Religion - Sacrosanct or Debateable?

[Archangel M]

Religious history and political history (and our burden of blame for either) are extremely similar. Epically seeing how intertwined they are. I have as much burden of guilt for the Crusades as Suk does for Anne Boleyn...zero.

 

[Empty Hands]

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.

While I personally would not do so, I'm not sure there is such an inherent right to ideas. No one gets bent out of shape when UFO believing conspiracy theorists are derided as tinfoil hat wearing crazies. No one (except the Scientologists) gets too upset when Scientologists are characterized as couch jumping lunatics. Put a cross in a jar of piss though, and the world comes down on your head. Clearly, the only right not to be slandered that anyone puts to ideas is the right not to have their own ox gored. Not exactly noble.

For my part, I think some ideas are so ridiculous they deserve mockery. Some religions fit that test for me. While again I wouldn't personally do it, I don't see why it's OK to belittle astrology or Von Daniken and not Catholicism or Islam.

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.

That presupposes the impoliteness only comes from one side! Simply questioning someone's chosen religion, in any form no matter how polite, is enough to earn harassment and even violence in some parts of this country. Also, some religionists consider any questioning of their religion as ipso facto impolite and horrible of you.

...I maintain the fact that we can incessantly disagree on such an issue and still love each other is a victory .

Good on you, mate. I'll raise a glass to the Invisible Spaghetti Monster in your honor. Strippers and beer volcanos for all!

 

[Sukerkin]

It wasn't me ... I wasn't there! Anne who ?

I can see both sides of the coin on this.

As Angel says, what was done in the name of the Church centuries past is not a burden that he should have to carry for his faith now.

I can also see Arni's point that because the Church lays claim to infallability and immutability, then the Church then 'is as' the Church now and guilt for past actions cannot be transmogrified into 'the sins of the father'.

For myself, I have to say that when it comes to the individual person, I would not feel at comfortable tarring them with a brush that said that by their faith they were condoning the massacre of innocents.

The leadership of a church is a different matter but at the level of a single religious minded person I'm not going to hold them responsible for the murder of Christ, turning a blind eye to the Holocaust or terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Centre.

 

[Archangel M]

I wonder if the "Christians still bear the blame..." lens focuses as clearly on other faiths?

It seems that the Turk invasions should be seen in the same focus as the Crusades IMO....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I can also see Arni's point that because the Church lays claim to infallability and immutability, then the Church then 'is as' the Church now and guilt for past actions cannot be transmogrified into 'the sins of the father'.

The Catholic Church does not lay claim to infallibility or immutability if that is what you mean. The Church makes mistakes, and also corrects mistakes and apologizes, dogma changes. Change comes very slowly, that's for sure.

Some insist that the Pope lays claim to infallibility, but that is not correct either. The Pope is infallible in only one sense - when he speaks 'ex cathedra', which actually implies that he is only the vessel that God is speaking through at the time. It has only been used twice in the history of the Catholic Church. Once when the 'Virgin Birth' was proclaimed, and once again when the 'Assumption of Mary' was declared to be a binding article of faith for Catholics. Twice in the entire history of the Church does not make the Church an icon of infallibility.

 

[arnisador]

I wonder if the "Christians still bear the blame..." lens focuses as clearly on other faiths?

If they claim that their teachings were the inerrant word of God(s), sure. If not, then not so much. Buddhists are trying to improve themselves, right?

I don't hold anyone accountable for what others did before their time, but on the other hand, there are groups I wouldn't join based on their unsavoury connections and past.

 

[Empty Hands]

The Catholic Church does not lay claim to infallibility or immutability if that is what you mean.

Besides the ex cathedra teachings, the findings of ecumenical councils and the teachings of the sacred Magisterium are also considered infallible.

Twice in the entire history of the Church does not make the Church an icon of infallibility.

Ex cathedra infallibility was only defined in 1870, while the tradition dates farther back. Thus, other documents have been considered infallible teachings, including the condemnation of the Jansenist heresy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Besides the ex cathedra teachings, the findings of ecumenical councils and the teachings of the sacred Magisterium are also considered infallible.



