Religion - Sacrosanct or Debateable?

[celtic_crippler]

I don't say oh he did that because he's XXX religion.

Hmmm...that sounds like a religeon I could get in to. :moon: :whip1:

 

[Rich Parsons]

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:



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.

Debateable.

For those who it is not, then there is no point in discussion with them as they will only be happy with others who agree with them.

I have had some great discussions with Priests and Reverends of the Christian faith, and they understand my questions and understand my points as I usually understand their points. But, many of their followers of locals do not understand me nor do they care too. But, those educated clergy who understand philosophy and doctrine are able to discuss it. It does not threaten their faith to have others disagree or question.

I respect that action and them. And usually they respect me as well.

 

[cdunn]

Oh good lord. I apparently am unable to communicate today. Forgive me.

One more time.

I know the origin of law systems. That's not my point, so I don't care.

My point was ONLY that Western societies such as the USA take their system of laws from their forbears, which in the West were largely religiously-based. Therefore, US law (for example) is not strictly secular but has religious roots.

I don't care if it's Judeo-Christian Q-Continuum Dance of the Blue Mongrel religion, I'm trying to point out that the basis for our system of secular laws is religious.

It gets confusing, because much of it was, indeed, handed down through the religious institutions. But even as many secular laws have religious roots, those same religious laws have secular roots. For example, kosher is all about not getting sick and dying from food posioning when you live in the desert. The point I was trying to make, though, really, is that the roots are so wide spread that it's nigh-meaningless to distinguish the source of the idea.

 

[CanuckMA]

kosher is all about not getting sick and dying from food posioning when you live in the desert.

Actually, kashrut is about G-d telling us what we could eat and what we could not. It's also about a whole lot more than that. Beef is kosher, but only if slaughter is certain way. Dairy is kosher, but not when mixed with meat, etc.

 

[thardey]

Late to the thread, but a good one, so I figured I'd jump in.

As far as being sacrosainct, there's a human nature element that's been alluded to, and it's one that particularly presses my "hot button." It's common to all people involved in religion I've met and discussed with, and while it bothers 99% of them as much as it does me, it is still so very tempting to do unto others, which causes a massive amount of hypocrasy and hurt feelings, and in general, a lack of communication.

It is simply when someone else tells me what I believe.

I hate it. It makes my blood boil. Especially when those who have educated me on what I "really believe" then use that straw man to demolish my "foolish" beliefs that I never knew I held anyway.

In all fairness, often these straw man arguments originate from something a leader in whatever religioun has said, so in not defending the leaders of my religion, am I excercising "blind faith" or am I simply saying "Ask them! I can't answer for them!" I can only answer for myself.

All I can defend are my own beliefs. That is not the same as the "No true Scotsman Fallacy" because while another person may identify with Christianity, if his actions are not acceptable to me, then I will not try to justify them, simply because this other person has made a claim to be associated with me.

The "Church" is not immutable, or unchangeable, or infallible, even if certain people claim it is. I don't follow "The Church" although I am involved with it. I follow my own beliefs, though sometimes my actions prove to me that my beliefs are not necessarily what I thought they should be. Within that, "Christianity" should (my personal belief) be based on the Bible. But even there, I know in in my own life, at different times, and in different situations, I have read and interpreted the same passages of the Bible in radically, sometimes even opposite ways. If I can give myself permission to interpret the Bible differently in my own life, I have to give that same permission to others, even if it means I disagree with them.

So, if you want to have at the "Church of Christianity" have at it, but remember that the "Church" is made up of many individuals like me, and that in testing and prodding it, that there is a difference between the singular, (though vary vague) concept of the "Church" and the millions of different opinions and beliefs that merge together to create the Church.

Another personal note here, is that while faith can, and should be tested, faith is based on hope (Hebrews 11:1) and often hope is a visceral, deep-seated belief, that carries a lot of emotional influence. Attacking someone's hope is simply a losing battle. Hope is rarely logical, and it is intensely personal. Faith is what you get when you find evidence for what you hope for. When someone's hope is attacked (and many have little faith in religion, but lots of hope) they react at a visceral level. The evidence can and should be questioned and examined, but it's hard to apply an external system to validify someone's personal hope.

 

[Tez3]

Hmmm...that sounds like a religeon I could get in to. :moon: :whip1:

Nah, you mean XXXX cobber!


http://www.youtube.com/user/xxxx