Which Of the World's Religions Is Most Practical? (ritual, America)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Victor

By "work", I mean it's able to face all adversities and still be able to produce something official and with a direction. How the religion is structured plays a huge in this.

But really I speak from a mindset that believes that if right exist it should be able to be found irregardless of any adversities. I honestly don't think this is the case for many religions. Throw in one huge screw (adversity) and it either seizes to exist or is prone to schism.

You'll have to define "adversity," but I detect a swipe at the Protestants.

Originally Posted by Victor

Upon further reflection, I think I should be clearer on what I mean by "work". I realized that what I said can also be applied to the RC.

Really, it's an authoritative structure that makes it more practical. And the structure itself if examined do differ as you are already aware.

With respect, I personally do not think that the Catholic church was "working" very well at the time of the Reformation, what with the selling of indulgences and such.

Some religions may be better than others at maintaining an official voice and direction, but if that direction is wrong then it doesn't much matter that the direction was maintained. I am not saying that Catholicism is wrong. I'm only saying that being able to maintain a stable direction is not, imo, the best indicator of something "working."

Originally Posted by Victor

How do you see "work"?

I purposely left the definition open to be defined by each religion. What I said is that "to work" would be to deliver what it promises. So in the case of Buddhism it would be to lead one to attain nirvana. In the case of Christianity, it would be to lead one to heaven. And perhaps some Buddhists and Christians will disagree with this and that's fine too.

If you're asking me what I personally mean as a UU, I'd say that for me as a UU, giving little thought to a possible afterlife, my religion "works" if it helps to create the Beloved Community. That would include stuff like being tolerant and open, etc. But see from my pov, these are not just practical, secular concerns about getting along in a diverse society; this is my faith. Creating a community here and now where people have the opportunities to live up to their fullest potentials IS what I think the purpose of life is. This is what I believe "Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth" to mean. UU "works" imo if it helps achieve this.

Originally Posted by Victor

Well, you are talking to a person that believes "I will embrace truth whether I like what I find or not"....

As do I. However, you and I discern "what is true" by different criteria.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Well, I was interested in how everyone would define "practical" so I left that open.

Jeesh! You're no help. How about a dictionary definition? "Practical" is said to mean "designed for use; utilitarian; concerned with the application of knowledge to useful ends, as distinguished from speculation; concerned with or dealing efficiently with everyday activities."

I'm going to go with either Mormonism or Islam. Neither one of these is a creedal faith. Both are ways of life for their adherents with fairly well-defined behavioral guidelines for believers and with certain expectations being well-understood and accepted.

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Jeesh! You're no help. How about a dictionary definition? "Practical" is said to mean "designed for use; utilitarian; concerned with the application of knowledge to useful ends, as distinguished from speculation; concerned with or dealing efficiently with everyday activities."

I'm going to go with either Mormonism or Islam. Neither one of these is a creedal faith. Both are ways of life for their adherents with fairly well-defined behavioral guidelines for believers and with certain expectations being well-understood and accepted.

Really? Isn't a "creed" basically the same thing as a "doctrine"? They come up as synonyms in my thesaurus. And clearly Mormonism has doctrines. Of course, I'm sure you know what you're talking about when you say your faith isn't creedal...not trying to challenge that! What am I missing?

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by dogsgod

For God to be considered as factual and accepted into scientific theory it must first be defined in falsifiable terms. For example: The second law of motion states that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. This statement is stated in falsifiable terms in that it can be shown to be false if someone can give an example wherein this is not the case. So far, after well over three hundred years since this law was discovered, it has held up as to be true and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The problem is that believers absolutely refuse to define their gods in no uncertain terms and then wonder why science can't help them out.

is it just me or does this post seem like it belongs to another thread?

[dogsgod]

Originally Posted by Comprehend

is it just me or does this post seem like it belongs to another thread?

No it's not just you, it does belong on another thread. My bad.

[eudaimonia]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Which religion is the most practical?

Practicality implies purpose -- for what is a religion practical?

I cannot answer your question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Victor]

Originally Posted by lilithu

You'll have to define "adversity," but I detect a swipe at the Protestants.

Well, I was Protestant, so I know the frustrations that went on just to agree on something and make it official. There was no mechanism where by one could submit. It was far more personal and subjective. That's not my cup of tea and I've seen just how much confusion and interpretational chaos it can cause. Having said that, I wasn't limiting my comments to just Protestants...

As for adveristy, well I just noted a few above. Essentially (as I said) there is no mechanism that can resolve important issues if the system is followed properly.

Originally Posted by lilithu

With respect, I personally do not think that the Catholic church was "working" very well at the time of the Reformation, what with the selling of indulgences and such.

That's because you are pointing out the bad fruits (which is something I wouldn't dare deny) and attaching it to the system I speak of. That's not what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by lilithu

Some religions may be better than others at maintaining an official voice and direction, but if that direction is wrong then it doesn't much matter that the direction was maintained. I am not saying that Catholicism is wrong. I'm only saying that being able to maintain a stable direction is not, imo, the best indicator of something "working."

It's ok, I already know you don't completely agree with my Church.
If it's direction (dogmas) were ever wrong, I certainly wouldn't remain catholic. But how am I to judge dogmas? On my own intellect and reasoning? Sure, (which I do) but I hope you see the endless swirl it leads you to when millions of people do it. I know you have a different view of this then I do, but I do not hold my breath with some "universal" concensus when it comes to such an approach.

I purposely left the definition open to be defined by each religion. What I said is that "to work" would be to deliver what it promises. So in the case of Buddhism it would be to lead one to attain nirvana. In the case of Christianity, it would be to lead one to heaven. And perhaps some Buddhists and Christians will disagree with this and that's fine too.

How could we ever verify that? If this is the case, then all will appear not to "work".

If you're asking me what I personally mean as a UU, I'd say that for me as a UU, giving little thought to a possible afterlife, my religion "works" if it helps to create the Beloved Community. That would include stuff like being tolerant and open, etc. But see from my pov, these are not just practical, secular concerns about getting along in a diverse society; this is my faith. Creating a community here and now where people have the opportunities to live up to their fullest potentials IS what I think the purpose of life is. This is what I believe "Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth" to mean. UU "works" imo if it helps achieve this.

Ok, I have a very similar view. Except of course I am more of an absolutist. I see now that you define "work" with how tolerant and the fruits it produces.

Although I agree that its important, I wouldn't personally use that as means to measure "work". Why? Because there can be good systems/directions (dogmas) with bad or lazy followers. Using people as a means to measure what works will never give you an accurate reading unless everybody is impeccable in their behaivor and extension of love.

Originally Posted by lilithu

As do I. However, you and I discern "what is true" by different criteria.

Perhaps very similar. I suspect much of it would come down to how we see Love.

[Victor]

Actually after reading this (from another thread):
I will not judge the credibility of a "religion" based on its beliefs.

I think it's safe to assume we disagree. Because that's exactly what I do. I do no judge on the fruits, but the beliefs/system.