Posted by fschmidt on
URL: https://mikraite.arkian.net/Why-Religions-Fail-tp2257p2681.html

umit wrote

True religions do not have a founder in the first place because it is Gods words. The prophet only spreads Gods word around and is not the founder of a religion.
Jesus is not the founder of Christianity, nor Moses the founder of Judaism or Mohammed the founder of Islam.
Religions with a founder (the ones you speak about appearantly) are just human invented religions and are not worth following them anyways...none of them, because it has no meaning...no purpose.

This is semantics.  I mean if you are looking for first cause, then God is the first cause of everything which would make God the "founder" of everything which would make the word "founder" meaningless.  So better to define "founder" is the person whose role was starting something.  Most people don't have the necessary attributes to be a prophet, and God wouldn't choose an unqualified person to be a prophet.  So prophets deserve credit for the role they play.

a human invented scripture is a scripture with flaws...totally far from being perfect...so it needs countless of rewriting, reinterpretation and reformations...so this part is just natural.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with changing a human invented scripture...because it is not Holy...so, you can change it as much as you want.
Corruption? the original scripture was already corrupt when it first got invented...so what are we talking about?

This distinction between "invented scripture" and "holy scripture" is overstated because it is a continuum.  Returning to Newton's laws, can any idiot change them as much as he wants?  No, because Newton's laws are based on reality (God's actions), so they must be approximately right.  What comes purely out of the human mind is just nonsense.  So there is a continuum of how right something is, and making something less right is a bad idea.  This applies to scripture just as much as to science.

no? the whole religion is a failure complete with its reformation because it misses its purpose.
reformation or no reformation, that wont prevent that.

How can one objectively judge religion?  The only objective judgement that I can think of is how successful were the societies that they produced.  And based on that, the Christian Reformation was successful.

No. that does not work that way. It has nothing to do with intelligence. We follow Islam because we believe that it is the only pure religion in existence. The scripture is the unchanged words of God and the religion is as God had intended. the People themselves won't allow any reformation on that.

Clearly today's Muslims do not follow Islam as God intended.  If they did, then they would be more successful here on Earth.

a reformation means a change in Gods words, so it is not pure anymore...therefore it will immediately experience resistence and is doomed to fail.

No, a reformation does not mean changing the scripture.  It means looking critically at the baggage that was added to a religion after scripture.  If you study the Christian reformation, you will see that this is what they did.  From what little I know about Ibn Taymiyyah, he also headed in this direction.

What problem? first define the problem please

The problem is having the intelligence to properly understand and apply scripture.

By the way, this thread is somewhat outdated.  My latest thoughts on this topic are here.