I will defend my bigoted friend's right to feel how he does, I will not defend his beliefs, because I can't, that belief is indefensible despite being a personal belief.But you can't understand why your bigoted friend defends his beliefs? Because that's what you said in the post I first responded to.
Any belief can be defended, no matter how wrong you are for defending it. I don't understand how you can say 'I can't conceive how they could defend their beliefs'.
Yes, every belief can be defended...if you're irrational. The position that all gays should be put to the sword is, to me, indefensible. Why should I defend it? Why do you continue to mischaracterize my statement? You've tried every combination of words but my own.
I will defend my bigoted friend's right to feel how he does, I will not defend his beliefs, because I can't, that belief is indefensible despite being a personal belief.Why? There are arguments that can be made on his terms why your Evangelical Christian friend should show your homosexual Korean friend more compassion. That's what theology is. "Given that God exists and in His wisdom He has told us [thus and so], we can draw [such and such] conclusions on how to live a virtuous life." Theology is the synergy of religion and philosophy.
What are you asking why of? Why would I defend his right to believe what he does? Or why WOULDN'T I defend his actual belief, which I don't share?
The rest of your post is reasons for me NOT to defend his beliefs, but rather to challenge him on them.
|
Yes, every belief can be defended...if you're irrational. The position that all gays should be put to the sword is, to me, indefensible. Why should I defend it? Why do you continue to mischaracterize my statement? You've tried every combination of words but my own.
Again, how can you not understand why your friend defends his belief? It is his personal belief! By definition he will be compelled to defend it.
I mean, look at what I originally responded to.
Personally I can't conceive why anyone would defend religion period, regardless of personal affiliation.You can't conceive why someone would defend their personal beliefs, or the beliefs of others?
What have I mischaracterized there? You said yourself that religion is a personal belief.
The article explicitly claims that people tried to used out-of-context quotes to justify pre-existing racist belief. You might want to cite sources that actually agree with you!
For the love of peat...
Just another example of how people can their theology in a knot so it matches their preconceptions.
Yes.. they're twisting. Yes its out of context. I KNOW that. I said that. Repeatedly.
What the bloody blue blazes is the difference between "quotes to justify pre-existing racist belief" vs " preconceptions" ?!?
People get an idea, in this case you have some racists who don't like blacks and are enjoying the economic benefits of enslaving people. So they read the bible and lo and behold, there's a command not to interbreed with other tribes and oodles of pro slavery examples.
Other guy has an idea. He sees that slavery is awful to the people involved. He reads the bible and lo and behold , he reads do unto others and moses leading the slaves out of egypt to mean that the bible is anti slavery.
Yes, its a bad argument for Anti-miscegenation but i did NOT, as you accused me of, make it up. It is historical, and a fair number of people bought it (and apparently still buy it)
You're going out of your way to interpret people's statements as something they're not just so you can kick them around.
wordsOh yeah, and it's also referring to the past while you're generalizing about Christians in the present being racists. Forgot that.
So are you going to admit you were wrong about me making stuff up or no?
Again, how can you not understand why your friend defends his belief? It is his personal belief! By definition he will be compelled to defend it.
Yes, every belief can be defended...if you're irrational. The position that all gays should be put to the sword is, to me, indefensible. Why should I defend it? Why do you continue to mischaracterize my statement? You've tried every combination of words but my own.
Again, I ask you to stop twisting words. That's the, what, 5th or 6th reinterpretation of my original quote. Just stop it.
Remember that whole thing about personal belief=/=religion. You continue to act like they are interchangeable terms. I think we're having a miscommunication of definitions. There's to defend, like "hey you took my cookie" and there's defend as in defending an argument or a thesis. There's religion, in that it is one person's personal belief, and there is religion, as in the entirety of the practice of religion.
I understand why he would defend, as in become defensive, of religion in a pragmatic sense, I can't understand what REASON he would give for defending it, and that's more what my quote was saying. The primary reason for any such religious belief is based on faith, which is subjective. I do not understand faith, hence I don't understand any philosophical defense of religion as a cultural construct.
Why wouldn't you challenge his beliefs about homosexuality and actions towards homosexuals?
When did I say I wouldn't? I absolutely would, in such a case. Which was an example of how I could not defend someone else's beliefs, by either ignoring them or challenging them.
So you can understand why he would defend religion, you just can't conceive of a valid defense or reason for religion.
