Religion vs. Religion

[cwes99_03]

This statement seems internally inconsistent, especially if God is responsible for the actions of humans.

 

No, it would be inconsistent only if God were responsible for the actions of all humans.

 

I have faith that man will continue to dominate man to his injury. That isn't faith in man, it is faith in God who had that written.

[Southtown]

Okay, we understand you have no faith in your fellow man, South... ;)

Why should I? Compassion? Yes. Forgiveness? Yes. Faith? Take a flying leap.

 

So here's the interesting thing that distinguishes Religions from guns: their primary impact is related to their role as social organizations: individuals or "cults" with broadly disdained belief systems are quickly either marginalized or if they cross certain lines, become targets for legal or military action to restrict them (e.g. restrictions on Indians from using peyote, or pagans that practice ritual sacrifice, or Talibs promoting terrorism).

This is what I'm talking about. When a person's thoughts cause them to break laws, they get punished. The fact that some thoughts are "religious" and some actions are "ritual" is immaterial.

 

This marginalization or restriction is based on *popular* opinion, and is thus uncontroversial. The larger groups however are less simply dispatched, *but* they're the ones that have a strong interest in being *widely* accepted, and need to avoid alienating anyone who might be a convert. As a result PR plays a much bigger role, and in the Internet age, this might prove a significant new approach.

 

These issues are subtle, but are not so easily dismissed.

 

Nuanced,

Buffy

Restrictions should be based on laws that are broken. And laws should be based on limiting one's freedoms so that they do not infringe the rights of others.

 

How people think, what they think, and how they advertise or proselytize such is immaterial.

[Buffy]

Why should I? Compassion? Yes. Forgiveness? Yes. Faith? Take a flying leap.

You don't have to! Sometimes judicious use of faith can be a benefit though! Try it some time! :D

When a person's thoughts cause them to break laws, they get punished. The fact that some thoughts are "religious" and some actions are "ritual" is immaterial.

Not to them it isn't! What you call personal "thoughts" are widely accepted doctrine, in many cases with that "support of a holy scripture" if you choose to hold that issue sacrosanct. And the very fact that you can say its immaterial and they can say its a central part of their faith is in fact the point of contention we're discussing here.

Restrictions should be based on laws that are broken. And laws should be based on limiting one's freedoms so that they do not infringe the rights of others.

Amen!

How people think, what they think, and how they advertise or proselytize such is immaterial.

But its highly persuasive and as such can be used to *direct* without *restricting* people's attitudes before an unlawful act is even contemplated. That's why I think Religion itself is part of the solution here. Moreover, I'm not limiting the scope here to "unlawful acts" but also simple hostile interaction between groups, like "Left Behind's" clear message that perfectly religious people of other faiths will still go to hell unless they "accept Christ" or this whole silly "war on Christmas" meme. Yes, one can try to argue that "these beliefs aren't religion" but only because of one's personal judgement that the act is immoral or an incorrect interpretation on the part of the perpetrator. Your belief versus their belief leads to no clear resolution unless its *popular*. St Peter will of course judge us all correctly, but we're talking about how groups judge *each other* in a society.

 

To the extent that these beliefs that many of us agree are wrong are promulgated by *leaders* of religious groups, they are inseparable from the religion itself, if only because most people do not take the time to make their own judgements about the faiths they adopt. I'm not saying that what most people do is right, but because it is the majority, and that majority believes that they are led to their beliefs *by religion*. As a result, I argue that it will be easier to say that the changes that might be proposed for their belief system is based on religion will be much more effective than telling them that they're wrong because their beliefs are "just non-religious personal opinions."

 

Memetically,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Your belief versus their belief leads to no clear resolution unless its *popular*. St Peter will of course judge us all correctly, but we're talking about how groups judge *each other* in a society.

By their actions, not their beliefs. :D If you ask what determines which actions are unconscionable, I say actions that intrude on the well-being of others. If you ask how such conclusions are agreed upon, I say vote, whether by commitee or populace. If you ask how can we be sure the officiates won't act on self-interest rather than prudence, I say just have faith in your fellow man. :D

 

As a result, I argue that it will be easier to say that the changes that might be proposed for their belief system is based on religion will be much more effective than telling them that they're wrong because their beliefs are "just non-religious personal opinions."

Their beliefs should be neither justification of their actions, nor vice versa. So why modify their beliefs? You can believe you are purple, but until you paint someone else purple, you haven't committed any crime.

