Religions broken down into categories

[Adamski]

I think all religions can be broken down into four categories

Historical which means it started on its own
Judism, Hinduism, Buddhism

Reconstructionist, a religion failed and something had to happen to put it on track
Islam, Protestantism, lds, jw’s,

Fulfillment, a faith was incomplete and needed more
Catholism, orthodoxy

Indifference, all religions have good and it basically doesn’t matter
Baha’i, Unitarian

Any thoughts

 

[meltzerboy]

In general, beware of all classifications: they tend to dissolve upon further examination, and are often the product of some motivation, if only that of creating more order, on the part of the person who formulated the classification.

 

[Tomdstone]

In general, beware of all classifications: they tend to dissolve upon further examination, and are often the product of some motivation, if only that of creating more order, on the part of the person who formulated the classification.

Yes. These categories can be disputed.

 

[Adamski]

In general, beware of all classifications: they tend to dissolve upon further examination, and are often the product of some motivation, if only that of creating more order, on the part of the person who formulated the classification.

To create order is that bad, my brain is very compartment oriented

 

[meltzerboy]

To create order is that bad, my brain is very compartment oriented

I suppose you meant to say “to create order is NOT that bad.” Yes, I agree for the most part, but we should also be attentive to our need to do this and potential pitfalls. Most people’s brains are compartment-oriented since it gives us a sense of order, meaning, and purpose in an otherwise chaotic world. Actually, I like your categorization but there is probably some overlapping as well. For example, neither Judaism, Hinduism, nor Buddhism make claims that their religion is the only way, and I’m fairly convinced that many Protestants believe their religion is the way Christianity was originally practiced, at least in spirit, by the earliest Christians before Church doctrine was codified. IOW, theirs is regarded as a faith of return to the basics rather than solely a protestation of Catholic beliefs and practices.

 

[Digitonomy]

To create order is that bad, my brain is very compartment oriented

On the contrary, I think it is very good. It’s even better to be able to see the flaws in the system, the examples which only barely fit into one of the categories. Or to be able to create a completely different system of order, and compare and contrast it to the first.

The biggest flaw I see in your plan is the historical category. Very few religions started completely from scratch. There is usually evidence of borrowing from other less-well known religions that may have preceded them. And I think that some of the other religions that you cite might claim they are better-classified in your historical category. LDS, for instance, may be in part a correction of Anglicanism or other prevailing Protestant denominations. But it also claims to be a continuation of the faith established when Jesus appeared in the Americas.

Islam may make use of some scriptural stories from Judaism and Christianity, but I don’t think it sees itself as a corrected form of these.

I also think classifying all Protestant groups in the Reconstructionist category is problematic.

 

[Rhubarb]

I don’t know how these categories are helpful. If they are, the list seems incomplete.

Buddhism arose out of Hinduism. Judaism and Hinduism both have precursors according to historical and archaeological findings. There’s the influence of Zoroastrianism that should be taken into account and also it’s not on the list and Mithrism too. And then there are the just as ancient culture religions - Shintoism and other Animism-based religions, native religions, etc.

 

[Mystophilus]

I think all religions can be broken down into four categories

Historical which means it started on its own
Judism, Hinduism, Buddhism

Historically, Buddhism developed out of a Hindu world. What Judaism and Hinduism developed from is (and probably will always be a matter of debate.

Reconstructionist, a religion failed and something had to happen to put it on track
Islam, Protestantism, lds, jws

This list seems most fair of the four.

Fulfillment, a faith was incomplete and needed more
Catholism, orthodoxy

I very much doubt that the Orthodox would agree that their faith has *added *anything, and Catholicism tends not to represent itself that way either, generally claiming to be the ‘correct’ version of Christianity rather than Christianity+X.

However, does your categorizing them help you, or others, to understand these faiths and their adherents better? Does it have a purpose beyond putting complex things into simple boxes? While I appreciate the personal value of doing that when dealing with huge pieces of information, a lot of detail tends to be lost by the act of cramming the object into the container, and we end up with a confident but inaccurate view.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Adamski;12826981:

Fulfillment, a faith was incomplete and needed more

Catholism, Orthodoxy

I very much doubt that the Orthodox would agree that their faith has *added *anything, and Catholicism tends not to represent itself that way either, generally claiming to be the ‘correct’ version of Christianity rather than Christianity+X.

I think Adamski was implying that the two are more akin to Judaism+X.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

I think all religions can be broken down into four categories

Historical which means it started on its own
Judism, Hinduism, Buddhism

Reconstructionist, a religion failed and something had to happen to put it on track
Islam, Protestantism, lds, jw’s,

Fulfillment, a faith was incomplete and needed more
Catholism, orthodoxy

Indifference, all religions have good and it basically doesn’t matter
Baha’i, Unitarian

Any thoughts

It seems you’ve categorized these based on fullness of revelation (although I disagree with the assumption that Islam is “reconstructionist”).

Personally I would rather classify religions the “traditional” way (i.e. Primitive, Abrahamic, Eastern, Dharmic, etc.)

 

[StrawberryJam]

In general, beware of all classifications: they tend to dissolve upon further examination, and are often the product of some motivation, if only that of creating more order, on the part of the person who formulated the classification.

You are like a room without a roof. I love it.

 

[arthra]

I think all religions can be broken down into four categories

Historical which means it started on its own
Judism, Hinduism, Buddhism

Reconstructionist, a religion failed and something had to happen to put it on track
Islam, Protestantism, lds, jw’s,

Fulfillment, a faith was incomplete and needed more
Catholism, orthodoxy

Indifference, all religions have good and it basically doesn’t matter
Baha’i, Unitarian

Any thoughts

My view is that most all religions are historically based and unless you have a historical and social perspective you won’t truly understand them…

Restoring the spiritual values of the earlier revelation are what later revelations are about…

Fulfillment of prophecies are also about the early references in the incipient stages of religions…

It does matter that religions have spiritual qualities and challenge people to raise their standards.

 

[Mystophilus]

I think Adamski was implying that the two are more akin to Judaism+X.

Oh, okay: that places them in the same category as Buddhism (Hinduism + a new revelation) and Mormonism (Christianity + a new revelation), and it raises the interesting issue of various forms of Protestantism being (Catholicism - traditionalism).