Comparative Religion - a meaningless term?

[Owlswing]

The are courses up to University level with Comparative Religion as their title.

Is this title meaningless?

In what way can the various religions of the world be compared in a meaningful way? It is quite obvious from the contents of this forum that any attempt to do so becomes lost in a miasma of special pleading by each religion and by none. 

[Shaker]

You can compare religions, certainly - you can compare the claims asserted by a Christian brand of theism with the claims asserted by a Muslim brand of theism, for instance. You can even compare and contrast Jewish theism and Buddhist non-theism in what their respective worldviews say about human nature and human destiny, for example.

I wouldn't take this forum as indicative of the failings of comparative religion

[Gonnagle]

Dear Owlswing,

Comparative religion, Karen Armstrong.

A little about the good lady.

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/01/27/making-compassion-cool/

One way to compare or find something we all agree on is the Golden Rule.

Even secular societies discuss it.

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/the%20golden%20rule.pdf

Although I have heard that the Wicca version is called the Silver Rule ( "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" ) any thoughts on that?

But it is classed as a golden rule on this link.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc3.htm

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

No harder, than a politics course to run. Shaker us right that this is not a forum to judge it as a course.

[Owlswing]

Dear Owlswing,

Although I have heard that the Wicca version is called the Silver Rule ( "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" ) any thoughts on that?

But it is classed as a golden rule on this link.

Gonnagle.

The way that I learnt it was - Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil, an it harm none do what you will.

In view of the fact that embarrassment is considered harming, it has been, by some, amended to read "An it harm none do what you will, an it harm some, do what you must.

[Owlswing]

No harder, than a politics course to run. Shaker us right that this is not a forum to judge it as a course.

Sorry, I wasn't cammenting on the Uni Courses as such, mearly on what, from this forum at least, would appear to be an impossible job.

There would appear to be no give and take whatsoever, only hard and fast divisions.

[Rhiannon]

Comparative religion often appeals as a subject to the non religious.

[Nearly Sane]

I think there are those that view it as an us v them on variety of issues including religion, and I tend to avoid those, though on occasion my belief that there is something worthwhile in them encourages me to ask them for more.

Aside from that there are enough interesting posters not looking at a adversarial approach to get good threads such as the recent on on sacredness.

[Shaker]

Comparative religion often appeals as a subject to the non religious.

I suspect this might have a lot to do with it being an awful lot easier to treat all religious claims dispassionately and disinterestedly if you have no religious allegiance of your own. If you do have one, by definition you have a bias to that religious tradition otherwise you wouldn't stick to it; I would suspect that it's difficult for any Christian really to take the Martian's eye view of Christianity as opposed to, say, Shintoism. Not impossible but difficult, I would suggest, if you are committed to the view that religion X is true and all others in effect false.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One way to compare or find something we all agree on is the Golden Rule.

Even secular societies discuss it.

Yes but only in the context of whether it should be privatised.

[ad_orientem]

The are courses up to University level with Comparative Religion as their title.

Is this title meaningless?

In what way can the various religions of the world be compared in a meaningful way? It is quite obvious from the contents of this forum that any attempt to do so becomes lost in a miasma of special pleading by each religion and by none.

Comparative religion is nonsense, another work of the devil much like modern ecumenism.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Owlswing,

There would appear to be no give and take whatsoever, only hard and fast divisions.

One reason, time

Quite a lot of posters have been at each others throat for years, I don't think Bashers or Shaker will mind me using them as a example, but there are many more and sometimes they all kind of mingle, like a form of dance

Step back from the squabbles and watch, it can be very entertaining, oh and look out for the humour between old hands, sometimes you only get it from knowing they have been at it for years.

Also, watch out for posters that you think are constantly squabbling, when a poster has a problem you will find that it is generally the ones who they have been squabbling with are the first to help.

Gonnagle.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Dearest friend Matty,
"I don't need to go back over a load of rubbish (the holy bible)" MATTY 
And that is your idea of comparative. Too funny you. Did I ever tell you that my favourite bird is the owl? It is matty, the burrowing owl, they're a HOOT!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TL8pSFd-hQ

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Comparative religion often appeals as a subject to the non religious.

I suspect this might have a lot to do with it being an awful lot easier to treat all religious claims dispassionately and disinterestedly if you have no religious allegiance of your own.

Comparative religion as something to get into for the non religious is a bit of a challenge because of the dangers of becoming religious.

There is evidence that most of those who are vehemently antireligious have not bothered with it.

[Shaker]

Comparative religion is nonsense, another work of the devil much like modern ecumenism.

What's nonsense about it, exactly?

[Shaker]

Comparative religion as something to get into for the non religious is a bit of a challenge because of the dangers of becoming religious.

Any evidence of that?

There is evidence ...

Then provide it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Comparative religion as something to get into for the non religious is a bit of a challenge because of the dangers of becoming religious.

Any evidence of that?

There is evidence ...

Then provide it.

The observed lack of religious knowledge in the New Atheists and the self celebrated ignorance of such matters by Richard Dawkins in particular.......and of course the ignorant scribblings of the antitheists here which are afterall the artless parrotings of artless New atheists.......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The are courses up to University level with Comparative Religion as their title.

Is this title meaningless?

In what way can the various religions of the world be compared in a meaningful way? It is quite obvious from the contents of this forum that any attempt to do so becomes lost in a miasma of special pleading by each religion and by none.

Comparative religion is nonsense, another work of the devil much like modern ecumenism.

,,,,,,,,,,,,now that would be an ecumenical matter.

[Shaker]

The observed lack of religious knowledge in the New Atheists

P.Z. Myers coined the Courtier's Reply for that, didn't he?

and the self celebrated ignorance of such matters by Richard Dawkins in particular.......

Evidence needed.

and of course the ignorant scribblings of the antitheists here which are afterall the artless parrotings of artless New atheists.......

People who don't like what you like really get you spitting tacks, don't they?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The observed lack of religious knowledge in the New Atheists

P.Z. Myers coined the Courtier's Reply for that, didn't he?

I don't know? What is the courtiers reply?

[Shaker]

Find out, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Find out, Vlad.

Found out.

Courtiers reply assumes God does not exist......Begging the question what.

It assumes that you don't need expertise

Also it depends on how good the analogy is. Myers thinks it is good but then he is an empiricist.

Most people, who are not New Atheists think it's not so good.

[ekim]

In what way can the various religions of the world be compared in a meaningful way?

They can probably be more easily compared when you look at the words and lives of the 'mystics' associated with each religion.  There are similarities between Christian mystics, Muslim Sufis, Hindu yogis, Zen masters etc.  However, when it comes to dogma, the similarities come to an end and you get at least comments like 'Comparative religion is nonsense, another work of the devil much like modern ecumenism' and at worst persecution or death penalty.

[Shaker]

Find out, Vlad.

Found out.

Courtiers reply assumes God does not exist......Begging the question what.

No, it makes no such assumption. It's a refutation of the widely-held and oft-heard but groundless accusation that the "New Atheists" (whatever they might be) "observably lack religious knowledge" and especially that this knowledge they allegedly lack is crucial in determining if there's a God or not. (Terry Eagleton's spectacular point-missing review of The God Delusion is the exemplar of this kind of irrelevance). You'll find that that's the only assumption at work here.

I think you were looking at something else entirely, goodness only knows what. Try again.

[ad_orientem]

Comparative religion is nonsense, another work of the devil much like modern ecumenism.

What's nonsense about it, exactly?

Lowest common denominator theology, relativism etc.