Ex cathedra infallibility was only defined in 1870, while the tradition dates farther back. Thus, other documents have been considered infallible teachings, including the condemnation of the Jansenist heresy.

Good to know. I still think we can say that the Catholic Church does not consider itself infallible, yes?

 

[Empty Hands]

Good to know. I still think we can say that the Catholic Church does not consider itself infallible, yes?

Sure, for the most part, I just like adding to the knowledge for its own sake. I found it interesting.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sure, for the most part, I just like adding to the knowledge for its own sake. I found it interesting.

Me too, thanks!

 

[celtic_crippler]

It's not just Christians that become hyper-defensive when faced with a tid-bit that perhaps contradicts a belief.

For example, I have become defensive when my skills as a martial artist were questioned in the past because of my lineage.

It's a knee-jerk reaction to automatically go on the defense as well as into denial when you believe in something so deeply especially when it's tied into personal beliefs; it's only human.

The only tool we all have, regardless of beliefs or opinions, is the use of logic and reason. Unfortuneately, we are very emotional creatures and that often over-rides our ability to be rational about something we passionately believe in.

It takes an extreme strength to be able to question one's beliefs, in regards to anything really, and be open to admit that those beliefs may not be entirely correct. Not to many people are capable of that especially when the beliefs in question are deeply rooted in one's culture, family, and/or upbringing.

 

[JDenver]

My only serious problem with people of faith is how little of their own sacred texts, rituals, and religion some care to understand.

Ask many Christians how astrology and numerology were critical pieces in early Christian story formation and you'll have eyes glazing over. In early Christian history the secrets of the Bible were coded into the symbols, numbers and imagery in the stories. These secrets were passed down orally from master to student. There are many wonderful, fulfilling ideas in Christianity, now taught in the most bizarre, culturally ignorant ways, almost as if the pieces were written 10 years ago in Atlanta and not 1,900 years ago in the Middle East.

Be Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist, but do yourself a favour and understand the real spiritual nature of your religion.

 

[Joab]

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.

Your right, I should have written "religion" not "Christianity", my apologies.

 

[Brian King]

Sukerkin, my apologies sir for my delay in responding to your thread and post. A very good class that went long then dinner (Buffalo and beans) and after giving your post some thought am just now getting to the thread and post number 1. You write well and thoughtfully and I wanted to answer in kind at least to the best of my ability.


Religion - Sacrosanct or Debateable?
The issue of course is not in my opinion Surkerkin that discussing Christianity is off limits, the issue is that people constantly lump all religions together. Discussions about individual religions can be productive and informational. The issue in my opinion is that some cannot or will not differentiate between the different religions. There are some that will willfully lump all religions together ignoring the obvious differences forcing the discussion to defend the lowest denominator. Others are unwilling or unable to judge the differences in religions so must lump all together. The lumping all religions together makes discussions impossible or nearly so. Imagine Sukerkin that we are having a discussion about Japanese sword work and I bring up a clip of some self taught back yard group and then made the statement that all practitioners of sword arts are immature live action role players. I wouldn’t say this as I can judge and differentiate between the styles and say that some are more worthwhile than others.

This lumping all religions together forces one to defend all religions when defending their own. It is impossible to do this well. Not all religions are equal and some have been proven failed. The lumping together is a way of framing the discussion into a no win battle for those wishing to defend their faith or to answer questions about the faith. It does not matter if this framing is done on purpose or from failure to differentiate, the result is the same. One has to defend failed religions to defend ones faith.

“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 thread in discussion Sukerkin was if you recall was a news story about a guy who is a Muslim convert who ambushed two unarmed army recruiters. The discussion could have gone in the direction of should recruiters be armed? The discussion could have gone in the direction of learning to recognize and deal with an ambush in your neighborhood, it could have gone in the direction of praise and memorial to the slain young man, it could have been a discussion about how to recognize when someone is going off the deep end. It could have gone in any of a number of directions but instead it took only one post for Christianity to be thrown out there and by the fifth post the bashing begins. This is only one thread but there are multiple threads where this is the standard operating procedure, start thread drift by combining all religions and then saying if one is bad all must be so. Please tell me again why Christianity has anything at all to do with that thread. It wasn’t a seminary student doing the shooting, nor a Franciscan Monk. The soldier killed or the one wounded may be Christian but that is not stated in the story. Rest assured Sukerkin “The primary aspect is just simply not taking every critical statement of Christianity, it's present form or past actions, as 'bashing'.“ I limit myself to responding to only one out of every ten or dozen offensive(ish) threads unless something goes beyond the pale. I do not have the time to discuss with those that approach subjects from wilfull ignorance or hostility. It is not my calling to enter those frays. Very few directly address my faith and I see no need to rush out defending other faiths many of which are indefensible in my opinion.

