What's the Best Way to Understand the Nature or Character of a Religion?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why make jokes about Religion, Religious scriptures or those who follow a serious practice?

The practice is only "serious" to the people who adhere to it. Do you understand that?

For example, baptism may be a very important thing to Christians - but to me it is nothing more than dipping people in water. It is NOT IMPORTANT to me. Not in the least, and I see no reason to make it important to myself. This is precisely why people feel quite able to make jokes about what others find "so serious," when to them it is just commonplace, impractical tomfoolery.

The only reason I feel someone might not look at it that way is if they adhere to their own brand of religion (aka - tomfoolery), and are afraid of their religion also being a target for jokes and ridicule. So, I feel that the veneer of "respect" between religions is really just self-serving - to stave off outside attacks and scrutiny. Either that or it is just misplaced indignance - possibly an unwillingness to admit how insecure they are in their position. I think this especially of very extreme reactions to seemingly unimportant things. Like Muslim extremists literally killing people who depict their prophet or god in an unflattering light.

I, for one, welcome the outside attacks and scrutiny of atheism. And even the jokes. I like to see if I can find where people are either correct or incorrect in examination of my position, and if there is a rebuttal to be formulated, I like to see if I can formulate it, and in doing so make sure that my feet are still on what I feel is solid grounding with respect to my own thoughts and adherence to them. It is also reassuring when you can witness that people's "jokes" are only possible because they are completely mischaracterizing your position. It let's you know that they are only making the jokes out of ignorance, and anyone laughing at them sincerely is also ignorant. Of course, when someone does happen to crack a joke about atheism, and it is spot-on, I'll be the first to laugh at it myself. Why not? What did it really hurt? Others opinions of me? I'll be the first not to care about those as well - at least until it sees them knocking on my front door and trying to cart me off.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do religions have natures and characters? I would say no.

They very much do, albeit mostly (with some interesting exceptions) as a function of how they are received and practiced.

They are a collection of traditions, ideals, and practices intended to help the practitioners live according to their theological beliefs.

And personal inclinations.

The practitioners have natures and characters, surely, but their religions are just a set of tools.

Which are shaped by their adherents and leave a mark on them in return.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The practice is only "serious" to the people who adhere to it. Do you understand that?

For example, baptism may be a very important thing to Christians - but to me it is nothing more than dipping people in water. It is NOT IMPORTANT to me. Not in the least, and I see no reason to make it important to myself. This is precisely why people feel quite able to make jokes about what others find "so serious," when to them it is just commonplace, impractical tomfoolery.

The only reason I feel someone might not look at it that way is if they adhere to their own brand of religion (aka - tomfoolery), and are afraid of their religion also being a target for jokes and ridicule. So, I feel that the veneer of "respect" between religions is really just self-serving - to stave off outside attacks and scrutiny. Either that or it is just misplaced indignance - possibly an unwillingness to admit how insecure they are in their position. I think this especially of very extreme reactions to seemingly unimportant things. Like Muslim extremists literally killing people who depict their prophet or god in an unflattering light.

I, for one, welcome the outside attacks and scrutiny of atheism. And even the jokes. I like to see if I can find where people are either correct or incorrect in examination of my position, and if there is a rebuttal to be formulated, I like to see if I can formulate it, and in doing so make sure that my feet are still on what I feel is solid grounding with respect to my own thoughts and adherence to them. It is also reassuring when you can witness that people's "jokes" are only possible because they are completely mischaracterizing your position. It let's you know that they are only making the jokes out of ignorance, and anyone laughing at them sincerely is also ignorant. Of course, when someone does happen to crack a joke about atheism, and it is spot-on, I'll be the first to laugh at it myself. Why not? What did it really hurt? Others opinions of me? I'll be the first not to care about those as well.

I was speaking of those who practice seriously and those who dedicate their life to a religion or spiritual practice. Maybe i am wrong but it look like many(not all)atheists can not or will not take religious/spiritual people serious. But that make it very difficult for those who are serious in their spiritual practice to take Atheists serious too. But if you do not like religion or belive, why make fun of those who do? or their religion? why not respect them if you expect to be respected back?