I can conceive why someone would defend his/her religion, which is completely different from defending religion. And yes, I don't understand why anyone would defend religion. I understand that they would, but their reasons are so foreign to me that I can't understand it. Hence the comment.
When did I say I wouldn't? I absolutely would, in such a case. Which was an example of how I could not defend someone else's beliefs, by either ignoring them or challenging them.But those beliefs aren't religious, they're simply received truths. Not all received truths are religious. Indeed, scientific theory has two received truths as its underpinnings: causality and empiricism, as without them, observation is meaningless. Would you defend causality and empiricism? If so, why?
What beliefs aren't religious? His belief that god wants him to kill x/y/z? Just because it doesn't jibe with the official doctrine of an established religion doesn't mean it's not a religious belief. Especially since most religions aren't doctrinal in this same sense as christianity. His belief may not be sanctioned by christianity, but it doesn't make his belief less legitimate or religious.
And I find that baffling, as they are the exactly same reasons.
No, they aren't, AT ALL.
1)Reason why someone would defend their religion-religion is personal and a slight on one's religion is a slight on one's person.
2)Reason why someone would defend the existence of religion-because without religion society would descend into chaos and morality would come unhinged, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.
Number 1 is subjective, number 2 is nonsense.
I can conceive why someone would defend his/her religion, which is completely different from defending religion. And yes, I don't understand why anyone would defend religion. I understand that they would, but their reasons are so foreign to me that I can't understand it. Hence the comment.Because the person believes in the value of altruism, and does not wish to see the religious persecuted.
Because defending the religion creates an environment of religious tolerance, which benefits the speaker, who himself fears the consequences for himself in an intolerant society.
Because the beliefs of the religion are congruous with the speaker's, so the speaker sees a personal benefit in seeing them flourish.
There you go, three reasons (none of which are "I enjoy arguing for its own sake or for the intellectual challenge") why someone might defend a religion of which they are not a member.
The first two are reasons why to defend THE RIGHT for people to practice religions, which I'm not arguing against.
The third, again, is talking about a specific religion not religion in its entirety, and thus not relevant to my point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The speaker sees the benefit of a heterogenous society, particularly in the arts, and thus the speaker sees the value in religion in general continuing to exist, as it is a force for heterogeneity.Religion in general spreads beliefs which are congruous to the speaker's, such as human compassion and belief in the welfare of the collective, and thus the speaker sees the value in seeing religion in general flourish. [ooc]This is a sensical version of your "cats and dogs living together" argument, in that it argues that religion isn't required for cats and dogs to get along, but it helps.
Religion also spreads beliefs which are incongruous, such as unnecessary distinctions which breed discrimination and prejudice, which sometimes become pathological hatred and indeed violent acts. Religion can be a force for good and a force for ill, I don't think anyone disputes.
Given that, there would be obvious alternative avenues for heterogeneity, should that be something that is desirable in a society, that don't have the same...externalities as religion does. Furthermore I suggest that a diversity of culture doesn't require religion itself but diversity of ethnic identity that, while intertwined with religion, can be disambiguated.
I'd like to state that I'm in no way advocating removal of religion from our culture as it stands, just trying to imagine any way in which a culture which had progressed beyond religion would be necessarily inferior to ours as we have it now. Especially considering my view on religion, as I've expressed, as a sort of ambiguous potpourri of individuation paradigms.
The speaker is ambivalent towards a particular religion or religious belief in general, and moots the arguments as a way of working out their own internal conflict.Or is that a little too Freudian? ¬_¬
Far to Freudian. I've had a good 16 years to come to terms with how I feel about religion as a thing. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. But I'm nonetheless intrigued by it BECAUSE it is so inimical to me. It's so foreign. Everyone's talkin' about god talked to them, and I know god was on my side because this, and I've never experienced anything that could be described as a divine experience. I've had revelatory experiences, when on hallucinogens, which have helped me immensely growing as an individual, but I would never equate LSD with the hand of god.
|
|
And I find that baffling, as they are the exactly same reasons.No, they aren't, AT ALL.
1)Reason why someone would defend their religion-religion is personal and a slight on one's religion is a slight on one's person.
2)Reason why someone would defend the existence of religion-because without religion society would descend into chaos and morality would come unhinged, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.
Number 1 is subjective, number 2 is nonsense.
Even if number 2 were the only reason, it would still be a subjective reason to defend religion.