“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.”

I agree with this Sukerkin. I do not fear tough questions about my faith but wonder what my faith has to do with the Muslim convert that killed that soldier and wounded the other and what purpose is served by attacking my faith in that thread and so many others. Want to ask me tough questions give me a call or drop me a PM or email. It might take me awhile but I do eventually reply. Want to ask tough questions about my faith start a thread and perhaps I will join in. The constantly turning threads that should have nothing or little to do with Christianity into anti-Christian rants and bigotry is old, once every now and then fine, but over and over the trend continues.

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

Really Sukerkin? I wonder how many live up to those words? I did not read you commenting on the fact that the assassin was Muslim nor a recent convert? Easy to attack one faith but not the other for some is my opinion. Often those attacking Christians and Christianity get many thanks at the bottom of their posts, those pointing out Islam’s failures get ridiculed and pounded on. An exercise rewrite posts and everytime Christian or Chritianity was written change it to Islam and Muslim then reread the now changed post.

From my oft faulty memory-A bird has a nest, a fox has a den but I have no place to lay my head.

A Christians path is not easy, in fact it cannot be walked without the help and grace of the Lord. Once we commit to walk that path we are being observed and judged. Our families friends and associates see our actions everyday as do those that dislike us. For myself I recognize my personal benefit from these eyes and welcome questions about my faith and my actions. I confess my own many sins daily so do not consider myself above reproach or honest questions. I do not fear these things but I see no need to address questions that are purposely vague, insulting or have nothing to do with my own faith despite the obvious attempts to link my faith to whatever thread whatever subject.

“Originally Posted by Brian and quoted by Sukerkin
Please continue on with your Christian bashing. It is to be expected and would be disappointing if it didn’t predictably show up”

I hope that you noticed Sukerkin that my post only pointed out the thread drift and direction of that drift by calling my on topic comments thread drift. I did not ask that the bashing stop but in fact gave permission to please continue. It does not offend me but amuses me as it is so easily read for what it is and recognized repeated occurrences of the tactics. While amusing it does get old and so should be pointed out now and then
again.

Warmest regards Sukerkin
Brian King

Bash
5. vt criticize somebody or something harshly: to criticize somebody or something harshly and usually publicly
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Bashing
2. criticism: hostile comment directed at a specific person or group
3. U.K. Australia New Zealand excessive use: the exposure of something to repetitive or prolonged use
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

　
　
　

 

[Bruno@MT]

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 confess. It was me who brought up the Christianity angle in the aforementioned discussion.

I did this not to dump on Chrstianity itself, but to highlight the fact that religions are not good or bad, in general. They just 'are'. It's the people that believe in them that make the decision to use them for good or evil.

Christianity is in this case the best case study, because all major branches are based on the new testament. The new testament has remained unchanged for a very long time, while the face of Christianity did change significantly.

I used this observation not to say anything bad about current day christians, but to argue that it is not the Koran which is to blame for violence. The NT has been used (directly, or indirectly as the basis of faith) to justify extreme bloodshed. Islam itself is also not the real problem, because as we know, Christianity was also a bloodthirsty religion only a couple of hundred years ago. Today, this is no longer true, so neither the choice of holy writings or the faith itself is to blame.

The problem is the people themselves who use their religion to preach violence. The middle east has had a turbulent past, and is still in turmoil. Large segments of the population are poor, on the run, or have experienced traumatic events. These are fertile grounds for sowing hatred and channeling the desire for revenge. Their local faith is islam, so that is what is used as a moral justification to commit acts of violence.

