Paradox wrote:
[Really, it's only the "extremists" of most religions that actually, truly believe in their religion. Everyone else just uses it as a title and/or crutch.]
Otherwise known as the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. With an added dose of 'elephant hurling'. I'm sure there are plenty of religious folks - from Christian to trans-humanist and all points in between - who hold their views sincerely. I'd say pretty much equal to the percentage of sincere people in general, for the simple reason that EVERYBODY has, consciously or not, a set of philosophical beliefs in the issues with which 'religion' concerns itself, and that to which we give pride of precedence of our time, energy and ambition is our god, for all practical purpose.
As for 'extremists' - a few come to mind; The Amish. The Mennonites. Oh! And the man who inspired the film 'Machine Gun Preacher'. Not exactly blights on the face of humanity.
Paradox wrote:
[After all, most Christians aren't stoning unruly children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and most Muslims are not actively trying to murder unbelievers (al-baqarah, 2:191), which both are sins/transgressions, meaning you don't get to go to Heaven if you fail to do so!]
Possibly because 'most Christians' who choose to be as informed as possible about their faith, understand things like 'context' and authorial intent. These sections of the Bible are related as historical accounts, of God's working out his relationship with 'Man' through one group of people, in a certain manner, through a certain culture, at a specific time in history. He was their sovereign ruler and - as with other emperors of the time - lawgiver( Hence the two tablets of the Ten Commandments, a treaty of fealty - one copy for the people, one for the ruler ). And yes, the specific, formal process of dealing with an older adolescent( remember, at that time people bore more responsibility, and had more expected of them, far younger than today ), drunken, violent toward their own family, and refusing all counsel and censure, would fall under that purview. And, uh, what's heaven got to do with it again?
Btw, the Mosaic law as recorded limited punishments to NO MORE THAN an eye for an eye, unlike other cultures in the are at that time, held men liable to the same punishments as women for sexual immorality and in all other matters of the law - save that a woman could withdraw from a 'rashly made' vow, while a man could not - and, despite the chauvinism which so strongly worked to undermine it in Israel - as so many other places - permits, and the Bible records women as attaining, access to every station in life to which one might aspire; Judge, Queen( In a time of war! ), prophetess - all are recorded with approval in the Bible. Women could even join the Nazarites( of which Samson was a member ). Only the priesthood and, apparently, Biblical authorship seem gender exclusive, which has somewhat specific implications about what 'spiritual headship' was and was not intended to mean. So why does the old Judaic law get such a bad rap?
Paradox wrote:
[If religion is true, you need to drop everything and do everything it prescribes, because even if you suffer extreme agony all of this life, it's nothing compared to what "god" will do to you afterwards if you don't follow it.]
Can't speak to others, but that's NOT the God of ye olde, organized Christianity: WE - humanity - are the cause, willing victims of our own fallen natures, rebels against what we know of 'His' truth. And, depending on your reading, many, perhaps most, theologians would argue that WE are the source of the torments of Hell; Our fallen natures, spinning out into eternity, fully cut off from the ONE relationship and source for which it was our entire purpose and design to relate, locking the door to Hell from the inside( Beg for death, yes - but never a thought to repentance and to serve in heaven ).
Yeah - Christianity is a bit didactic on some points; Absolute hope 'in Christ Jesus', absolute nihilism apart from him( and restraint of the 'common grace' of moral law 'written on the hearts' of all people. ).
Paradox wrote:
[Luckily, though, most theists don't follow all the rules, or we'd be back to the dark ages, or under Sharia Law.]
I could write something putting the faith of my parents( which is what I comment on knowledgeably) in context regards that statement, again - but as a general point, consider the question of weather an entirely 'neutral' politic is either possible or desirable. Can we expect to avoid grappling with what constitutes a 'human life', with all the rights and protections thereof? Should we truly expect to be of one accord pertaining the meaning of marriage? Even the laws of a republic will be in some part determined by the sum of philosophies and personal motivations of the voting public; And so long as some minority differs from the majority on matters of import and universal scope, I fear the beliefs of some will intrude on the lives of others. It is what it is - life.
PS: Sorry for the mini-lesson in hermeneutics, but these kind of statements show up all the time in comment sections and editorials; And - meaning no offense to Paradox - it's quite frustrating. I couldn't skip an opportunity to provide a little correction! :-/
Topic: What is your religion? (Read 11314 times)