You not liking it has nothing to do with it being a reason to defend religion.
People defend the existence of religion because religion includes their own personal religion, and saying religion is useless is saying THEIR religion is useless. A slight on religion is a slight on their religion, and thus a slight on their person, according to your example. How you see this differently, I cannot understand.
Even if number 2 were the only reason, it would still be a subjective reason to defend religion.You not liking it has nothing to do with it being a reason to defend religion.
People defend the existence of religion because religion includes their own personal religion, and saying religion is useless is saying THEIR religion is useless. A slight on religion is a slight on their religion, and thus a slight on their person, according to your example. How you see this differently, I cannot understand.
No. Number 2 is an OBJECTIVE claim.
Your counterargument is reducible to "everything is a matter of opinion, therefore everything is subjective" which is hooey.And again, you're confusing the why in a practical sense to why as in their actual argument and reason for it. They are fundamentally different.
A number of attempts were made to use the Bible to justify those bans on interracial marriage. Vague assertions were made that God intended for the races to remain separate. Some verses (Exodus 34:10-16, 2 Corinthians 6:14, etc.) were quoted in part or otherwise out of context in an attempt to show that God opposed interracial marriage.
The article explicitly claims that people tried to used out-of-context quotes to justify pre-existing racist belief. You might want to cite sources that actually agree with you!
At various times, Phinehas and his acts were cited in the United States by the promoters of laws banning interracial marriages. These so-called anti-miscegenation laws were enforced in several US states until 1967. The story is also used by some Christian Identity groups, naming themselves Phineas Priesthood after Phinehas. They also claim that it is a Biblical injunction against interracial couples, transforming a conflict about temptation to idolatry into one about race. This outlook is ironic as Phinehas' name is shared by those in the same period known as Nubians. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phinehas]That's based on a story that isn't even part of Christian canon, the Book of Numbers.
In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity groups have claimed that several passages in the Bible,[30] for example the stories of Phinehas and of the so-called "curse of Ham", should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that certain verses expressly forbid it. Most theologians read these verses and references as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-racial marriage.[31] http://www.answers.com/topic/miscegenationThat is a mirror of the same Wikipedia article you linked before, and again, it's talking about Genesis.
I can see where BNW is coming from. I heard variations on this when I was living in PA and white parents were getting nervous that I was around puberty and going to defile their daughters. Some did their best to say they had no problem with me dating, I just couldn't date THEIR kid.
I can see where BNW is coming from. I heard variations on this when I was living in PA and white parents were getting nervous that I was around puberty and going to defile their daughters. Some did their best to say they had no problem with me dating, I just couldn't date THEIR kid.
Well, to be fair, some parents feel that way about their kids towards ALL teenage boys. Its sheer coincidence that I just happen to be sharpening a claymore every time one stops in for a bit to see my niece, really...
Its not that i feel that the biblical argument is particularly GOOD in this case. It seems clear to me that the prohibitions on inter-tribal marriage in exodus were only supposed to apply to the Jews. Its just that its incredibly convenient for a racist to read it that way, so they do. That sort of reading into the text is VERY common because biblical interpretation is so subjective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I (and the others who have done any substantial study of religion)
So anyone that disagrees with you hasn't done a substantial study of religion. You can tell when someone hasn't done a substantial study of religion when they don't agree with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I derived my position from reading the works of people who have spent their lives mastering cultural studies and religion. They agree with me because I've chosen to agree with them - at least upon the well-established and widely agreed upon fundamentals.
But you can read different experts and get a different opinion. Its not science where you have an external, objective reality to appeal to in case of disagreement.
Meatrace, I want to know how you define religion. Specifically, I want to know what definition you use which includes both those which make a claim to the supernatural (transcendent religions) and those that don't (immanent religions).
Can you give me an example of a religion that doesn't derive from supernatural forces? I'm not aware of any. Both transcendental (christianity, zoroastrianism) and pragmatic (wicca, voudon) derive from a belief in the supernatural, be it spirits or gods or what have you.
|
|
Buddism?
I (and the others who have done any substantial study of religion) defend religion because religion serves a useful roll in society, NOT because I'm religious.
My statement was not intended to be all encompassing. As I was trying to point out to meatrace, there are many reasons to defend religion, both rational and irrational.
After reading an in-depth article on the incident, there are a few things to consider.
First, the congregation held a vote on this new rule. It passed 9-6. So in actuality, only 9 people said mixed race couples were unwelcome in the congregation.
