Religion - Sacrosanct or Debateable?

[Sukerkin]

I have started this new thread to avoid derailment of this thread http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77103 in which i wanted to reply to this point of view:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1179202&postcount=14


This is the part to which I particularly wanted to speak:

Please continue on with your Christian bashing. It is to be expected and would be disappointing if it didn’t predictably show up.

Everything you wrote was excellent and praiseworthy other than this last bit.

We've talked about this facet of the 'faithful' before in one form or another here at MT (both we two in the specific and the membership in general).

Altho' it is easy for someone who chose his path long ago not to see as 'bashing' what some who do cleave to religion feel to be so, that does not mean that I, individually would be needlessly insensitive to offense given. Of course, that does not mean that I have not given offense to someones faith and neither does it mean that I have not been offended by someone using their faith as a platform from which to make a judgement (as is their right). We are all human and seem boundlessly able to give and take offense either deliberately or accidently.

There is an inevitable "However" to this. Two of them in one in fact.

The primary aspect is just simply not taking every critical statement of Christianity, it's present form or past actions, as 'bashing'. It's either a valid critique or it isn't but protesting that it is 'bashing' is not an acceptable response. What is needed is needed is a cogent answer or rationale of the point in question - it doesn't necessarily have to draw on the holy book, as common sense is perfectly fine. Now those that do not share the faith may not regard that answer as a valid one but all that matters (in the end) is that it satisfies yourself.

The secondary aspect is less 'personal' and more theological. A religion with the long roots that Christianity has must perforce be a fairly vigorous 'plant' (maybe not so much now in Europe but certainly it was in the past). That is vital for any faith, for if it wilts in the harsh light of criticism then it would not survive. To my agnostic and somewhat logical mind, a religion, almost above all other things, must be faced with tough questions because of the claims it makes and what it expects of it's adherents. If it cannot answer those questions satisfactorily, then it will (and should) pass into history.

One thing is sure - it should not be considered above question or beyond reproach for the actions of those that follow it.

 

[girlbug2]

Absolutely, we should have pretty thick skins by now.

I see my "job" as a christian is to hopefully inspire other people to want to seek a relationship with God. Lately, a spiritual performance review would probably pass on my, ahem, "raise", but in any case, it's not necessarily to argue endlessly about being right. It is necessary to be secure in my own beliefs and my reasons for them. When quesitoned about those reasons, a believer should have no trouble responding without anger or assuming that he/she's being persecuted right off.

Presumably, those principles should work for any faith.

Having said that, there are bona fide cases of religious persecution against christians, but open discussion is not one of them.

 

[Archangel M]

Although the Crusades and what not like to be trotted out as proof of Christianity's failings....its the churches stance on abortion and gay marriage that are the real "problem" for people IMO.

The "kill the non-believers" dogma left Christianity years ago while many of the other religions who still embrace it seem to get a pass. Or at least the spotlight gets swept onto another issue...typically a Christian one.

Im all for fair debate...the switch the topic from Islam to Christianity tactic that seems to be common gets tiring personally. If the thread is specifically debating Christian issues I rarely see anybody complaining.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, I have seen that, I agree - the 'target shift' to Christianity when something criticising Islamic actions has been posted is not a particularly laudible method of argumentation.

I will be the first to admit that I've done that myself before now - I may do it with the best of intentions because I think someone is being pogromic {made up word :lol:} rather than rational but I have done it and I can see how that would irritate after a while.

I try to look at it as I do about the history of my own country. We have done some pretty awful things in our past and I have had several posters here (let alone elsewhere) trot out the "How can you say that when the English did this, that or the other in the C16th?!" line. What they say is true and it may even be relevant to the discussion and I acknowledge it as such. However, I also try to get them to see that just because what they said is true it does not invalidate the veracity of what I said.

 

[Andrew Green]

Although the Crusades and what not like to be trotted out as proof of Christianity's failings....its the churches stance on abortion and gay marriage that are the real "problem" for people IMO.

No, those are two popular ones, but not the only issues.

- Condoms in countries with high rates of HIV / AIDS
- Trying to pass religion off as science
- A former US president claiming God told him to go to war
- The fact that a non-Christian has very little chance in politics, and the good chance that many politicians are forced to "play the part" to get anywhere.
- Applying one set of standards to Christianity and another too other religions

Lots of things people don't like about Christian beliefs. Of course very little covers all denominations of Christianity.

The "kill the non-believers" dogma left Christianity years ago while many of the other religions who still embrace it seem to get a pass. Or at least the spotlight gets swept onto another issue...typically a Christian one.

