# Religion - Sacrosanct or Debateable?



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2009)

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:



Brian said:


> Please continue on with your Christian bashing. It is to be expected and would be disappointing if it didn&#8217;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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Andrew Green said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2009)

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


----------



## Joab (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 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?



Sukerkin said:


> 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.



Andrew Green said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 .


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> 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.



Sukerkin said:


> 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.



Sukerkin said:


> ...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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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.



Bill Mattocks said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

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 (Jun 2, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 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.
> ...


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


----------



## Brian King (Jun 3, 2009)

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.

&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 3, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2009)

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. T_here 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, *Evangelica*l 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 (Jun 3, 2009)

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 (Jun 3, 2009)

Brian said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2009)

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 (Jun 3, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> 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.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
True, and while there are many laws on the books which I consider nuisances, I'll admit that I'm less concerned about restrictions that I've always lived with than I am with people trying to add new ones.  I lived in Hudsonville, MI for a short time, and one of the most onerous laws (to my 13-year-old mind) was that all arcade video games had to be unplugged on Sundays.  Since that was the day my mom went shopping, that law was a huge thorn in my side.  But for the most part, the laws that have historical basis in religion don't bother me AS LONG AS they have a common sense rationale behind them.  Murder is bad, and would be bad even if it wasn't mentioned in a holy book.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 

Bill you simply can't talk for Jews you know and say we find it easy to believe it's Islam as fault, perhaps out of all of us we understand that it's politics at work in the Middle East not religion.

When talking about Christians no one mentions the Quakers? (The Society of Friends) who I find as a non Christian probably the most inspiring group of people who represent Christianity in the best possible light I've ever  seen and who many would be wise to follow as role models!

Sukerkin I for one have never been insulted or felt slighted when you refered to the great invisible thingummy bob in the sky, it's always made me smile.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Bill you simply can't talk for Jews you know and say we find it easy to believe it's Islam as fault, perhaps out of all of us we understand that it's politics at work in the Middle East not religion.



My point was not about Jews, Christians, or Muslims, per se.  My point was that whatever we happen to be, because we understand our own faith, we tend to understand that a person who claims our religion as a basis for their crimes is not representative of the entire group.  When we look at believers in other religions who commit crimes in the name of their religion, we find it harder to accept that they do NOT represent their entire religion.  Human nature, not a slam on Jews, Christians, or Muslims.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> *Bill you simply can't talk for Jews you know and say we find it easy to believe it's Islam as fault*, perhaps out of all of us we understand that it's politics at work in the Middle East not religion.


 
Which is kind of the point of this thread: while he certainly "can't talk for Jews," _he can say whatever he likes, as long as it's within the rules._ I, for one, don't think he was "talking for Jews." He's expressed an opinion, and you've expressed a counterpoint that I largely agree with. Even then, it winds up in theological territory, though, if I were to say something like, _It's all about the *land-grab,* colonialist Jewish-Americans and Europeans coming into Palestine and taking land away from the Palestinians._ someone else will chime in with _G-d gave that land to Israel, thousands of years ago-the Jews have a legitimate claim._





Tez3 said:


> When talking about Christians no one mentions the Quakers? (The Society of Friends) who I find as a non Christian probably the most inspiring group of people who represent Christianity in the best possible light I've ever seen and who many would be wise to follow as role models!


 
My wife and her family are Quakers. Some of my forebears were Quakers. I've mentioned Quakers on other threads. They're very much a minority sect, though, and, except for the "left-wing" of Christian evangelism in this country, not many folks know much about them. 



Tez3 said:


> Sukerkin I for one have never been insulted or felt slighted when you refered to the great invisible thingummy bob in the sky, it's always made me smile.


 
Ditto. Ditto the "giant spaghetti monster," Cthulu and any other designation.