 

[Nakosis]

A while back, a friend of mine mentioned to me that he had reexamined how he approached religions. He said he had for ages been trying to come to grips with them by reading their holy books, scriptures, and commentaries. But that has changed now. Now, he primarily seeks to understand a religion by observing how it inspires, motivates, influences, or determines the behavior of its adherents.

What would you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach?

I think religion is individualistic. While you may have some leaders who influence a specific groups opinion, different groups withing the same religion are going to have the influence of different opinion leaders.

Maybe you can understand a little in a microcosm on a group by group basis, however trying to understand religions as a whole will leave one with a very narrow understanding of what can be encompassed by a religion.

So religion is an individual experience with some popular schools of thought being pushed by various religious leaders.

For example, I used to try to understand Christianity by entering into discussions with various Christians. Whatever view they presented I would as their view as a Christian. So I would present their view to another Christian who'd tell me it was completely wrong. Almost universally I found, Christians create an unique understanding of Christianity for themselves.

Within a group you might find a few similarities, but group/denomination to group, not a lot.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why make jokes about Religion, Religious scriptures or those who follow a serious practice?

There are of course moments when that is unwise. But other times it can be very helpful indeed. Humor is a powerful tool to motivate people, and there are very construtive uses for it.

 

[PureX]

They very much do, albeit mostly (with some interesting exceptions) as a function of how they are received and practiced.



And personal inclinations.

Which are shaped by their adherents and leave a mark on them in return.

Back when I played the guitar, I noticed that when I bought a new on, I had to play it for a while to make it "mine". The structure of it would become used to the sets of vibrations that I played most often, and the fret-board wold get a little worn in the places were my fingers pressed the string, most. So I guess there is always a symbiotic exchange between the tool and user. But I think it's a little bit of a stretch to claim that one's "nature and character" transfer in that way. It's not like buying a used guitar made me want to play the kind of music the previous owner played on it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What would you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach?

The strengths are you see the results, the weaknesses is you don't know the whys.

 

[PureX]

So you would argue there is no essential, characteristic, or core difference between, say, Scientology and Zen Buddhism? If so, that's quite interesting.

There is a difference between how they depict reality, and how they suggest we respond to that depiction of reality. But they aren't a reality or a response in and of themselves. Which is why I have a hard time seeing them as having their own "nature and character". But I suppose we could say that they do present us with an outline of nature and character with the idea that we adopt them for our own, or that we find resonance in them, within our own.

 

[firedragon]

A religion is what its adherents do.

What was Stalins?

 

[Revoltingest]

What was Stalins?

Crushing his enemies....& his populace?

 

[firedragon]

Crushing his enemies....& his populace?

Thats his religion?

 

[Revoltingest]

Thats his religion?

Well, he gave up on the seminary.
But we do know what he did.
If you're getting at something else, then hop to it, bruderherz.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I was speaking of those who practice seriously and those who dedicate their life to a religion or spiritual practice. Maybe i am wrong but it look like many(not all)atheists can not or will not take religious/spiritual people serious. But that make it very difficult for those who are serious in their spiritual practice to take Atheists serious too. But if you do not like religion or belive, why make fun of those who do? or their religion? why not respect them if you expect to be respected back?

I am quite sure that I am NOT respected back. Which is one reason to poke fun. Enough people ridicule what you're doing without your being able to properly defend yourself to yourself, maybe it will make you rethink. I know no one likes to hear that, but those are the breaks.

In the end, there simply ARE opinions and modes of thinking and beliefs that are not helpful, or cause more harm than good. And I am not saying yours are, but I have seen it and experienced it in others, and I don't like it. And what can I do if I don't like something someone else is doing besides tell them? And in telling them, I might employ various methods of trying to get the point across, and one of those might be comedy - maybe to try and soften the blow, or maybe to get a lot of other people also laughing and therefore also helping to expose the perceived problem as not "just me."

And I think if more people told them that their views weren't liked, maybe they'd shut up about them. It's like the racist who stays quiet about their racism until they test the waters, and then get up enough courage to say something to someone else. If that "someone else" reacts poorly then that racist maybe learns that their views aren't really the "norm", are not accepted, and that other people look down on them. All of that is a pretty good start at getting someone to consider giving up on their position and rethinking.

