liberation Theology" caused within the church as it is more a "public proclamation" kind of comparison.

Regards,
Scott

[MoonWater]

I'm personally on both sides for this one. on the one hand religion is, at it's core, dependent on what it's followers believe and what they believe influences what they do and thus should be judged accordingly. On the other hand when a religion is judged a certain way then all followers of that religion bear that stereotype that because they follow this religion they must be like this. This to me is the same as any other stereotype. What's true for some is not true for all and often not even most. And I find it sad that all adherents of a particular religion could be stereotyped as intolerant or bigoted or hypocritical just because a comparatively small percentage of it's adherents who really are that way happen to yell the loudest and get the most attention.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by MoonWater

I'm personally on both sides for this one. on the one hand religion is, at it's core, dependent on what it's followers believe and what they believe influences what they do and thus should be judged accordingly. On the other hand when a religion is judged a certain way then all followers of that religion bear that stereotype that because they follow this religion they must be like this. This to me is the same as any other stereotype. What's true for some is not true for all and often not even most. And I find it sad that all adherents of a particular religion could be stereotyped as intolerant or bigoted or hypocritical just because a comparatively small percentage of it's adherents who really are that way happen to yell the loudest and get the most attention.

Thank you, you are justice personified.

Regards,
Scott

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

you are justice personified.

You said it; you have to get her the sword, scales, and blindfold.