 

[elder999]

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "religion."

If you're talking about history and facts, well, those are worth discussing, but, where we know them, they're hardly "debatable."

Example: "Jesus of Nazareth"

Fact: The place that came to be called "Nazareth," was, at the time of Jesus-a pious Hebrew-a nascent necropolis. Fact of the matter is, from about 30 BC-70 or 100 AD,odds are good, and archaelogical evidence supports the idea that not much of anybody lived there, especially pious Hebrews like Jesus, whose cleanliness code would have forbidden him from living in such a place. There is, in fact, no archaeological evidence of anyone living in Nazareth during the period in question. .If we read the pasages of the Bible that speak of "Jesus of Nazareth," in the original Greek, we find that they often say "Jesus the Nazarene. The appellation "of Nazareth" is probably the result of mistranslation hundreds of years ago. Nazarenes were a sect of particularly pious Hebrews, and Jesus was apparently believed to be one.

Belief: Today, though, some will insist that Jesus was from Nazareth, and Nazareth is a site of pilgrimage for Christians, with tours speculating on where Jesus walked and grew up.People believe that Jesus truly was "of Nazareth," that his mother, Mary grew up there as he later did.

Facts are discussable-and, in the case of my example, somewhat debatable. "of Nazareth" is probably the result of mistranslation-that much is debatable. Nazareth the place was a nascent necropolis during the time of the "historical Jesus," a place where no pious Hebrew would live-that much is not subject to much debate. it is a cold, hard fact.

Beliefs, on the other hand, are not subject to rational discussion. They are, regardless of their basis in fact or lack thereof, sacrosanct.Jesus lived in Nazareth;it's where he was from.

I've brought up more than a few warts of different religions in the last year, and I've always been careful to point out that, for myself,what a person chooses to believe doesn't matter. The best example I have of this is the "Mormon racism" thread, where I pointed out that while it was a fact that Mormons once had some racist beliefs that were part of their faith and practice, and the greater body of the church had moved on from those particular doctrines, that I think that if anyone wanted to continue to make those articles of their faith, it was their right to do so. People can "believe" whatever they want, and I always have to put that out there-somehow, though, it gets lost in the argument over facts, and history.

History, of course,can be another thing altogether. In another thread, I broached a subject of some sensitivity: the roots of Christianity and Judaism in sacrifice. A few people took real offense at that, not because of the facts, in the end, but because they felt it wasn't appropriate for discussion-which is putting it mildly, I suppose. The same often takes place around Judaism, Christianity and Islam: people will fixate on aspects of their history of violence and militancy throughout history to try to make a point-that point often gets lost in "Oh it's in the past, though, we've grown past that" or "Two wrongs don't make a right." or "You don't really understand the whole story of what happened there" instead of simply sticking with the facts at hand. People have certain ideas and experiences from their contacts with various religions-we all have a few ideas attached to words lke Muslim, radical Muslim,Jew, Orthodox Jew, Christian, Fundamentalist Christian, Evangelical Christian, cult (it's interesting, that word, I don't think most people know what it really means)-and the list goes on. People find offense, or try to make offense with parts of those terms :"fundie," for example. I, personally, don't necessarily have a problem with "fundamentalist" anything, including Islam and Christianity: the Amish after all, are pretty fundamentalist, and they seem to follow the 11th commandment pretty well too:Thou shalt mind thine own business

Over the years, I've had people I worked with say to me, with the utmost conviction and sincerity,things like : "Oh, you're not a Buddhist, are you?" (I'm not) "That Buddha will send you straight to hell!"

Now, aside from my not being a Buddhist, and generally amused by just about all religious folderol -including my own-wasn't that a somewhat rude thing to say? More to the point: I haven't gone into the rest of the conversation (and I won't), or mentioned the person's religion, but which particular faith do you suppose they were bent on selling me? Go ahead and guess-odds are good you're right. Such behavior is always going to be subject to discussion, though.