For most people, not all. Fred Phelps, Jesus Camp, abortion shooters, more then enough people that think muslims are evil. Extremists exist in Christianity as well.

Of course most Christians don't buy into that, and when it is brought up the response is "I am Christian, I don't buy that, they aren't 'really' Christian."

But that goes for Islam too, if all muslims where extremists the world would be in big trouble right now.

Im all for fair debate...the switch the topic from Islam to Christianity tactic that seems to be common gets tiring personally. If the thread is specifically debating Christian issues I rarely see anybody complaining.

I don't think that is what it really is. I think it is a claim that the problem is not Islam, but religion. Christians are usually the ones saying it is Islam, so it probably "feels" like it is switching to an attack on Christianity, but it isn't.

Islam and Christianity, when looked at objectively from a outside perspective, are really quite similar. Both are very old, with lots of history and lots of followers. They both have religious texts which say a lot of good things, and a lot of bad things and are open to a lot of interpretation. Different groups interpret the religions differently and some become extremists and are quite dangerous. Most however are peaceful people not looking to force their views on others.

But I don't think you could find many problems in either that does not exist in the other. The histories of the two might vary a little, and the current state of their believers might. But at the core, they are fairly similar and share a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Archangel M]

Heres is the official stance of the Vatican on Christian Fundamentalism, Religious Tolerance, Religious Violence and "responsibility for the Crusades"...

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2007/03/levada-i-am-not-responsible-for.html

Any official statements from Islamic leadership explicitly condemning religious violence and terrorism?

 

[elder999]

Any official statements from Islamic leadership explicitly condemning religious violence and terrorism?

Yep. No less than the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ("he's like the Pope!" :lfao has done so repeatedly, as well as numerous other personages and organizations.

 

[Andrew Green]

Heres is the official stance of the Vatican on Christian Fundamentalism, Religious Tolerance, Religious Violence and "responsibility for the Crusades"...

Well, for one the Pope does not speak for all Christians. Most Christian leaders will speak out against violence and urge followers to seek peace, same with Islam.

Of course that sort of thing isn't going to make the news as often as the leader of a extremist group issuing threats.

 

[blindsage]

I think the 'real' problem for people is the seeming hypocrisy of many religious people. If people question Christians about the misogeny taught in some churches, or the racism taught in some churches, most Christians react with something like 'Well their not following the Bible correctly'. If people asks about the history of Christianity and it's support of murder, pillage, rape, genocide, slavery, etc., Christians react with something like 'Yeah, but that was in the past what to we do wrong now?' Yet, they don't use these same caveats with their judgement of other religious groups, especially Islam.

I also think many Muslims are ignorant of other religions, as well as their own. I have been in situations and discussions where I have called Muslims friends on their BS and hypocrisy. There are things I definitely disagree with in the practice of Islam.

But the issue on here is that most of the active religious people are Christians. Many of them state extreme statements of bigotry against Islam that are based on slim actual facts. This is why there are often critical statements directed their way. There is some bigotry against Christians, by some of the atheists on here, but that's against religion in general and Christians just happen to be the majority.

I'm not into bashing Christians, but I'm also not into bashing Muslims, or atheists. I think sometimes religious people just need to have a thicker skin. If you can't take criticism or dissent from your beliefs, then maybe your faith isn't that strong to begin with.

 

[Archangel M]

Well, for one the Pope does not speak for all Christians.

True..but he speaks for mine. Can I officially be "off the hook" for what all the rest do? Im willing to bet that Roman Catholics are a minuscule proportion of violent anti-abortion activists.

I know that Sufis are amongst the most peaceful of religions and are Islamic...they are "off the hook" as far as I am concerned too. The rest I plead ignorance of. Ill decide when i see their official stance and behavior.

 

[blindsage]

Heres is the official stance of the Vatican on Christian Fundamentalism, Religious Tolerance, Religious Violence and "responsibility for the Crusades"...

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2007/03/levada-i-am-not-responsible-for.html

Any official statements from Islamic leadership explicitly condemning religious violence and terrorism?

Have you looked for any? Or do you assume because you haven't heard any they must not exist.

And there is no equivalent to the Pope in Islam.

 

[Sukerkin]

Gently, good people, gently.

I know full well that this is potentially a powder keg issue and on most sites on the web I wouldn't even bother trying to talk about it. However, regardless of how exasperated I may sound at times, I am ever impressed with the intelligence and forbearance shown by the members here.

The ability to carry an argument in a bucket is rarer than you might think and I reckon we get a bit 'spoiled' here sometimes because we are used to people being able to do just that .