What is disturbing, however, is that there were 45 to 50 people present and only 15 of them voted. So in this instance, it's not the racism that's at fault, but the apathy of the rest of the congregation that could have easily voted this nonsense down if they'd bothered to do so.
The national association to which the church belongs doesn't back the action, and the pastor has called for a vote to repeal the decision. That it managed to get this far in the first place and garnered national attention before it was attended to is shameful.
Just another example of how people can twist their theology in a knot so it matches their preconceptions.Yes. I do so hate this practice. It's so common, too. Just look at most churchs' condemnation of abortion, which is in no way biblically supported. They we have the old "gays and a bunch of other people are sinners for not following the bible, but we don't have to follow everything in the bible, just what we choose to follow" argument. I have never seen someone who does everything in the bible.
This is exactly the behavior that BNW bemoans. And though for clearly different reasons, IO agree with him. You want to decide the Bible does not condemn abortion, so you say the Bible does not. But everything you could extract form the Bible that could possibly, even in a stretch, address the issue of abortion, utterly condemns the idea. You are precisey, exactly, misrepresenting Scripture and church tradition to say what you want.
And these losers in Kentucky are doing exactly the same thing. The Bible is overwhelmingly racially inclusive, and the model of Christ is, without exception, to overlook simple cultural barriers in favor of worhsip of a common Creator. I agree that legally there's nothing anyone can do. That church can have its eisogetic, ridiculous beliefs and damage the gospel. That will be between they and God at ye olde BEMA seat.
But as to what the Bible actually says, it say to preach teh gospel to all nations, and that Christ is salvation, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. It says we'll be know by our love, and that to play favorites is nothing less than sin. Naaman, the one leper who returned, the Samaritan woman at the well, the city of Nineveh - all saved because God looks at the heart while Men continue to screw up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All heterogenous acculturation spreads those beliefs, though. Not only that, but often as not the religious teaching is "Convert the heathen" or "tolerate the heathen and make his children aspire to convert", while "burn the heathen" is coming from other cultural influences.To suggest that one progresses beyond religion is to suggest that religion is somehow a precursor state. A culture which had abandoned religion would be artistically, philosophically, and morally poorer, even if you believe that no religion contains any religious truths whatsoever. Religion is a link to our pasts, lends meaning to philosophy for many who cannot otherwise find meaning in it, and gives direction to morality for those who find morality based in secular concepts empty. I'd say those three things are pretty valuable!
The problem is the differentiation of those cultural differences. Religion is so entangled in every other way that a person identifies himself. When a person or a culture no longer has the fall back point "god said so" or "it is revealed" then we'll be able to properly appreciate cultures for what they've become and work to heal the scars in our own.
I am suggesting that religion is a precursor state. Again, you have to tease apart the doctrine from the experience of religion. The experience of religion has genuine cultural value, whereas I don't see the doctrine as having any. The doctrines of most religions, those that are doctrinal to begin with, have to do with the way the world works which is either purely allegorical or demonstrably false. A strong faith belief in a doctrine that is demonstrably false, on the grounds that it is coincidental with an individual's cultural identity, is a strong impediment of positive change.
As to the point about religion weakening the arts, I'd have to see a culture that evolved to not have any religion or superstition to be able to know how their art would be. While it's true that, historically, religions and religious institutions have been great patrons of the arts, it has been largely because those same religions preached that avenues of artistic expression that were irreligious were shameful if not evil. I'd have to believe that in an open society, those with artistic talent would still find inspiration and explore other avenues of expression.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly the behavior that BNW bemoans. And though for clearly different reasons, IO agree with him. You want to decide the Bible does not condemn abortion, so you say the Bible does not. But everything you could extract form the Bible that could possibly, even in a stretch, address the issue of abortion, utterly condemns the idea. You are precisey, exactly, misrepresenting Scripture and church tradition to say what you want.Just another example of how people can twist their theology in a knot so it matches their preconceptions.Yes. I do so hate this practice. It's so common, too. Just look at most churchs' condemnation of abortion, which is in no way biblically supported. They we have the old "gays and a bunch of other people are sinners for not following the bible, but we don't have to follow everything in the bible, just what we choose to follow" argument. I have never seen someone who does everything in the bible.