I sometimes use "_foot_,"as in "a giant all knowing, all-seeing foot." Anyone know what movie that's from? :lol:


----------



## morph4me (Jun 3, 2009)

When discussing religion, we are discussing a persons belief system, something they identify with and imbues them with a sense of self. When you criticize or attack that belief, it's logical to assume that a person will feel as if he has been critcized or attacked, and when attacked they will defend their beliefs, sometimes to the point of refusing to recognize that there are other points of view. There is also a tendency to take the traits, or characteristics or actions of one person, or a minority, and assign them to an entire group, even though it's fairly obvious that even within the same place of worship there are differences in what people believe. Each persons beliefs might be considered sacrosanct to the individual, but not the religion itself.


----------



## Carol (Jun 3, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I sometimes use "_foot_,"as in "a giant all knowing, all-seeing foot." Anyone know what movie that's from? :lol:



Sounds like the end of Monty Python's Flying Circus :lol2:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 3, 2009)

_Let us praise God. O Lord... 
Ooh, You are so big... 
So absolutely huge. 
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You. 
 Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and... 
And barefaced flattery. 
But You are so strong and, well, just so super. 
Fantastic. 
Amen. _

God bless Monty Python.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My point was not about Jews, Christians, or Muslims, per se. My point was that whatever we happen to be, because we understand our own faith, we tend to understand that a person who claims our religion as a basis for their crimes is not representative of the entire group. When we look at believers in other religions who commit crimes in the name of their religion, we find it harder to accept that they do NOT represent their entire religion. Human nature, not a slam on Jews, Christians, or Muslims.


 

Tbh I rarely if ever blame religion or belief for the way people behave, I look at the 'crime' if you like and the person. I don't say oh he did that because he's XXX religion. You have to look into the background of people, why they believe what they do and how that can make them behave.
Everyone has a choice of how they behave and what they believe in, i always look at the person first.

It's probably worth remember too thats there's far more religions out there than just Judaism, Christianity and Islam. there is, especially with the fall of the Iron Curtain a huge amount of Orthodox Christians out there who's beliefs are, due to historical differences, at varience with the Roman version from which Protestants also come from. When the words Judeo-Christian are used people think of the Roman church whereas they should also think of the Byzantium church.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Tbh I rarely if ever blame religion or belief for the way people behave, I look at the 'crime' if you like and the person. I don't say oh he did that because he's XXX religion. You have to look into the background of people, why they believe what they do and how that can make them behave.
> Everyone has a choice of how they behave and what they believe in, i always look at the person first.
> 
> It's probably worth remember too thats there's far more religions out there than just Judaism, Christianity and Islam. there is, especially with the fall of the Iron Curtain a huge amount of Orthodox Christians out there who's beliefs are, due to historical differences, at varience with the Roman version from which Protestants also come from. When the words Judeo-Christian are used people think of the Roman church whereas they should also think of the Byzantium church.



I mentioned only the big 3 for the sake of brevity.

I am not talking about religion, or race, ethnicity, or whatever.  I'm talking about human nature.  When a person not of our own [race, skin color, ethnic background, religion, nation, national origin, etc] does something horrible, some of us will say _"See how they are?"_

If the same horrible thing happens and it is someone of our own [race, skin color, ethnic background, religion, nation, national origin, etc], we will say _"That person does not represent me."_

You may have overcome this - and if so, yay, you.  However, most humans have not.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 3, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Which is kind of the point of this thread: while he certainly "can't talk for Jews," _he can say whatever he likes, as long as it's within the rules._ I, for one, don't think he was "talking for Jews." He's expressed an opinion, and you've expressed a counterpoint that I largely agree with. Even then, it winds up in theological territory, though, if I were to say something like, _It's all about the *land-grab,* colonialist Jewish-Americans and Europeans coming into Palestine and taking land away from the Palestinians._ someone else will chime in with _G-d gave that land to Israel, thousands of years ago-the Jews have a legitimate claim._
> 
> _._
> 
> ...


