PDA

View Full Version : Evil religions



astrostudent
07 April 2011, 10:56 AM
Namaste,

On what basis do we decide that certain religions are evil? If one points to certain dubious verses in that religion (verses that exhort followers to kill, plunder etc.), couldn't that be explained away as figure of speech, such as jihad is an inner battle, and that slaying enemies means slaying enemies like anger, jealousy, greed, and so on?

Besides figure of speech, context could also explain this away. Muslims, for instance, could argue that since Mohammed was facing many attacks from his enemies, his language merely reflected the reality of his situation. Obviously, a person who's being unfairly attacked is going to say, "Defend yourself, deceive your enemy" etc. etc. He isn't going to say, "Be a nice chap and get thrashed.":D

Finally, we have translation problems. The same verse could be translated in many different ways, since not many people are familiar with the language. This also leads to confusion.

So there are three problems - we can mistake metaphor for reality, get the wrong translations, or miss context altogether, upon which we could wrongly conclude that certain religions are evil.

Bottom line, it is impossible to prove that any religion is all bad or all good, since one argument can easily be countered with another. It's all about interpretation, since it's impossible to discover the absolute truth with just a few verses from a book.

Sahasranama
07 April 2011, 11:03 AM
We look at the history of the sampradaya of the religion to understand the meaning of their textbooks and at the actions of the people who followed that religion throughout history. We have no business giving different interpretations to their scriptures.

Adhvagat
07 April 2011, 11:05 AM
Why not look at the actions of the people from these religions instead?

However if we look by what you present, if a certain "religion" is merely a political treatise made for a specific point in history, what's the archetypical religious value of it?

I'm quoting something Bryon posted on Huff Post (from a book that is on my wishlist now):


As the noted Egyptologi­st and Moses scholar, Dr. Jan Assmann states in his book, 'The Price of Monotheism­':

"Primary religions evolve historical­ly over hundreds and thousands of years….Rel­igions of this kind include the cultic and divine worlds of Egyptian, Babylonian and Greco-Roma­n antiquity, among many others. Secondary religions, by contrast, are those that owe their existence to an act of revelation and foundation­, build on primary religions, and typically differenti­ate themselves from the latter by denouncing them as pagan, idolatry and superstiti­on. All secondary religions … look down on the primary religions as pagan….The­se religions can therefore perhaps be characteri­zed most adequately by the term “counterre­ligion.” For these religions, and for these religions alone, the truth to be proclaimed comes with an enemy to be fought." (pp. 3-4)

"The concept of "counterre­ligion" is intended to draw out the potential for negation that inheres within secondary religions. These religions are also inherently "intoleran­t"...Two hundred and fifty years ago, David Hume not only argued that polytheism is far older than monotheism­, he also advanced the related hypothesis that polytheism is tolerant, whereas monotheism is intolerant­...Seconda­ry religion must be intolerant­, that is, they must have a clear conception of what they feel to be incompatib­le with their truths if these truths are to exert the life-shapi­ng authority, normativit­y, and binding force that they claim for themselves­." (p. 14)

PARAM
07 April 2011, 11:07 AM
Who were Muhammad's enemies ? All non Muslims

astrostudent
07 April 2011, 11:38 AM
Actions of which people - the average people or the extremists?

sanjaya
07 April 2011, 11:48 AM
Actions of which people - the average people or the extremists?

Well I think that even if you go with the average, it's pretty easy to see that evangelical Christianity is an example of an evil religion. I believe we can all agree on the evil of practicing religious conversion, which is the evangelical's primary mission. Can I assume there's no argument here?

As for something like Islam the problem is a bit different. Most Muslims will remain silent until they exist in large numbers, and then they will begin political revolutions in democratic nations. I believe that Islam is evil, but it's hard to pin down what the behavior of the "average Muslim" is.

PARAM
07 April 2011, 11:51 AM
Actions of which people - the average people or the extremists?

What average ? I am talking about Majority

yajvan
07 April 2011, 02:05 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Could it not be evil people that practice certain religions?