I'm hoping we can not allow ourselves to pick faults exclusively with faiths that are 'counter' to our own but rather look at how religions can be questioned without being attacked and what it says about ourselves when we talk on the subject.

For example, I have softly been taken to task 'behind closed doors' for using such phrasing as "Mythical Invisble Sky God" in certain threads.

Now, that says, to me, pretty clearly that I have increasingly come to believe that there is no God and that all the religions in the world today (other than maybe Buddhism) draw from an ancient superstitious belief in elemental powers greater than man can control, requiring an anthropomorphic 'God' to make them safe.

To others, tho', as was pointed out to me, it is a very rude way of making a point and actually makes a mockery of the sincere faith of others. So ... I have stopped using that terminoloogy (sometimes I may slip and people are free to tell me so when I do).

This does not mean that my views have changed but it does mean that I have realised that my 'manners' have sometimes been less than exemplary when touching on a subject that means a great deal to a great many. After all, I have to hold myself to the same standards as I expect from others and if in questioning the validity of a religion I am, from the outset, essentially telling someone "What you believe is a pile of crap!" how can I possibly expect a reasonable answer?

 

[Archangel M]

You should read some CS Lewis for some better examples of how an "educated" Christian can hold a belief in "God".

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, it's been a good long while since I read any CS Lewis. Another one for the 'queue' .

 

[Joab]

I agree. honest, inquiring questions are fair game. "Bashing" is more of an ad hominem attack on your faith primarily based on angry, emotional reactions rather than rationally critiquing a religion. If Christianity is the truth that it most certainly claims to be, it should not be afraid of honest inquiry regarding these claims. "Bashing" and answering bashing is a waste of time.

 

[Archangel M]

You see...even here..the thread is "RELIGION-Sacrosanct or Debatable"...Not CHRISTIANITY. But somehow thats whats its turning into and an example of what Christians see as a problem.


PS-Perhaps my understanding of Sufism is a bit shallow.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/25/mystical_power/?page=1

But thats yet another thread.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I find that it is very easy for me as a Christian to understand that when a person professing Christianity commits a crime in the name of Christianity, it is not 'Christianity' committing the crime, it is the man himself.

I see that it is difficult for all of us, myself included, to take that same understanding and transport it to those of other religions, most notably, Islam.

When a professing Muslim commits a crime in the name of Islam, many Christians and Jews find it very easy to believe that Islam is committing the crime, that the crime was endorsed or encouraged by Muslims, that the religion and not the man is responsible for the crime.

So often, I read comments that say things like "If they (use any religion you like, but these days it is mostly Muslims) are against terrorism, why don't they stand up and say so?" Or, "Why don't they turn the terrorists in?" All one has to do it turn the argument around and use it on oneself, and the fallacy becomes clear. As a Christian, I would have a difficult time accepting the criticism "Why don't you turn in abortion doctor killers, if you're really against it?" Obviously, I don't know any abortion doctor killers. "Why don't you stand up against abortion doctor killers?" Well, I do. What demonstration would be acceptable to you?

So I can full well grasp that the typical, run-of-the-mill Muslim, especially those living in Western nations and enjoying the fruits of capitalism and hard work and success, have little in common with Muslims who want to kill me (or their fellow, less-glassy-eyed, Muslims). The don't 'turn in' their fellow Muslims who are terrorists because they don't know any. They do take a stand against terrorism, but that doesn't make any more news than when I do it.

When I've presented this argument in the past, the usual response I get from those who believe all Muslims are evil consists of "Yeah, but they ARE evil. Don't you get that?" No, actually, I don't. With 1.3 billion Muslims on the planet, I suspect if they all wanted to kill all the Christians, we'd have a lot more killing going on.

Long story short - we understand our own religion and we know what is and what is not a 'demand' of our religion, so we know our own faith does not demand terrorism or murder, and we reject those of our number who commit such crimes. We don't understand other religions (even though some of us think we do) and so we do not apply the same standards to them as we apply to ourselves.

 

[Empty Hands]

There are no (should not be) sacrosanct ideas. Religion is just another idea humans have had that has had both positive and negative consequences. Like capitalism, or empiricism. Thus, it should be able to stand or fall on it's own merits or lack thereof.

Yet that is not what we see. Adherents of religion want to set aside their special idea as "sacrosanct" and immune from criticism, as it is their "sincere belief." This is nonsense. If your idea is such a great one, it should be able to stand the criticism. Transport this sort of thinking into another realm, like scientific theories or political opinions, and it becomes as transparently ridiculous as it is.