 


Saying what one wants in a debate and speaking for others may be allowable but it's also allowed to be challenged!


Quakers are obviously a minority in the States but have had a huge influence in this country. Our local football tema ( soccer) are called the Quakers, we have many companies run by Quakers in this country, Rowntrees and Cadburys the chocolate companies probably being the best known.

http://www.quaker.org.uk/Templates/...rdParentNodeID=89989&int4thParentNodeID=90344

 A lot of charity work was and is done by Quakers here, housing estates, prison visiting, scientific work, charities, actors and writers. etc. We've have many famous Quakers who have done a great deal for our country.Their influence in business and the conditins of the working man has been wide ranging. There's also a great many American Quakers who are well know including William Penn however this is one Quaker I think epitomises their beliefs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Alexander_Sinton

I think if you have a good look you'll find they have had and continue to have a rather large influence on peoples lives. Amnesty International was founded by a Quaker. However i won't derail the thread any further.


----------



## cdunn (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
How much some of those laws are taken from the religious background are questionable. Consider, for example, the Code of Ur-Nammu, the earliest known text of law. (Predating Hammurabi by about 3 centuries.)



> 1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
> 2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
> 6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
> 9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver.
> ...


 
Prohibition and punishment of murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud, perjury, and alimony law to boot - and they certainly did not draw upon the Abrahamic traditions. If a law creates a greater good for the society than the infringement upon the society does it ill, then is that not alone significant justification for the creation of the law? Conversely, if the infringement upon the society creates ill on the balance, is that not enough justification to abolish it? 

The religious background need not play at all, and certainly must take a back seat to the over all effect that these laws have on real people, and to being in line to the powers ceeded to the government by the people.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think if you have a good look you'll find they have had and continue to have a rather large influence on peoples lives. Amnesty International was founded by a Quaker. However i won't derail the thread any further.


 
*Richard Nixon* was a Quaker. :lol:

So was John Dillinger.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2009)

cdunn said:


> How much some of those laws are taken from the religious background are questionable. Consider, for example, the Code of Ur-Nammu, the earliest known text of law. (Predating Hammurabi by about 3 centuries.)



I did not argue that all law descends from Judeo-Christian laws.  I spoke of the fact that centuries of Western governments have been ostensibly Christian, their citizens of the Judeo-Christian faiths, and that this informed the laws of those societies.  They grew from the same root, and it would be impossible to pretend now that our basis for law has no religious underpinnings.



> Prohibition and punishment of murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud, perjury, and alimony law to boot - and they certainly did not draw upon the Abrahamic traditions. If a law creates a greater good for the society than the infringement upon the society does it ill, then is that not alone significant justification for the creation of the law? Conversely, if the infringement upon the society creates ill on the balance, is that not enough justification to abolish it?
> 
> The religious background need not play at all, and certainly must take a back seat to the over all effect that these laws have on real people, and to being in line to the powers ceeded to the government by the people.



Civilization grew up imbued with religion.  Western civilization grew up imbued with the Judeo-Christian underpinnings.  Whether a law was a 'religious' law that passed into a criminal code or whether it was sponsored and adopted by people who considered themselves Christian, the point is that Western law has a Judeo-Christian background.

I realize there were civilisations before Christianity, and that they also had laws.  These may predate Christianity - but they grew straight up through the same root - adopted by Christian nations and passed on to us.

In the final analysis, one cannot say that our modern society does not have a religious underpinning.  We may be secular, but our roots in the West are firmly Judeo-Christian, and our laws reflect that.  For good or for ill.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I did not argue that all law descends from Judeo-Christian laws. I spoke of the fact that centuries of Western governments have been ostensibly Christian, their citizens of the Judeo-Christian faiths, and that this informed the laws of those societies. They grew from the same root, and it would be impossible to pretend now that our basis for law has no religious underpinnings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
When you argue though that it's Judeo-Christian, you are meaning roman Cristainity and many of western laws actually came from Byzantine Christianity. A good look at the history of Byzantium would be rewarding for students of Christian history.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> When you argue though that it's Judeo-Christian, you are meaning roman Cristainity and many of western laws actually came from Byzantine Christianity. A good look at the history of Byzantium would be rewarding for students of Christian history.



