Can there be a wholly GOOD & worthwhile religion? Is this even possible?

Unreasonable Faith Forum » General » General Discussion

Can there be a wholly GOOD & worthwhile religion? Is this even possible?

(34 posts) (10 voices)

Started 3 years ago by PuntyBunny
Latest reply from Masa_Lee

Tags:

ethics
Humor

12 Next »

PuntyBunny
Member

I was discussing this with a friend after the article in which Billy Graham's son said Islam was wholly evil.

Personally, I don’t think any moderately successful religion can be either wholly evil or wholly good. A wholly good religion, lacking threats & punishments, would lose the power of control, which is after all the main point of religion. A wholly evil religion would never have enough followers to make it work. You can’t be actively working to spread evil ALL the time & still take care of the necessary mundanities of life. Even KKK wives have to stand in the grocery store deciding which version of Tide will get their sheets the whitest.

Hypothetically it seems it would be possible for a religion to teach only kindness, compassion, inward searching, to be a practice which leads its followers to ever higher plains of consciousness & joy, but human nature being what it is, I think just getting power as a leader would inevitably corrupt. I'm sorry I have to think that way. I know it's cynical but it's my instinct based on what I see of people in power.

Love to hear other thoughts on this.

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

Everything that humans touch turns human.

Which is to say, to crap. Which may or may not be used to later fertilize luscious strawberry bushes.

EDIT: To expand slightly, it is possible for a religion to indicate strongly only compassion, kindness, acceptance, and other fuzzy notions, but even these putatively positive concepts can be destructive when driven to extremes or when not tempered by prudence.

Posted 3 years ago #
dutchhobbit
Member

For a religion to be wholly good or evil, we need an objective way to measure or dictate what is evil or not. It takes very little thought to see that it is extremely difficult to do this because everyone has his or her own set of morals. Look at the Islamic world. Right now, women are being stoned to death because they were raped by men other than there husbands. It is a standard procedure there and they think that it is good. However, I hope, most people in the western world think that it is an abomination and such behavior is subhuman. Because of that, we cannot dictate if a religion is wholly evil or not. It is all about the fact that there is no objective morality. We can be of the opinion that a religion is wholly evil or not, but that does not make it so. I would somewhat agree with Bill Graham in saying that Islam can be evil. But it is all dependent on the Muslim's interpretation of Islam which makes it evil or not and my opinion of that Muslim. No I do not think it is possible for a religion to be wholly evil or not.

Posted 3 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

In my opinion, nothing based on dishonesty can ultimately wind up good. And, again in my opinion, all religions that include any element of supernaturlism are inherently dishonest.

Posted 3 years ago #
beyonddeities
Member

There can't be 'good' without bad. You can't follow a 'path' that is 100% pure holy goodness. If you don't know pain and hurt and lust and rage and everything else, you can't appreciate what religion poises as 'good.' Idk, that kind of black/white, one-track mentality is unstable and generally, if not always, unapplicable in modern society. Jmo.

Posted 3 years ago #
Jabster
Member

"If you don't know pain and hurt and lust and rage and everything else, you can't appreciate what religion poises as 'good.'"

.. but that is what the OT poses as good.

Posted 3 years ago #
beyonddeities
Member

Exactly. Because the only thing religion loves more than small children is circular logic.

Posted 3 years ago #
Huxley
Member

I used to think Buddhism was probably tolerable until they started with the terrorist nonsense.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

"If you don't know pain and hurt and lust and rage and everything else, you can't appreciate what religion poises as 'good..."

Wait... how are those things "bad"?

Pain is life saving. It's a very specific function in order to save the brain so to speak. It's not a negative. (same could be said for hurt).

And since when was lust a bad thing? Lust drives us. (sometimes to sex). Rage can be healthy as well.

Perhaps I'm just trying to make the point that any moral code is derived from that oh so selfish brain of ours... I'd say whatever is "healthy" gets to be "good".

Posted 3 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

I agree with everything but rage. Anger can be useful, rage almost never is.

Speaking as a former rage junkie.

