What are the Pros and Cons of each Religious Theology?

I tried looking this up on the Omniscient Oracle called Google, for a generalization of the Pros and Cons of the religions practices, from individual basis to community, and yet no such thing was even shown, weather due to the amount of content each religion carries could have it own bookshelf. This thread might be feable, and foolish, but what the hell, I'll try anyways, but it will mainly be about the most prominent today .

Judaism-
Pro's
- The oldest and the original template of what the Monotheism's are based on. The NT has the OT and similar writing structure, while the Quran shares this as well, and Moses, and other Hebrew figures are revered.
- Since being the original, it possibly gives the greatest understandings of the other two, and has probably evolved the most in terms of flexibility somehow looking at it today. It hasn't been changed for centuries.
-Fidelity and Community.
-The most feared God on the planet.

Con's
- Probably relies on the idea of "Method behind Madness" a little too much.
-For it time, it could be the most Xenophobic of the three.
-Also, probably the most targeted when crap hits the fan.

Side Note- How the Hell did they move on from being sent to Hell when you die for no reason, to not believing in Hell at all?

Christianity/Catholicism(same crap, different smell)
Pros
- The most Charismatic of the Three, and idealizes good morals..
-Possibly has some of the wisest sayings, and can be quite open and well mannered.
-At it core, it can't really inspire or motivate with violence, and could have the best sense of all.
-Jesus, says it all(Ill drink to that).

Con's
- Quite possibly the most submissive, due to non violence ideals. I.e"Turn the other Cheek", or "Forgive and Forget".
-Not so good with "Method behind Madness".
-Also possibly the most superstitious, and emotionally involved of all, which can make it the most psychotic.

Sidenote- How a nonviolent theology became one of the most hated and feared religions to that of the Hebrew Bible, defies my logic.

Islam
Pros
-Stern and Disciplined.
-Use the Abrahamic doctrine templates, mixed with Arabic mythology giving a sense of it own originality.
-Out of the three, it has the greatest sense of fidelity and community.They could rally in minutes.
-Close minded, and not so easily challenged.
-The most feared religion on the planet...Also the most, in your face honesty one can get.

Con's- Not open to new ways or ideas depending on how reinforced the theology was impressed on to ones psychology.
-Very brittle, for all it tempered mentality, and the easiest to offend.
-Most targeted.
-Not to original.

Sidenote- Mohammed was probably real.

Hinduism
- Quite possibly the most open minded to all sorts of things and possibilities, physically and mentally.
-It most common practice is Yoga, which focuses on wellness, and is a shared practice among its different Sects. (Hate it or love it, Sikh's use it too)
-Highly revers nature, and attempts to be communal with it wildlife and ecology, having a communal balance of sorts.
-Imaginative(They got a monkey god that wrestles), and has it antiquity due to it being the "OLDEST OF ALL".
-Can be physically and mentally challenging, to the point of it being it own reward...I.e High tolerance to pain.

Con's
- Way too open minded, and can be superstitious as well.
-Very loosely constructed set of believes, only few main deities are unchallenged, Shiva and Kali.
-70 thousands Gods is a lot.

Sidenote - It still around, and going strong.

Buddhism
Pros- Uses and follows suit to that of the Hindu practice of Yoga, focusing and embodying wellness.
-Its theology heavily emphasizes on concentration, and calming of the mind.
-Uses metaphors and literary constructs quite well.
-Quite possibly the least superstitious religion out there, even though originally seemed like it was...Sky Gods and meditating on tiger pelts.
- The most hands on and interactive.

Con's
- Very, very tedious and unappealing at times.
-It can be as lucid as Hinduism as well.

Side Note - Probably the most popular sought out practice of today, and seems more friendlier then Christianity(How'd they fall off that wagon, I wonder.)

Well that's it, I didn't put other religions due to my lack of knowledge about them, or due to them sharing a common history. Like I said, it a feable attempt. Share any other conceptions if you wish.

