Do Religious Ideals Really Matter?

[ppp]

Religious persons of almost all sects tell me that their religion is perfect. Of course when they say that, I point out all of the devout people from their religion who needed a Kit-Kat and more hugs as a child. They brush off that objection, of course, and point to the ideals of their religion.

Why!?

Why should that matter?

Even if I agreed that the religion's ideals were perfect, ideals are not enough. Perfect ideals are nothing without a perfect implementation. I don’t mean that the adherents must be perfect. I mean that the structure of the religion must be perfect. A perfect structure would take into account the imperfections of the adherents and compensate for their all-too-human foibles. A perfect religion - one of perfect structure and ideals- could never have an honest, devout adherent (let alone a whole country) who misinterprets the text of their holy book so as to commit an atrocity. Hell, even non-adherents would agree.

Now that would be a miracle.

However, no such religion or sacred texts has been presented to me..

What good are ideals that are subject to human interpretation? Why should anyone care if you have the only true religion with the proper god-breathed understanding, when the real-world implementation of your religion produces horrors great and small?

 

[Nakosis]

Only if you are religious.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What is a "religionist?"

 

[ppp]

What is a "religionist?"

A person adhering to a set of sacred texts (or oral) connected to what is commonly termed the supernatural, or spiritual. It is broader in scope than theists, as not all religions have gods.

 

[SalixIncendium]

A person adhering to a set of sacred texts (or oral) connected to what is commonly termed the supernatural, or spiritual. It is broader in scope than theists, as not all religions have gods.

So by your definition, I would be a religionist, as I find validity in the Upanishads?

MW uses the term "zealot" in the definition. Therefore, many would view the word "religionist" as a pejorative. Is that your intent?

 

[SalixIncendium]

However, no such religion or sacred texts exists.

Are we to believe you've read every single one of these?

Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

 

[ppp]

So by your definition, I would be a religionist, as I find validity in the Upanishads?

MW uses the term "zealot" in the definition. Therefore, many would view the word "religionist" as a pejorative. Is that your intent?

Nope. I meant it exactly as I said. Is there another term you would prefer I used?

 

[ppp]

Are we to believe you've read every single one of these?

Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

You are not.

I changed it to, No such sacred tests have been presented to me. Thank you for the correction.

 

[ppp]

So by your definition, I would be a religionist, as I find validity in the Upanishads?

Sorry, I missed this.

I'm not sure. I find value in them, too. And other sacred texts as well. But I do not believe any of the supernatural/spiritual clams, save perhaps as metaphor

 

[SalixIncendium]

Nope. I meant it exactly as I said. Is there another term you would prefer I used?

As a follower of a religion, I think "religious people" or "followers of religion" would be preferable, personally.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sorry, I missed this.

I'm not sure. I find value in them, too. And other sacred texts as well. But I do not believe any of the supernatural/spiritual clams, save perhaps as metaphor

Clams tend not to be very spiritual. At least the ones I've met.

Seriously though, I don't find supernatural and spiritual to be at all synonymous, since I'm spiritual but believe in nothing supernatural.

 

[Audie]

What is a "religionist?"

Its a word made necessary as a response to
" evolutionist".

 

[Audie]

As a follower of a religion, I think "religious people" or "followers of religion" would be preferable, personally.

Religionarian?

 

[Audie]

You are not.

I changed it to, No such sacred tests have been presented to me. Thank you for the correction.

At least TRY the BoM.
Its very onvincing

 

[SalixIncendium]

Its a word made necessary as a response to
" evolutionist".

Because two wrongs make everything right?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Religionarian?

Evolutionarian?

 

[Aštra’el]

If you have not found strength enough in religions to enhance and empower who you are and who you choose to be, it is not the problem of the religions.

 

[exchemist]

Religious persons of almost all sects tell me that their religion is perfect. Of course when they say that, I point out all of the devout people from their religion who needed a Kit-Kat and more hugs as a child. They brush off that objection, of course, and point to the ideals of their religion.

Why!?

Why should that matter?

Even if I agreed that the religion's ideals were perfect, ideals are not enough. Perfect ideals are nothing without a perfect implementation. I don’t mean that the adherents must be perfect. I mean that the structure of the religion must be perfect. A perfect structure would take into account the imperfections of the adherents and compensate for their all-too-human foibles. A perfect religion - one of perfect structure and ideals- could never have an honest, devout adherent (let alone a whole country) who misinterprets the text of their holy book so as to commit an atrocity. Hell, even non-adherents would agree.

Now that would be a miracle.

However, no such religion or sacred texts has been presented to me..

What good are ideals that are subject to human interpretation? Why should anyone care if you have the only true religion with the proper god-breathed understanding, when the real-world implementation of your religion produces horrors great and small?

I don’t believe you. Virtually no one in my experience claims their religion is perfect. I think you have made that up, to create your talking point.

 

[ppp]

As a follower of a religion, I think "religious people" or "followers of religion" would be preferable, personally.

Done. I also changed denomination to sect, as the former is Christian specific.

Clams tend not to be very spiritual. At least the ones I've met.

Oh no! You should meet an Outer Banks clam!

Seriously though, I don't find supernatural and spiritual to be at all synonymous, since I'm spiritual but believe in nothing supernatural.

The lack of overlap is tiny, though I acknowledge it is non-trivial. One of he big problems with both words is that are very poorly defined.

 

[ppp]

If you have not found strength enough in religions to enhance and empower who you are and who you choose to be, it is not the problem of the religions.

As I wasn't talking about enhancement or empowerment, I don't know why you said that. But I hope you feel better with it off your chest.