🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Corfiot

No one is asking you to discuss it.. but nothing i said is "made up" .. this is the standard interpritation by scholars, its hardly my idea.

@matrix

@Corfiot

I agree, I cannot fathom your mental gymnastics on this.

My guess is you are refering to organized religion, and specifically the organization part and not the religion itself at all.

You have three levels

1) Religious Canon (the texts themselves)
2) Religion (The texts coupled with a specific interpritation)
3) Organized religion (A group of people that practice and enforce a specific interpritation)

@matrix

@Corfiot

> i tried to reply and it said the post i replied to was deleted and the reply was lost. i'll summarize: religions are not a combo of beliefs and interpretation. Religions are only beliefs (traditions included).

I never said religion was a comonation of beleif and interpritation. I said it was a combination of Canon text and ones interpritation of it.

Religions can **not** be a belief or even have a beleif. You need to be a thinking human to beleive anything, a book doesnt have a beleif, nor does an interpritation have a beleif.

What you mean is that you must **beleive** the religion (specifically the interpritation and choice of canon) in order to be considered a member of that religion. But it is the person who has the belief that makes him a member, the religion doesnt, and cant, beleive anything, it isnt a person.

> You are injecting the interpretation layer to justify your exclusive individual responsibility argument retroactively.

I am doing nothing of the sort, without interpritation then there is no difference between a catholosism and the protestant religion. Their only difference is how they interprit the same canon. Without the interpritation aspect the only thing a religion has left are the texts.

> A religion can be judged on its tenets, no exceptions.

A religion doesnt have tenants, its members do, and not always the same tenants. You cant judge a religion on something it doesnt have.

@matrix

@Corfiot

No Iam not saying either...

Religions do exist. A religion is any set of canon texts/stories and some interpritation attached to them. That combonation exists and is very real. But interpritations dont have feelings or thoughts and dont make commandments. You as a follower may, however, draw conclusions from the interpritation and thus act a certain way as a result of that. But that is a choice of the follower, no one commanded him to it.

And no religions cant have "any sort of beleif"... again they arent people, they dont beleive anything themselves. However you as a reader of the religion may choose to have beleifs as a result of your interpritation.

@matrix

@Corfiot

Nope, not in and of itself... I need to choose what it means and how I interprit it. I may, if i were a christian, think the old testamant is no longer valid due to jesus creating new rules (very common among christians), I may think the gematria meaning of the text implies something different than the plain words indicate. I may take it as a rule. I may take it as something that applied only to Moses and the jews and not to all people...

How I interprit the meaning, and then what I choose to do with that interpritation depends on if it is a commandment or not. The words existing on a page do not command anyone to do anything on their own unless theperson reading it interprits it as such.

@matrix

@Corfiot

Of course they dont.. The followers of the religion mandate things, the religion itself cant mandate anything, it isnt a person, it cant take actions.

@matrix

@Corfiot

No one says "that beleif is an asshole"... it doesnt even make sense gramatically. We judge a person to be an asshole if they adopt belifs that only an asshole would hold. But the beleif isnt hte asshole.

L:ikewise religions dont mandate anything, they are interpritations. You are choosing to adopt an interpritation that claims **god** mandates something. That isnt the religion mandating it, that is you interpriting gods wishes.

Alternative body parts to use instead of "asshold":
* Dick
* Shit head
* piece of shit
* Butt head
* Shit face
* Poopy head

Feel free to choose :)

@matrix

@louis Or just use an open-source compiler?

@Corfiot

I will concede that most of the current religious beliefs come from some book or a tradition and are interpretations of something that came before. Now and thousands of years ago.

All religions, but yea, its a set of canon with some interpritation attached to it. The interpritation typically evolves from earlier interpritations but not always.

> But numbers do count. Being practical, when it's a dude's interpretation being criticized nobody cares. if it's a million dudes' interpretation you can find yourself cheek to cheek with a suicide bomber with bad teeth smiling at you while pulling a cord.

Numbers do "count" in the sense that it has some relevance to many issues, specifically the sense of peer-pressure it might produce.. I am not saying the numbers dont count, I am saying its harmful to think numbers are what define if something is a religion or not... You have popular interpritations and unpopular ones, thats it, aside from that there isnt much difference except in what effects come from something being popular at all (and yes that may effect if someone is a suicide bomber or not for sure).

> Also, the fact that an asshole is religious and attributes his actions to his religion does two things:
a) it does not absolve him of being an asshole for doing asshole things
b) it does not absolve the religion from pushing people to do asshole things.
>
> So, asshole believer and asshole religion, both

This is where we disagree a bit. Of course we agree on point A, but not B.. Religions cant be an asshole, ir cant push anyone anywhere, it is an interpritation, and either through peer pressure or ones own conviction a person adops that interpritation. If its through peer pressure than the blame is (partly) on the practitioners of the religion, not the religion itself. If it is ones personal conviction then there is no one to blame but the person.

@matrix

@Corfiot

Yes, we do. Though I do think the tangent we find ourselves on is important in its own right.

@matrix

@Corfiot

So its an interpritation that enough people share that someone gave it a name... still an interpritation and aside from being a popular interpritation it is nothing special.. all religions are just interpritations of some set of canon texts, in some cases it is one person, in others its many people, but its all the same thing.

@matrix

@farooqkz

40 and religion is a hobby of mine. I've read most holy texts of Islam, Jeudaism, and Christianity, as well as a few less known religions. I feel it is important to study religions and that religion holds a lot of wisdom.

@Pat @BobKerns @tonic

@Corfiot

There is no difference between a personal interpritation or an official one other than the fact that one has a name and the other doesnt, which is hardly an important distinction.

@matrix

@farooqkz

I have read the Quran about a dozen times at this point, similar to many of the other common holy books of other religions. I think I've "studied" it more than enough to have an opinion.

As for what I refer to an idea, it is not motivated by what will manipulate people the most to agree with me. I say my opinions and I voice them honestly.

@Pat @BobKerns @tonic

@warkittens if thry boot you where woukd thry move your money?

@Corfiot

Well no. Most religions are divided into many different interpritations, each group that exists is sometimes very popular sometines not. You have christianity, which is a faith based on thr bible, thrn you have thousands of interpritations, some are popular enough to have names, some arent. Juat because sometimes people choose the same interpritation doesnt meant its suddenly has some official status.

@matrix