 

I this system, it wouldn't matter who believes what or who converts who or whether that belief is considered an actual religion. What would matter is what crime has been committed and by who it was committed (not why it was committed.)

[cwes99_03]

Buffy,

When you say that religion should be part of the solution, how do you propose a religion that has beliefs thought to be directly from God change their teachings so that these beliefs aren't used against another human?

 

Also, when you do propose such a thing, how do you propose to them that your ideas are better than their's are?

 

Furthermore, do you think that your ideas are religious in nature or human philosophical in nature?

 

 

Southtown,

If you ask how can we be sure the officiates won't act on self-interest rather than prudence, I say just have faith in your fellow man.

I was frowning right up to that point, then I grinned. My question for you is, do you vote? Do you place your faith in the men that you vote for that they will continue to do what is right in your eyes (as you have stated before, I believe, that you believe in a somewhat private interpretation of the scriptures)? Also, is this way of thinking founded on a religious belief, or is this a philosophical way of dealing with religion.

 

I just want to make sure that you two realize that when you try to talk about religion from a human standpoint, that you are often trying to impose your own personal views onto a religious group. Doing so, you are attempting to remove them from their religious beliefs by substituting a philosophical belief.

IOW, you are not trying to deal with religion in a religious way but trying to impose upon religion with human philosophies. This is a cunundrum, at least in the US, because the law says that the government should not interfere with a person's religious beliefs, while at the same time saying that no person should interfere with another's rights to life, liberty, and happiness. This is a catch 22 situation. Which becomes more important, my right to my religious beliefs, or another person's right to walk about freely making out with a person of the same sex (or in the case of some religious people, another person's right to live period, as was the case of Hitler, and apparently some "radical muslims" and "christians" today.)

[Buffy]

When you say that religion should be part of the solution, how do you propose a religion that has beliefs thought to be directly from God change their teachings so that these beliefs aren't used against another human?

Change the official interpretation. There are many different interpretations of the word "jihad" depending on which imam you listen to. The Taliban will tell you that it means "kill all infidels": given that this belief leads to direct conflict with the infidels and disdain from other branches of Islam who fear that this view will cause them to be drawn into this conflict, one of three things will happen:

1. The Talibs will succeed in killing all infidels and will start in on the apostates.
   
2. The Talibs will lose adherents either directly through the conflict or to the war of values with other branches of Islam.
   
3. They will come to their senses and "for the good of Islam"--really to avoid losing power and influence--find a face-saving way to stop encouraging their followers to kill infidels.

Option 3 is preferable of course, and before you say "that's impossible," realize how often this has happened, from rejection of books from the Christian Canon in its early history, to rejection of slavery, to the (and this one is actually really important) the silent "forgetting" of Mao's Cultural Revolution.

 

It is the leaders and official interpreters who have the power to change Religions from within to adapt to new realities.

 

I argue that without such modification over time, Religions die because all truths are not in their scriptures--if they have them, but I don't want to argue that issue here--*without* interpretation. Who is to say that the Bible says that stem cell research is immoral? Its not literally stated there, its only someone saying "I have a correct interpretation." And depending on that particular person's stature or influence, that interpretation is taken as a valid interpretation of God's word by those who value the guidance and believe in the righteousness of that person. In addition, if this change comes through ecumenical means, then *all* parties are agreeing to *common* beliefs that they can easily--and in most cases completely "logically" claim--that these statements of common beliefs are simply clarifications of God's will, and not a "correction" needed because "God's previous words were wrong."

Also, when you do propose such a thing, how do you propose to them that your ideas are better than their's are?

You keep phrasing this as if the only possibility is for one group to capitulate publicly, and if that were the only possibility, yes, there would be a problem. But the fact of the matter is, the "losing" party may find it expedient to find scapegoats, or simply declare victory as described above. In fact such a change can be done publicly as a "liberating move" (e.g. the denunciation of previously justified slavery) that in no way diminishes the devine nature of the scriptures.

Furthermore, do you think that your ideas are religious in nature or human philosophical in nature?

Which ideas? Moreover, my answer is probably not going to be the same as yours given your somewhat unique definitions of "religion" and "human philosophy." If your intent is to try to argue that nothing that I have described here is relevant to religion, I don't think you'll find many who would agree that their churches, temples and mosques, and the leaders they seek guidance from have nothing to do with religion.