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

Unless the circumstances dictate a murderous berserker rage.

Posted 3 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

I've never been in a situation like that.

I've BEEN in murderous berserker rages, but never one that helped anything.

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

That's always the trick: identifying situations in which it is properly indicated. Usually when in a target-rich environment after a heinous crime has been perpetrated against friend, family, or species.

Posted 3 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

You know, even then I'd prefer to stay cool and in control.

I can actually inflict a LOT more damage if I keep my wits about me. Of course, you have to be emotionally ok with inflicting great harm without hiding behind rage. Not all people are. Past experience has taught me that I am.

But I am probably a pious former addict. As a former rage addict who got off the juice, and whose life improved because of it, I am all snooty about it now.

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

It's perfectly fine to be snooty about it. The probability of an event actually presenting where berserker rage is justified is minuscule in most walks of life, and in any case, there is a far greater probability of any given person misidentifying a given situation as requiring such rashness than there is of there actually being one.

FWIW, the cold, calculating thing terrifies people; I know this from experience. But only if you can pull it off. Some people try it and they end up just looking constipated.

Posted 3 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

Can't I be both?

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

Terrifying and constipated?

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

Rage actually can be useful. Rage allows the fight and flight when in danger. It allows a person to handle threats. It allows a woman to fight off her attacker, for example.

I'd say that because rage is just one degree of anger, that there would be different perspectives on what constitutes whether it was healthy rage or not. It's relative in a lot of cases.

But rage can be healthy. Better than just being annoyed or frustrated or pissed off without any fire to burn the fear away.

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

I dunno. A kick to the nuts performed as nonchalantly as ordering a pizza would be more disheartening to a would-be attacker, I think.

Le regard, FTW!

Posted 3 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

"Terrifying and constipated?"

Yes.

"It allows a woman to fight off her attacker, for example."

I used to teach a rape prevention class. One important lesson we taught was, "don't lose your head."

You are much more likely to successfully defend yourself if you keep your wits.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

wait, who orders pizza nonchalantly?

Posted 3 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

Who orders them in a berserker rage?

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

And if the pizza isn't here in 30 minutes, I'll kill your firstborn.

Posted 3 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

I ordered mine fifty minutes ago, and it still isn't here.

Someone will pay.

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

Probably you.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

wait... you presume that "rage" = losing wits. It doesn't. Not really. Not in the way you imply.

While it is a primitive response, and fueled by a hormone rush... that it is impulse and not planned doesn't automatically mean a person under threat isn't benefited greatly. I use the example of a woman and attacker deliberately. Rage most certainly is a "fight back". and fighting back is paramount to survival in many situations.

I'd say the same if a man were under attack.

If you can't use "rage" as an argument against a crime of passion... then you can't state it is "losing wits" necessarily. That'd be my counter.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

but don't rage against pizza man!

;)

Posted 3 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

I don't know how many actual fights you've been in, maybe a lot. But from personal experience, having been in a great many, any time I was enraged I was operating under impaired cognition. As I've said, I am far more able to defend myself effectively when I do not give in to rage.

I guess if the choice is between rage and doing nothing, then rage is better.

Posted 3 years ago #
LRA
Member

Rage:
Sing, Goddess, Achilles' rage,
Black and murderous, that cost the Greeks
Incalculable pain, pitched countless souls
Of heroes into Hades' dark,
And left their bodies to rot as feasts
For dogs and birds, as Zeus' will was done.
Begin with the clash between Agamemnon--
The Greek Warlord-- and God-like Achilles.

opening lines of The Iliad, Homer

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

Of course you operate under less cognitive ability. Rage is fueled primarily by only the hormones. We operate with less cognitive ability when elated as well. And when in pain. And when lusting. Etc...

But to suggest that rage is a negative when it's primary "purpose" so to speak is to fight off the threat and escape the threat... I think is incorrect understanding of it.

Again, it's one of the extremes of anger. The other option is simply annoyance. Repressed rage is negative.

Balance is always best, but rage, when appropriate is life saving and healthy - and thus, why I label it as "good" and not "bad".

Posted 3 years ago #