Religion is man made. The trick is to find the avenue to spiritual truth and wisdom through your soul, inward instead of outward. Outward you find others interpretations of spirituality, inwards you find the path meant for you, from the spirit to your spirit.

As individual and personal as any relationship with the spirit can be.

Pro's
It was useful 1000+ years ago to keep people in line

Con's
It's still around

a reply to: Specimen

Pro's- The oldest and the original template of what the Monotheism's are based on.

Actually, Atenism may be the first monotheistic religion that we know of...

O sole god, like whom there is no other! Thou didst create the world according to thy desire, Whilst thou wert alone: All men, cattle, and wild beasts (...) The lord of all of them, wearying (himself) with them, The lord of every land, rising for them...

Around 1353BC under the rule of Akhenaten. Although it is thought it was inspired by earlier Egyptian theology. Also, Judaism wasn't always monotheistic per se, they were henotheistic.

a reply to: Specimen

Weird how you used the word "pros" in the same sentence as "Religious theology."

Ive created my own religion/philosophy, it revolves around Kharma and Dharma. Which is why I like Hinduism.

- Way too open minded, and can be superstitious as well.
-Very loosely constructed set of believes, only few main deities are unchallenged, Shiva and Kali.

I consider these pros

-70 thousands Gods is a lot.

Theres a god for everything, so millions of gods. I consider this a pro aswell. Religion should not focus on worshiping a god or gods. The gods are there. They help and hurt all who deserve. Its a relief not having to even know their names.

The problem is that everyone has their own interpretation what a con or a pro is!

originally posted by: EightTF3
Pro's
It was useful 1000+ years ago to keep people in line

Con's
It's still around

LOL good one!!

a reply to: Specimen

I just wanted to clarify a couple of things since your thread title was in the form of a question.


- Judaism - It is not the template for monotheism; only the first among the Abrahamic faiths. Zoroastrianism, for example, is a monotheistic religion that predates the Abrahamic faiths.

- Christianity - I don't know where you get the notion of a non-violent history.

- Islam - Your cons about not being open to new ideas is base on contemporary perspectives on some Islamic cultures. Historically, Islam was at the forefront of science and math for centuries, as well as allowing Christians to live within their communities even while the Crusades were taking place.

- Hinduism - Saying they are "open minded" is the same pit-fall that Islam presents. Hindu practice largely depends on the culture practicing it. It varies widely.

- Buddhism - Another politicized and coopted religion. Different ideologies have exploited Buddhism to justify violence towards other cultures. As a religion, it is very peaceful though. I can't truly think of any "cons" to Buddhism aside from my personal beliefs.


So... just curious. Do you practice any sort of religion?

originally posted by: Abysha
Judaism - It is not the template for monotheism; only the first among the Abrahamic faiths. Zoroastrianism, for example, is a monotheistic religion that predates the Abrahamic faiths.

I agree, I was about to mention the same thing about Judaism and how it relates to monotheism.

I disagree though with the concept of “Abrahamic faiths”.

The term is a complete fabrication like so many others that come from religion...

‘Abrahamic faiths’ is a distinctly Islamic term that subverts historic Judaism and Christianity, reframes them within an Islamic worldview, asserts Islamic superiority, and thus is the very opposite of its alleged intended usage. ‘Abrahamic faiths’ is a loaded term that reinforces the Islamic claim that “Christianity and Judaism are regarded as distorted derivatives of Islam…” and serves the purpose of Islamic da’wa.

The term ‘Abrahamic faiths’ and its cognates is misleading. Reinforcing the term’s misleading nature, Aaron Hughes, in the conclusion of his book-length evaluation of the term Abrahamic Religions, states that it is more an impediment than an expedient to understanding. I trust that I have made the case that the term is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.”105 Whilst in broad agreement with Hughes, the term ‘Abrahamic Faiths’ is worse than meaningless, because it is literally full of meaning. The term comes from the Qur’an, is a loaded term that serves the agenda of Islamic da’wa while undermining the authenticity of Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, I conclude that ‘Abrahamic faiths’ is a term that should be abandoned by scholars except in its original qur’anic signification.