Anyway, what people believe-and belief is about choice-is always going to be sensitive. Facts that challenge those beliefs are always going to rattle cages-upset people, etc. The impression that individuals have of one particular faith or another, or their interpretation of facts, are always going to upset people. Twin Fist insists that Mohammad was a "child molester," among other things, and that Islam is a religion of violence. Of course, I doubt he knows many Muslims in his part of Texas, though he may have known a few of one sort or another in the Navy, so he's going by what he's read. In the end, he can believe what he wants to, as far as I'm concerned, but by saying it-by posting his beliefs here-he's opened up the debate. The same holds true for me on any of the various religious topics I've brought up over the years.

In any case, criticism of Christianity is "bashing," mostly because (I think) a lot of Christians in the U.S. rather enjoy the idea of being persecuted, and because so much of their faith has become tied up in U.S. politics-leaving them open to "bashing" that is to say, argument from people who don't agree with them, and don't always express themselves well. We don't ever hear of "Islam bashing" because that's okay-protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, criticism of Islam has taken place in the media on an almost weekly basis since 9/11-that the government of a country that professes "religious freedom for all" has been careful not to color our near-decade long wars as "wars against Islam" is, under the circumstances, prudent, especially with a large segment of the populace ready to do just that. Somehow, though, that translates to some sort of injunction against criticizing Islam, when, in fact, it takes place all the time.

Frankly, I dunno, the subject can be kind of tiresome, even if I do find it fascinating. All the discussion in the world very often doesn't change anyone's mind about what they believe, and someone is always going to take offense. The whole "target shift" to Chrisitainity thing gets called deflection, when, in fact, calling it that is a deflection in itself: all of the three Abrahamic traditions are soaked in the blood of non-believers,some more recently than others, and that's a fact.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I saw Christopher Hitchens speak last night at the Royal Ontario Museum, fantastic lecture, with amazing insight. Even got a signed copy of “God is not great: How Religion poisons everything”. Just looking through the posts on this thread, he may very well be correct in the title alone.

Regardless of how badly I wish to give my point of view regarding the discussion, I’d better stay out of this one….

 

[Andrew Green]

Christianity is off limits, the issue is that people constantly lump all religions together.

Religions can be grouped, like martial arts styles. As was mentioned above the differences between the 3 Abrahamic religions are quite minor, like different branches of Karate. Christianity is very similar to Islam, there are differences, but the "big" pieces are all pretty much the same.

They are quite different from Buhhdism, Wicca, and a bunch of others.

But you have a all powerful God who rewards those that follow his commands and punishes those that don't. He forbids belief in other Gods and has acted quite merciliessly in the mythology towards those that defied him (ex. flooding the world). He has commanded that his followers spread the word and try to convert others. Those that don't believe in him are seen as "lesser" beings then those that do in the texts, being condemned to suffering after death for their failure. Both are open to wide interpretation and extremist interpretations.

Put yourself in a outside perspective, can you not see how from the outside Christianity and Islam, the two largest Abrahamic traditions, look very similar? They are different interpretations of the same God. If someone doesn't believe that God exists it is quite easy to dismiss one when you dismiss the other.

 

[CoryKS]

Religion? Sacrosanct. Religion as a basis for legislation? Highly debateable.

Live your life according to any belief you want, and I won't point and laugh. But if you try to encode your beliefs in laws that I must abide by, and you offer no more compelling reason than that your religion, which I don't subscribe to, demands it... well, then it's game on.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Religion? Sacrosanct. Religion as a basis for legislation? Highly debateable.

Live your life according to any belief you want, and I won't point and laugh. But if you try to encode your beliefs in laws that I must abide by, and you offer no more compelling reason than that your religion, which I don't subscribe to, demands it... well, then it's game on.

In general terms, I agree with you.

But consider also that Western society is tied at the roots to previous governments and cultures and societies that all had a Judeo-Christian background. So the laws we have now - many of them were descended from basic moral concepts and even 'religious laws' promulgated in ages past.

Some may well be worth discarding now - like blue laws that forbid alcohol sales on Sundays. Others, like perhaps murder - well, those laws were taken from religious laws, and even so, perhaps they should remain laws.

I agree that religion has no place in secular government - now. But I think we would have a hard time trying to disentangle the religious backgrounds of modern-day laws, morals, and practices. It's just all in the mix.