 

On the other hand, if it makes it easier for you to deal with this subject by saying that all interpretation is human philosophy and church organizations and leaders are irrelevant, I don't mind. (South would agree with this proposition, but he's got a clean conscience and a stated acceptance of all the consequences thereof, that allows him to be a religious anarchist and get away with it). Just recognize that having different definitions is the only thing that's separating you here. If you think this distinction causes different solutions to be tried or shows problems with proposed solutions, you're welcome to say so here, but its not the place for the argument about the correctness of the definitions of the words used to describe the processes: you've got your own thread for that. If you want to call the "shift" in church teachings that I describe above as falling under your term "human philosophy" you can, but unless you can describe *why* it causes *different solutions* to be accepted or rejected, I will continue to refer to it under the term--call it colloquial if you wish--religion, simply because I am using it in the definition that is by far the most widely accepted.

 

Peace with Honor,

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

When you say that religion should be part of the solution, how do you propose a religion that has beliefs thought to be directly from God change their teachings so that these beliefs aren't used against another human?

 

Change the official interpretation. There are many different interpretations of the word "jihad" depending on which imam you listen to. The Taliban will tell you that it means "kill all infidels": given that this belief leads to direct conflict with the infidels and disdain from other branches of Islam who fear that this view will cause them to be drawn into this conflict, one of three things will happen:

1. The Talibs will succeed in killing all infidels and will start in on the apostates.
   
2. The Talibs will lose adherents either directly through the conflict or to the war of values with other branches of Islam.
   
3. They will come to their senses and "for the good of Islam"--really to avoid losing power and influence--find a face-saving way to stop encouraging their followers to kill infidels.

Option 3 is preferable of course, and before you say "that's impossible," realize how often this has happened, from rejection of books from the Christian Canon in its early history, to rejection of slavery, to the (and this one is actually really important) the silent "forgetting" of Mao's Cultural Revolution.

4) A war will ensue until nearly all Taliban are dead and their ways forgotten for hundreds of years.

5) God will come in and end all suffering and strife in his holy war Armageddon. :) I had to throw that one in.

You didn't consider all the possibilities. The fourth possibility there seems the track we are currently on. (I'd argue the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th could then be followed by the 5th.)

You also seem to fail to consider that:

• The books that were rejected from the christian canon were deemed false.
  
• Slavery of African Americans in the US was also deemed falsely based on the Bible and rejection was decided by a bloody war.
  
• Mao was not endorsing a religion, but a philosophy, and again only through war, political upheaval, and newer philosophy has Mao's cultural revolution been "forgotten" (or rather put aside for new philosophies.)

 

So unless you have the power to 1) show someone that their beliefs are false, 2) kill them all or a significant enough number, or 3) replace their philosophy with another philosophy slowly over time, you haven't identified a single successful coup as the one you seem to be putting forth.

 

It is the leaders and official interpreters who have the power to change Religions from within to adapt to new realities.

I'd argue that if the religion were a real religion no one has the power to change it from within, except the god or gods being worshipped.

 

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Also, when you do propose such a thing, how do you propose to them that your ideas are better than their's are?

 

You keep phrasing this as if the only possibility is for one group to capitulate publicly, and if that were the only possibility, yes, there would be a problem. But the fact of the matter is, the "losing" party may find it expedient to find scapegoats, or simply declare victory as described above. In fact such a change can be done publicly as a "liberating move" (e.g. the denunciation of previously justified slavery) that in no way diminishes the devine nature of the scriptures.

 

See the examples above. In each case they did capitulate, and it was very public and people talked about it for hundreds or thousands of years afterward, and still debate it today.

BTW, Mao's cultural revolution was "forgotten"? Even you put it in quotes, noting that many of the things he felt are still practiced by the government today, but they allow some of their most prominent members, and richest societal members, to get away with un-Mao-like ways. Likewise, many "christian" groups do the same, looking the other way when their priests molest a young child, or have elicit affairs, or any other number of unscriptural conducts.

Also, the Taliban, Hamas, and others have "declared victory" over their enemies. It is a clear as a freshly created pane of glass however that their "declaration of victory" is as much a lie as Bush's declaration of victory over Sadaam and Iraq.

 

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Furthermore, do you think that your ideas are religious in nature or human philosophical in nature?

 

Which ideas? [strikethrough]Moreover, my answer is probably not going to be the same as yours given your somewhat unique definitions of "religion" and "human philosophy." If your intent is to try to argue that nothing that I have described here is relevant to religion, I don't think you'll find many who would agree that their churches, temples and mosques, and the leaders they seek guidance from have nothing to do with religion.