The Myth of the Abrahamic Faiths (PDF)

The concept of “Abrahamic faiths” is a fallacy. Its contemporary influence was, tragically, born out of a century of Christian suffering in the Middle East and foisted upon the unsuspecting West. It is reasonable to ask whether this is a theological Trojan horse designed to promote an Islamic worldview of relations between faiths.

The Abrahamic Fallacy (PDF)

This false idea of there being three Abrahamic faiths is the false belief behind the latest apostasy rising in some churches that is called “Chrislam.” Chrislam is nothing more than preaching a false Christ to kowtow to Islam and shows that the people peddling this false religion want to be friends with the world system. So we see in Islam a whole plethora of things that Abraham would never do. Furthermore, the Quran makes many factual errors about Abraham such as the claim that Abraham worshiped at Mecca [Sura 14:37], but he actually worshiped in Hebron [Genesis 13:18].

Abraham did not believe in salvation by works. Abraham rejoiced to see the day of the Lord Jesus Christ, and he saw it and was glad [John 8:56], but Muslims deny Jesus Christ is the Lord and deny that God has a son. Abraham, as Jesus said, was not into killing people who spoke the truth. Muslims who establish sharia believe in killing those who speak the truth of the gospel. Since Muslims do not display the same faith as Abraham, Islam is not an Abrahamic faith.

They claim the god they worship, Allah, is the same as Jehovah. But just like Jesus told the Jews, “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham,” [John 8:39-40]. Abraham, as I said before, had faith in God and faith in God’s Son, the Lord Jesus. That is the work that made him righteous before God.

The myth of “three Abrahamic faiths”

Pros: they keep the eaters distracted.

Cons: impossible to actually attain a higher spiritual perspective / gnosis / whatever using their corrupted systems (the dead end path feeds the moon).

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Abysha
Judaism - It is not the template for monotheism; only the first among the Abrahamic faiths. Zoroastrianism, for example, is a monotheistic religion that predates the Abrahamic faiths.

I agree, I was about to mention the same thing about Judaism and how it relates to monotheism.

I disagree though with the concept of “Abrahamic faiths”.

The term is a complete fabrication like so many others that come from religion...

It is a term used because Abraham is a common link. Regardless of what they think of each other, all three faiths believe they are connected to Abraham. Before I ever heard the term, I used to refer to the "god of Abraham" when discussing the gods all three branches claim to follow.

It doesn't matter if you believe Muslims follow the correct version. They claim they do and that is all that matters for a secular categorization of your religions. Much like many religions whose adherents wouldn't consider themselves "pagan" but are considered such from a secular perspective.

To argue otherwise sounds a lot like the "no true Scotsman" logic fallacy.


- PS Edit - I just wanted to add that I just realized the problem some might have with it is that it puts a connection between themselves and a religion they may have issues with (Islam). I just wanted to say that the term "Abrahamic faith" isn't a claim that your gods are actually the same. It's just a category. No slight is intended by it.

originally posted by: Abysha
It is a term used because Abraham is a common link.

If religion were based on facts, you might be right...

But it's not, which is why I no longer believe a single thing religion says.

Like the source I cited above says, ‘Abrahamic faiths’ is an Islamic term which comes from the Qur’an.

Well, the Bible and the Quran all follow suit of the Hebrew book, and I have heard(not study) plenty of Zoroastrianism and it being the original monotheism, I was just going with which belief is still around. How does a cheap knock off, still stick around?

As for Christianity, I did say non-violent theology, not history, and the side note that says how its become so feared and hated even though, it supposed to friendly, like the idea of Jesus being the ultimate nice guy, and the idea that if we don't play nice, well, God would kill us, without mercy.

As for the Arabic religion, was that before or after the invention of Islam, when they wouldn't have national fueds? And if they were open minded, then why can't woman drive, and that most Islamic countries have more civil problems?

Hinduism, there are some cool thing about it, while all the while, some very f'd thing about it, and I know it varies and depends on community. I.E Some could worship cats, while others dog.