Of course, religionists are not the only ones arguing that their special belief should be immune from criticism. Practically all enthusiastic devotees of a particular belief say the same thing. Unlike believers in UFOs or reiki or kenpo or whatever else however, religionists have been extraordinarily successful in setting aside their beliefs from mainstream criticism. Perhaps if more rational criticism was made of religion, we would start to see the shaky rational underpinnings behind them, and start to disbelieve - thus blunting the harmful effects. Not very likely, I know.

 

[arnisador]

Although the Crusades and what not like to be trotted out as proof of Christianity's failings....its the churches stance on abortion and gay marriage that are the real "problem" for people IMO.

Those, and a number of other things, such as the many anti-evolution and young-Earth Christians attacking science and the teaching of it in the schools, and the rabid pro-war fervor of enthusiastically Christian politicians. By the way, let me assure you that here in the Midwest the issue of Christian bigotry against the non-religious wasn't funny to us as parents when our child was harassed at school for not going to church. How often is an atheist elected to govt.? Nowhere near what you'd predict from the percentage of the population they represent. That's bigotry too.

The "kill the non-believers" dogma left Christianity years ago while many of the other religions who still embrace it seem to get a pass.

Yes, but mainstream Christianity still supports the torture of the non-believers in hell. If one believes that hell is real, how big of a difference is that in that person's mind? Would you rather be killed once or tortured for eternity?

Aye, I have seen that, I agree - the 'target shift' to Christianity when something criticising Islamic actions has been posted is not a particularly laudible method of argumentation.

I think the point is that it's usually hypocritical to shift the argument to Islam's failings (as though Christianity lacked the same), and that the differences between the Abrahamic religions are like the differences between two styles of Karate--huge if you're a karateka, almost imperceptible if you're a capoeria player. Which of these religions believes that their God flooded a whole planet, killing essentially every human on it? Oh yeah...both of them.

I try to look at it as I do about the history of my own country. We have done some pretty awful things in our past and I have had several posters here (let alone elsewhere) trot out the "How can you say that when the English did this, that or the other in the C16th?!" line. What they say is true and it may even be relevant to the discussion and I acknowledge it as such. However, I also try to get them to see that just because what they said is true it does not invalidate the veracity of what I said.

Well, Christianity (in many of its forms) has claimed to be always right and timelessly so--the Bible is the word of God, as good now as it was 2000 years ago. So, holding Christianity responsible for its past actions is not quite the same as charging you, Sukerkin, with the death of Anne Boleyn.

A Christian has also elected to join an organization that has such a checkered past. The same is true to an extent of one's country, but leaving it is often financially difficult...and other options aren't always better. I say, join the Peace Corps instead. They have a pretty solid record of helping people.

Of course very little covers all denominations of Christianity.

Absolutely. Some groups have pared away much of the violence and hatred.

Of course most Christians don't buy into that, and when it is brought up the response is "I am Christian, I don't buy that, they aren't 'really' Christian."

Ah yes, the "no true Scotsmen" fallacy.

But that goes for Islam too, if all muslims where extremists the world would be in big trouble right now.

Being in academics, I've known many Muslims. I had three Saudis in my class this past quarter, and four others a previous quarter. Nice people.

I think it is a claim that the problem is not Islam, but religion. Christians are usually the ones saying it is Islam, so it probably "feels" like it is switching to an attack on Christianity, but it isn't.

I agree. Irrationality is the heart of the matter.

Islam and Christianity, when looked at objectively from a outside perspective, are really quite similar.
[...]
But I don't think you could find many problems in either that does not exist in the other. The histories of the two might vary a little, and the current state of their believers might. But at the core, they are fairly similar and share a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses.

Yup. I'll give the Muslims this: They take their religion seriously. Like the Jews, a great many learn to read their holy book in its original language...so they can really read it. That's dedication.

 

[Sukerkin]

That is somewhat in line with my thoughts, EH, in that any idea, however wonderful it sounds or what it promises, has to be able to withstand the rigour of coherent argument.

What is co-resident with that is that any 'idea' or 'belief system' likewise has the inherent 'right' not to be slandered or outright belittled whilst enduring such questioning.

Admittedly, when it comes to religion, this is difficult because we are dealing with an inherently unprovable tenet and it is hard, when approaching from a rationalist or scientific perspective, not to behave in a fashion deleterious to polite debate.

I think that it is, however, counterproductive to do so for the very simple reason that it stiffles debate and without debate no idea or mode of thinking ever modifies. Thirty odd years of arguing religion with my father has taught me this - it could be said that it is a failed paradigm because I have not convinced him of my views but I maintain the fact that we can incessantly disagree on such an issue and still love each other is a victory .