 

On the other hand, if it makes it easier for you to deal with this subject by saying that all interpretation is human philosophy and church organizations and leaders are irrelevant, I don't mind. (South would agree with this proposition, but he's got a clean conscience and a stated acceptance of all the consequences thereof, that allows him to be a religious anarchist and get away with it). Just recognize that having different definitions is the only thing that's separating you here. If you think this distinction causes different solutions to be tried or shows problems with proposed solutions, you're welcome to say so here, but its not the place for the argument about the correctness of the definitions of the words used to describe the processes: you've got your own thread for that. If you want to call the "shift" in church teachings that I describe above as falling under your term "human philosophy" you can, but unless you can describe *why* it causes *different solutions* to be accepted or rejected, I will continue to refer to it under the term--call it colloquial if you wish--religion, simply because I am using it in the definition that is by far the most widely accepted.

 

Peace with Honor,

Buffy[/strikethrough]

Too bad there isn't a strikethrough command.

1) I have never said that "churches, temples and mosques, and the leaders they seek guidance from have nothing to do with religion. " In fact, it is you and others who say that religion is false, saying that they need change, saying that they are wrong, saying that they are all extremists.

2) I haven't said nor argued that "nothing that I (Buffy) have described here is relevant to religion". I have tried to point out that you are dealing with two issues but treating them as one. One issue is that human philosophies have entered into religions and they fight among themselves over who is right and treat each other with disdain. The other is that some real religions believe that all other religions are false and treat them with disdain and/or murderous hatred. You throw this out summarily, I suspect, because you feel all religions are actually just philosophy underneath.

3) I have not said that "all interpretation is human philosophy and church organizations and leaders are irrelevant." In fact, I have stated quite the opposite. I have said that those leaders are the important ones. They are the ones that have injected philosophy into the teachings of their religion. They are the ones responsible for the mis-interpretation of their holy writings, and they know it.

I have, however, stated, that you can't deal with real religions, nor many non-religious philosophies, in the way you are supporting, because of one of the following reasons.

1) you call a religion a philosophy (even if not directly) and tell it to change it's philosophies to align with your (Buffy's) philosophies on life.

2) you tell a religion, which does not recognize human authority, that it must recognize human authority, and it must do so peacefully.

3) you tell a religion, or non-religious philosophy, to stop doing things the way it wants to do things because you asked them to.

 

The only human way to deal with these things is

1) to identify the fallacy of the statements and do so in a way that leaves no doubt (sorry I guess I said human, this isn't really a possibility of humans.)

2) kill all who stand in your way, ending all of those who oppose you, and then rule with an iron fist over those who remain to ensure that no one ever tries to adopt a philosophy that goes against your own. (Not really a human possibility either, though it is constantly attempted in the name of government.)

3) do nothing and wait for some much more powerful being to bring about an end.

 

Do you see any ways I have left out?

[Boerseun]

You've not only missed the point, but lost the plot, as well.:)

 

Sweet dreams.

[cwes99_03]

Oops you're right Boer.

 

I left out this option.

 

1) let each government place strangleholds on religion and its interpretation telling all peoples how they can and can't worship.

 

Nope that was included in point two at the bottom of the post. What point did I miss?

[Southtown]

My question for you is, do you vote? Do you place your faith in the men that you vote for that they will continue to do what is right in your eyes (as you have stated before, I believe, that you believe in a somewhat private interpretation of the scriptures)?

Hell yeah I vote. If you don't try, you can't pass the blame.

 

Also, is this way of thinking founded on a religious belief, or is this a philosophical way of dealing with religion.

I believe the bible quite literally. I grew up a baptist, then went seventh-day adventist. And after I found faults with all, I disregarded the concept of denominations, which are just preset lists of discoveries that you will receive by studying with their members. But somehow I just keep seeking, holding myself accountable only to my conscience. (Romans 2:14-15; Hebrews 9:6-10) Some links to my prose.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/2967-bible-its-religion-4.html#post44500

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/5082-satan-what-3.html?#post80698

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/2797-heaven-hell-2.html?#post46387

G.R.A.C.E. Discussion Board

G.R.A.C.E. Discussion Board

G.R.A.C.E. Discussion Board

 

That last one's a doozy.

[cwes99_03]

Hell yeah I vote. If you don't try, you can't pass the blame.

 

To me that is like saying if I don't try to catch a killer then I can't blame him for killing people.