Again... no one likes to hear this stuff... but I honestly don't care. It's how the world works and has worked for quite a long while. Ever since humans developed language, I would guess. And it definitely beats the really old method of taking care of problems like this - by bonking someone on the head with a big fat club or stone. Hey, look at that! Ridicule and joking is actually PROGRESS!

 

[steveb1]

A while back, a friend of mine mentioned to me that he had reexamined how he approached religions. He said he had for ages been trying to come to grips with them by reading their holy books, scriptures, and commentaries. But that has changed now. Now, he primarily seeks to understand a religion by observing how it inspires, motivates, influences, or determines the behavior of its adherents.

What would you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach?

Yes, the religiously-motivated behavior of people of faith can be one important indicator. But for me the single religious meaning and most powerful attractant is that a religion - in order to qualify as a religion - must offer, or at least claim to offer - union or communion with a spiritually-transforming "sacred Transcendent". If a religion does not offer that, it is not a religion but rather a social club, a culture club, a therapeutic system, a haven for "uplift", but it is not a religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Back when I played the guitar, I noticed that when I bought a new on, I had to play it for a while to make it "mine". The structure of it would become used to the sets of vibrations that I played most often, and the fret-board wold get a little worn in the places were my fingers pressed the string, most. So I guess there is always a symbiotic exchange between the tool and user. But I think it's a little bit of a stretch to claim that one's "nature and character" transfer in that way. It's not like buying a used guitar made me want to play the kind of music the previous owner played on it.

Are we still talking about religions?

Because if we are, then I stand by what I said.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

A while back, a friend of mine mentioned to me that he had reexamined how he approached religions. He said he had for ages been trying to come to grips with them by reading their holy books, scriptures, and commentaries. But that has changed now. Now, he primarily seeks to understand a religion by observing how it inspires, motivates, influences, or determines the behavior of its adherents.

What would you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach?

The Bible says you know a tree by its fruits.

If a religion threatens you with death if you don't join, or if you leave, they will probably not be good for you even if you do agree to. If a religion tells you to obey, or tells you that you need to do this, this, and this leaving you with a constant feeling of not measuring up, also not good. You also need to look at how they act in countries where they are a majority, and how they relate to not only new converts, but people they consider to be outsiders/unconvertable.

Your friend is exactly right.

 

[Cooky]

A while back, a friend of mine mentioned to me that he had reexamined how he approached religions. He said he had for ages been trying to come to grips with them by reading their holy books, scriptures, and commentaries. But that has changed now. Now, he primarily seeks to understand a religion by observing how it inspires, motivates, influences, or determines the behavior of its adherents.

What would you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach?

Well, there could be cultural influences in people's actions aside from what their religion teaches... That would pose a problem with the approach.

 

[firedragon]

Well, he gave up on the seminary.
But we do know what he did.
If you're getting at something else, then hop to it, bruderherz.

Im just asking because you said "A religion is what its adherents do."

 

[Revoltingest]

Im just asking because you said "A religion is what its adherents do."

You mentioned a single individual. That's not reliable.
The way to interpret that would be to look at groups.
I can't judge Judasim by what Bernie Madoff did,
nor can I judge Christianity by what Scott Roeder did.
And even within a group, there could be significantly
different sub-groups, eg, Amish.

 

[Vee]

A while back, a friend of mine mentioned to me that he had reexamined how he approached religions. He said he had for ages been trying to come to grips with them by reading their holy books, scriptures, and commentaries. But that has changed now. Now, he primarily seeks to understand a religion by observing how it inspires, motivates, influences, or determines the behavior of its adherents.

What would you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach?

I think nothing identifies someone better than their actions. People can say whatever they want, but it's what they do that counts. If you want to know the value of a religion, see how its members act.
The only weakness I can see to that approach is the risk of putting everyone in the same box, since even if a majority acts in a certain way we need to keep in mind that there are always some exceptions, in the positive and in the negative sense.