In the USA, we inherit our laws from English Common Law and our own Constitution and system of jurisprudence, which were originally developed by men of the (primarily) Christian faith.  I'm sure there were other influences, our own Supreme Court building has a bas relief of some of them, including Moses and Mohammad (yes, really).  Point is, our secular society isn't based purely on secular law, but derives from religious laws.  Call it what you will.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Western civilization grew up imbued with the Judeo-Christian underpinnings.[...]Western law has a Judeo-Christian background.
> 
> I realize there were civilisations before Christianity, and that they also had laws.



Much of our system has Greco-Roman origins--certainly our legal system--and these predate Christianity. Certainly, the English common law has a large Judeo-Christian influence.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Much of our system has Greco-Roman origins--certainly our legal system--and these predate Christianity. Certainly, the English common law has a large Judeo-Christian influence.



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.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 3, 2009)

Back to the original question...

I believe religion has to be open for debate, and not treated as sacrosanct.

When religion, and by extension religious leaders and dogma are seen as infallible we run into all sorts of very real problems.  Had Pope Urban II been open to criticism the crusades might never have happened, had the extremists in the middle east been openly debating their interpretation of the Quaran we would likely have less terrorists.

Religion is a very powerful force, any powerful force it can do a lot of damage.  It can be kept in check through open debate and adapting with the rest of the world.

Christianity, the religion most people here follow, was created by a guy that told everyone they had a bunch of things wrong and didn't need to keep stoning people and that bacon cheeseburgers are really rather tasty (paraphrased).

Faith is one thing, blind faith is another, much more dangerous thing.

Personally I can't understand how people can claim God gave them free-will, a conscience, the ability to think rationally, etc.  Yet refuse to apply those "gifts" to what are some of the most important aspects of their belief system.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 3, 2009)

elder999 said:


> 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."


 
Another fine and informative post, good sir. 

I just wanted to clarify that what I meant by the thread title was whether Religion was 'sacroscanct' and hence not to be questioned or shown in a 'bad light' or 'debateable', wherein people were free to express their thoughts and feelings about the actions done in the name of a given faith or by the leadership of that faith.

Put more simply, in an American Constitutional frame of reference particularly, it was a question of whether Freedom of Religion meant Freedom from Criticism?

Inherent within this was the substrate of how it should be possible to ask questions of a faith and point out perceived 'problems' without being unnecessarily horrible in how you do it; without 'bashing' if you will. 

The definitions of 'bashing' that *Brian* quoted maybe somewhat broader than the sense in which I use the term, as, to me,'bashing' is an aggressive verbal attack that has *no* other purpose than to belittle or demean.  But the core idea for me when discussing anything is to be able to get your point across without the intent of 'injuring' those to whom you are speaking.  Otherwise you just alienate the 'audience' and what you say doesn't get heard.

One thing that is certain, no matter how much we debate things on-line, I would be amazed if anyone changed their mind because of what was said in a few posts in a couple of threads. That does not mean that the discourse is worthless or even that it cannot be entertaining and educational too.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Put more simply, in an American Constitutional frame of reference particularly, it was a question of whether Freedom of Religion meant Freedom from Criticism?.


 

I'll answer even more simply, then: *no.* :lol:

To expand just a little, "Freedom of Religion" is, to me, the biggest lie of all in the Constitution.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 3, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> 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
> 
> ...


 

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 (Jun 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Oh good lord. I apparently am unable to communicate today. Forgive me.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Jun 3, 2009)

cdunn said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2009)

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 (Jun 4, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


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


 
Nah, you mean XXXX cobber!


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


----------