Yet I struggle with this whole thing of evil. I know it is there yet it seems it is just 'bent' actions that are without light.

praṇām

astrostudent
07 April 2011, 02:42 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Could it not be evil people that practice certain religions?

Yet I struggle with this whole thing of evil. I know it is there yet it seems it is just 'bent' actions that are without light.

praṇām

I, for one, do not believe that any religion is evil (because as I explained, it's a matter of interpretation), but at the same time I cannot get myself to believe there are evil people, either. I cannot be the judge, no human being can be the judge of another. Only God can judge.

That's why I believe that everyone is pure, and if at all they do 'evil', it's only because of circumstances (and not because they're evil by nature).

Adhvagat
07 April 2011, 04:28 PM
So what are you trying to say? Islam is not so bad? What about Christianity?

It's easy to hide behind the relativization that there's no evil, they're still ignorant, killing because of a book.

Rationalist
07 April 2011, 06:20 PM
The Evil Religions? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The Axis of Evil. The Purveyors of War, Prolongers of War.

muslim
07 April 2011, 09:54 PM
Islam is the most evil religion in the eyes of the West. That's because we muslims keep blowing ourselves up like idiots in the middle of busy streets to kill innocent people. These jihadis are cowards and barbaric mindless idoits. Because of these idiots all muslims even the likes of me get painted with the same brush. What can we do? I am in shame because my idiot muslim community won't stop the mindless murders.

astrostudent
07 April 2011, 10:31 PM
So what are you trying to say? Islam is not so bad? What about Christianity?

It's easy to hide behind the relativization that there's no evil, they're still ignorant, killing because of a book.

Suppose a verse says: kill the enemy.

Mr. X could interpret that verse to mean: kill people.
Mr. Y could interpret the same verse to mean: kill the enemy within, namely anger, lust etc.

See what I mean? Is there any good or evil, or only our interpretation?

Sahasranama
08 April 2011, 02:01 AM
Suppose a verse says: kill the enemy.

Mr. X could interpret that verse to mean: kill people.
Mr. Y could interpret the same verse to mean: kill the enemy within, namely anger, lust etc.

See what I mean? Is there any good or evil, or only our interpretation?

Like I said, we have no business giving different interpretation of foreign religious works, other than that the followers of the religion have given it, especially early in the history of the religion. Hindu swamis have helped abrahamics a lot with reinterpretating their scripture in a different light. This is counterproductive and gives the abrahamics more resources to hide the real meaning of their texts and their real agenda.

astrostudent
08 April 2011, 02:19 AM
Like I said, we have no business giving different interpretation of foreign religious works,

Badshah Khan (frontier Gandhi) interpreted every verse in the Koran to preach peace instead of violence. Others may do the exact opposite. As you can see, it's all about interpretation.

Sahasranama
08 April 2011, 02:35 AM
Anyone could also reinterpretation the words of Mein Kamph and say that Hitler was a man of peace. Interpretation should be based on language, history and tradition, not on personal likes and dislikes. In India they call this interpretating according your own will "manamaane dhanga se artha dena."

astrostudent
08 April 2011, 02:40 AM
Anyone could also reinterpretation the words of Mein Kamph and say that Hitler was a man of peace. Interpretation should be based on language, history and tradition, not on personal likes and dislikes. In India they call this interpretating according your own will "manamaane dhanga se artha dena."

My point is, if there are two interpretations of a certain religion (one preaching peace like Badshah Khan), and another preaching violence, how will anyone determine which version is right?

Sahasranama
08 April 2011, 02:54 AM
When you ask which one is right, you are talking about which one was the original intention of the people who wrote the texts, not about which message is the right one. Maybe Badshah Khan was preaching the right message, but not the message of the koran. The text is pretty straightforward about violence and the traditions of Islam all prove this from Shuni to Shia to Sufi. In India some muslims may have become more moderate in their adherence to the koran due to influence of Dharma Bhumi, but that doesn't change the message of Islam.