Yea Buddhism was a tough one, can't really nit pick other then being to tedious, and not being creative and sure it has a blood stained history as well.

As for religion that I practice, I have none really, I do look at their stories, and try to get what ever I can learn from them, but that as far as I go. Im not really an atheist cause I look at cavemen fairy tales, but Im not really spiritual for other reasons.

I might as well be a mut.

a reply to: frostie

I think that depends on how far one would want to open their mind, and to what.

Thing is, having too many Gods would just jumble things, sure a small pantheon great since each God would have it realm and purpose, but the large quantity that Hinduism has, is quite lofty.

And the monotheist thought they were smart with one big one when they brag about being better then polytheists, Ha, they became just a confusing by attempting to explain all aspects of life.

originally posted by: EightTF3
Pro's
It was useful 1000+ years ago to keep people in line

Con's
It's still around

True, it is, but it hardly has any life in it these day, and is just rotting, slowly dying, begging it God. I mean it is pretty much choking on the blood of it victims, where as no body listening to it cries for help.

Never cry Wolf.

a reply to: Murgatroid

If religion were based on facts, you might be right...

Actually, as far as Old/New Testaments, it *is* based on fact. Some of stories may be stretched but the people, locations, events are pretty much proven by archaeology and outside sources. Would you argue that Jesus never existed or that he was not a product of God?

originally posted by: AlteredDimensions
Actually, as far as Old/New Testaments, it *is* based on fact.

I do not believe the two of us are on the same page...

I think that the reason for this is how you and I define the word religion.

What I meant was FALSE religion.

Scripture IS fact, ‘Abrahamic faiths’ is NOT.

What exactly leads you to believe that it is based on fact?

I am convinced that is one huge lie, just like everything else that religion says.

The sources I cited above are correct.

Concerning the existence of Jesus, I have personally experienced proof that He is more real than you and I.

I don't agree with your summary of religions. The deeper you look, the more similarities you find. For example Hinduism has a trinity that represents God. Brahma is the Father, Atman the son and Shakti is the holy ghost. Those that practice Hinduism use meditation, not particularly yoga, to break through maya (illusion of reality) to be one with God. To help destroy our ego hindu's view everything as a face of God which is why westerners mistakenly believe its not monotheistic.

Buddhism teaches a path to break away from the constant agony of rebirth. Like other religions it recognizes that our ego and its insatiable desires stands in the way of our enlightenment.

In my opinion, the con of EVERY religion is that it has been corrupted by man.

However, I'm not sure what prompted your post, but if your goal is to find every pro/con with every religion so as to find which one to follow, I would go with your gut instinct or which religion/philosophy 'feels' right or 'speaks' to you.

My advice, for what it's worth, would be not to think about a practice/religion in an intellectual way at first.

There are many 'experts' and 'scholars' of religions that have a very well respected intellectual grasp of the worlds religions, but I think that many of them lack any direct personal experience of them or the 'God' that they claim to know so well.

There are many intellectuals who can talk for hours about the moon, they can even write volumes of books about it, but very few have actually been there and experienced it for themselves.

After finding which religion/practice/movement feels right, experience all what it has to offer but without being sidetracked or swamped by intellectual theory or dogma. Don't get me wrong, it's good to know everything about whatever religion you choose you to follow, it's theology, it's evolution etc, but the intellectual study can come later.

In the beginning, dip your toe in the water, see how it feels...if you like it you can learn about its pros/cons and it's atomic and molecular structure after you experience what its like to have a wet toe.

Regards

I've said this here many times in the past.

I think Religions original purpose was to help man establish a spiritual connection to the almighty and himself. Present day, I'm not seeing much in the way of spirituality and more and more control of the masses in the mixed bag of mainstream Religions of the world.


Brain washing of the masses to be obedient to the cause has replaced teaching man how to communicate with each-other and a higher power on a spiritual level.

Divisiveness and bigotry are the norms now.

Sorry, Presently all I see are cons, no pros.