 

The blame can be placed squarely on the people responsible for it. I don't vote, and thus people can't blame me for any one politician that molests another, robs pension funds, plays the bribery game etc. I also can't take credit when they seem to get something right either. I'm pretty okay with that.

 

Knowing you are constantly reviewing your beliefs, maybe you'd like to review these sites

 

Direction: The Christian in Politics: Some Basic Problems

Should Christians be involved in Politics

Our Hope Is in the Gospel, Not Politics and Government by Bill Barnwell

 

While none of them in and of themselves contain an answer like mine, they all make points that when taken as a whole I think show where the truth lies.

 

You'd also perhaps like to read these scriptures.

 

Ecclesiastes 8:9

Jeremiah 10:23

2 Timmothy 3:1-4

I John 5:19

Psalms 146:3,4

Daniel 2:44

 

Buffy, as to Christian participation in violent revolution.

Matthew 6:25

 

 

I'm not intending to debate, just putting forth some sources for consideration on the topic.

[Southtown]

To me that is like saying if I don't try to catch a killer then I can't blame him for killing people.

If you have the opportunity, though, but decide against it, you are an accomplice.

 

The blame can be placed squarely on the people responsible for it. I don't vote, and thus people can't blame me for any one politician that molests another, robs pension funds, plays the bribery game etc. I also can't take credit when they seem to get something right either. I'm pretty okay with that.

I can't blame you. I'm not sure the system is repairable since all systems of government rely on one or more humans to oversee and supervise. Destiny or not, our only hope is a Righteous King.

 

Thanks for the links. I'll check 'em later.

[cwes99_03]

Destiny or not, our only hope is a Righteous King.

 

Thanks, while that quote makes it sound to me like you have the knowledge, I still don't understand then why you put your hope in governments and men and not in God and his ability to bring about a promised end to these things. The bible contains a few commandments on how you are expected to help/the role you are expected to play, but none of those commands contains a "place your faith in the government you believe most closely follows God's law even though I am going to destroy all of those governments."

[Southtown]

That's not where I put my hope. I just do what I can with what I am given.

[cwes99_03]

Okay, what have you been given? How do you differentiate between supporting a politician/political party, and supporting God, when the politician doesn't do what you see as what the Bible teaches that all men must do?

Would you tell a catholic to support a priest after it is determined that he was having an affair with a nun, or molesting children? Would you support a priest if it was determined that he told several penitents to go and kill people who didn't do what he thought was right?

No, you would say those are completely wrong acts (according to the Bible) and would turn him out. Paul told the congregation in Corinth to do just that. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

[LayDominican]

Being a Roman Catholic I have been asked these question in various forms. First, Christians do care very much about Jesus. I will not say more, because it gets into the field of preaching, and I will honor the rules.

 

Your second question Buffy is the hardest to answer. There is a strong movement away from religion to secularism.At least in the West. But Islam, in any of its forms, is making a strong growing. Many clerics have been preaching that Islam would be the new enemy of all Christian or Western based religion. I understand there are some very good followers of the Muslim faith, but is the West ready or willing to adopt the way of the Prophet? I dont think so.

[Buffy]

First, Christians do care very much about Jesus. I will not say more, because it gets into the field of preaching...

You might want to think about this. The Catholic Church has been very active in Ecumenical initiatives, not only with Christianity, but across faiths as well. Do you believe the Church is wrong to pursue such strategies? If so, why?

Your second question Buffy is the hardest to answer. There is a strong movement away from religion to secularism.

Actually the data is mixed, and there is little in the way of "strong" direction anywhere in the world. Church *attendance* is down in many urban areas (oddly enough, in the UK it has gone *up* recently), but those stating they have strong religious beliefs has grown in the US. Some surveys show *increasing* strength of those beliefs especially among Protestants, due to the increased organization of the more conservative branches.

 

Many clerics have been preaching that Islam would be the new enemy of all Christian or Western based religion. I understand there are some very good followers of the Muslim faith, but is the West ready or willing to adopt the way of the Prophet? I dont think so.

And this goes back to the question: Do you believe that different faiths are inevitably destined to hostility toward one another? Can Ecumenicism have no ability to reduce or eliminate conflict? Do you believe that all people of faith similarly believe that there can be no acceptance of different beliefs? If so, why? Do you believe that those who do believe that religions can coexist and cooperate peacefully are by definition anti-religious or "secular?"

 

Thanks for your thoughtful input!

 

Cheers,

Buffy