The bible's listed punishment for beating a pregnant woman into a miscarriage is a fine paid to the child's father and the listed punishment for killing the woman during the beating is death. It would seem that the one that destroys a fetus is considered an economic crime against the father, and the one that kills the woman a murder. If destroying the fetus were considered murder, you'd think the punishment would be death like for killing the woman. That seems to imply that abortion is a form of property destruction, which would imply that, if consensual, it wouldn't be a crime.
Then we have the passages where God commands his followers to kill pregnant women from other nations and rip out the fetuses.
Finally, we have the fact that the bible never calls abortion murder. Abortion was a known practice back then, so you'd think they'd say so if God really considered it murder and wanted it forbidden.
Your assertion that anything I could pull from the bible utterly condemns abortion is false.
Buddism?
The beliefs, the doctrine, of Buddhism is predicated on the belief in reincarnation of the soul. That life is suffering, and that the greatest thing an individual can attain is to never be reborn. The word Nirvana has its roots in the word for blowing out a candle. Buddhism can be described as an atheistic religion, in that the belief or disbelief of the gods is left up to the individual practitioner. In that Buddhism is, as far as I know, unique. Atheistic Buddhism I would hesitate to call a religion.
Wow. Another salient point, illustrated through simple observation, and another demand for a citation for something people everywhere see. It's weird to see agnostic/atheist BNW having to produce evidence that people of faith misinterpret scripture to avoid having to change their beliefs. Not even the most fundamentalist apologist here (which might or might not be me) could possibly disagree. But, you better have a citation, or some of us might not be able to pick a fight.
The Old Testament ban on intermarriage was not about racial lines. It was about dissolving the culture God was attempting to develop from an imperfect people, so that he could, in fact, save the whole world. Note that all of Scripture is a telling of the redemptive process. We learn God's sovereignty, God's character, God's love, and God's plan to reconcile us to himself. So, when God says in 1000 bc that Israel is not to intermarry, it's to keep the Jews from abandoning their special purpose as God's chosen people. There are numerous examples in the Bible where God shows favor and forgiveness to someone outside the Jewish line. It isn't that God doesn't love and redeem everyone. It's that God doesn't want a nation of child-eaters to marry into his plan and dilute his message. So he forces them all to be wiped out, or he doesn't allow intermarriage for generations.
In no way should those rules be interpreted as a lack of love for other races, or a prohibition that Christian whites should not date or marry someone from another race. Since the first Christians were not white, this would be stupid.
Like TOZ said, Buddhism is a good example. Taoism is another.Meatrace, I want to know how you define religion. Specifically, I want to know what definition you use which includes both those which make a claim to the supernatural (transcendent religions) and those that don't (immanent religions).Can you give me an example of a religion that doesn't derive from supernatural forces? I'm not aware of any. Both transcendental (christianity, zoroastrianism) and pragmatic (wicca, voudon) derive from a belief in the supernatural, be it spirits or gods or what have you.
See above, Buddhism doesn't really work.
It's also interesting to note that Taoism is more of a philosophy that is tangentially associated with Chinese folk religion(s). But you're right, it is generally thought of as a religion. Defining religion, as I've said before, isn't particularly easy because, like Taoism, it's so intertwined with cultural identity.
I think, if you are unable to define religion, then making broad sweeping criticisms about religion is clearly wrong headed.
How about Geertz' definition, what do you think of that?
What sweeping criticisms did I make?
And Geertz' definition serves. I think you're trying to use the exception to prove the rule wrong. Using the harmlessness of Buddhism as defense of religious practices that are ignorant and bigoted would be wrongheaded. Again, religions have many parts, and the parts that are important for an individual to identify themselves are 1)not what I'm attacking 2)easily found elsewhere in such a connected post-modern society.Whether the Buddha meant his teaching as parable there were for centuries and continue to be Buddhists that believe in it literally. That's the thing about doctrine, it's only part of the formula.
I never claimed that Buddhism is any less harmful than other religions. I brought up Buddhism, not to talk about harm, but to see if you could give me a definition of religion which would extend to religions like Buddhism.
Fair enough. Inasmuch as religion includes a multitude of cultural paradigms, many of which are demonstrably not detrimental or neutral to the well-being of society, I shall constrain my criticisms of religion to those whose doctrine, practices, or both is predicated on the existence of the supernatural. There are exceptions (although I still contend that many Buddhists and Taoists do allow belief in the supernatural to inform their religious and cultural identity) but you have made me see the flaw in my arguments.