organized religion

[Jedster]

Books can be useful to gain access to certain experiences, like having some passwords on some files you'd rather not spend all your time learning to crack. Too bad the books are mostly encrypted too, so either way you're going to spend time if you want to go into deeper waters.

i was referring to the almost deification of scripture.

 

[pearl]

Your point being?

It ought to be obvious in response to your questioning 'I am not sure what purpose, if any, theology serves, but it sure as heck is not supposed to make people believable.'

 

[LuisDantas]

Meaning that theology makes those claims believable?

We will have to agree to disagree if so.

 

[LuisDantas]

Books can be useful to gain access to certain experiences, like having some passwords on some files you'd rather not spend all your time learning to crack. Too bad the books are mostly encrypted too, so either way you're going to spend time if you want to go into deeper waters.

With the proviso that so-called scripture varies quite a lot in many respects, I want to point out that most of that which is emphasized by the doctrines attached to them basically jhas to be cryptic or even all-out contradictory in order to remain influential.

Clear scripture would be easily understood and therefore easily rejected by those who disagree with what it says. By contrast, unclear scripture receives a lot of benefit of the doubt from people who are already willing to presume the best and avoid arguments with family and friends.

The end result, counter-intuitive as it may be to the faithful, is that demographic success comes more easily to unclear scripture.

That said, it must be also pointed out that scripture is among the poorest of all existing means of religious transmission, to the point that I would argue that it consistently fails and can only be truly useful when guided by people of discernment and good will.

Even at their very best, scriptures lack the ability to acknowledge the reader, and therefore can not adjust emphasis and course to his or her benefit.

 

[Quintessence]

which is better, organized or solitary religion? a religion with priests, or with no priests?

Better for what and for whom? Asking what is "better" is a subjective, and requires defining the subject and intended purpose to arrive at much of a meaningful response. Otherwise, all one can say is both are better (for certain people and certain purposes).

 

[syo]

Better for what and for whom? Asking what is "better" is a subjective, and requires defining the subject and intended purpose to arrive at much of a meaningful response. Otherwise, all one can say is both are better (for certain people and certain purposes).

religion affects people. so which religion is better to affect a believer in a good way.

 

[Jumi]

With the proviso that so-called scripture varies quite a lot in many respects, I want to point out that most of that which is emphasized by the doctrines attached to them basically jhas to be cryptic or even all-out contradictory in order to remain influential.

Most of it is interpreted wrong either way if people try to make cryptic into something that means something easy. It's either cryptic because the meaning was lost, was incoherent or because it meant something.

Clear scripture would be easily understood and therefore easily rejected by those who disagree with what it says.

We can suspend judgment on things we can't understand or find meaning in.

By contrast, unclear scripture receives a lot of benefit of the doubt from people who are already willing to presume the best and avoid arguments with family and friends.

I'm thinking you are looking at the Abrahamic traditions of scripture here, specifically as they have been understood by the larger groups of people who followed them.

The end result, counter-intuitive as it may be to the faithful, is that demographic success comes more easily to unclear scripture.

I don't think that's the case.

That said, it must be also pointed out that scripture is among the poorest of all existing means of religious transmission, to the point that I would argue that it consistently fails and can only be truly useful when guided by people of discernment and good will.

It is rather poor looking at the average or median, isn't it?

Even at their very best, scriptures lack the ability to acknowledge the reader, and therefore can not adjust emphasis and course to his or her benefit.

Depends what scripture it is and how good of a mirror it is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Depends what scripture it is and how good of a mirror it is.

Do you think there is such a thing as discerning scripture, then?

 

[Quintessence]

religion affects people. so which religion is better to affect a believer in a good way.

It seems that would still depend on a number of things. As a general rule, though, I think this could be said:

• Organized religion is a must for anyone looking for a religion with solid support and resources at its disposal. Basically, if you want to benefit from community, infrastructure, mentors, and so forth, organized religions provide that.
• Unorganized religion is a must for anyone practicing religion alone or cultivating a solitary tradition, especially if they want minimal influence or contamination from other people.

For better or worse, organized religion often gets conflated with particular ways of being organized. It's assumed that having a religious organization means a religion is dogmatic or authoritarian. For those who make those assumptions, I like to introduce them to Unitarian Universalism, an organized religion that is just about the opposite of dogmatic and authoritarian.