Official Religious Debate Thread

[N. Escalona]

Thus, the peace advocated by Jesus in the New Testament is canon, but the hatred of many fundamentalist Christians towards homosexuals is not. That hatred is, however, still an important part of the religion, a religion that includes sentiments not expressed in the Bible and that is therefore independent from the canon.

This hatred has become a part of the religion, as opposed to the wider culture, because it is directly derived from and justified by religious texts, regardless of where the actual sentiment originated and regardless of the fact that the canon read accurately cannot be used to justify it. As proof, ask any fundamentalist why they despise gays (or why God hates gays, etc., whatever incarnation of misunderstanding they employ) and they're certain to mention Christianity as a justification. If they didn't honestly believe that Christianity supplied justification for hatred, then homophobia would just be an odd symptom of the wider culture that tends to afflict fundamentalists more frequently, but this is not the case.

Yes, this argument borders on semantics, but if you pay attention you'll see that I'm making a deeper point about religion.

Don't neglect the possibility that the justification is merely after the fact. What matters is the root cause of the hatred, not what is used to justify it. Surely you can see that. "Proof" of your argument rests on whether these fundamentalists both (a) recognize the cause and (b) are honest in describing to to you. One needs to in some cases look past what people are telling you to the deeper truth.

[VijchtiDoodah]

I have taken that into account, read the second paragraph again: "This hatred has become a part of the religion...regardless of where the actual sentiment originated."

It doesn't matter if homophobia originated somewhere other than the religion, what matters is that it has become a part of the religion through years of teaching. This is the same reason why certain Conservative values don't represent true conservative dogma, why Conservatives sometimes advocate policies meant to expand the powers of government and yet conservatism is really about limiting the powers of government. Even if these ideas became deceptively embedded in the Conservative agenda, they are still Conservative values.

To give another example, many Islamic groups in the Middle East demonstrate extreme hatred and intolerance for Jews. This is their religion: they use religious texts to justify and amplify this hatred and then teach it to their children. However, Islam had a policy of toleration towards the Jews until the Third Reich saw fit to propagandize hatred as a tool to increase the influence of pro-Nazi imams. In both cases, tolerance and intolerance, the religion was still Islam and the sentiments could be perfectly justified with specific scriptures.

Furthermore, if you use your argument to claim that you can never know where sentiments really originate, you must apply this to the entire religion: you don't know what parts, for good or for evil, are truly inspired by the dogma and you therefore can never accurately separate a religion from the culture it rests upon. Which is, in fact, my point.

[N. Escalona]

What I'm saying though is that it doesn't matter what is used to justify the behaviour; what matters in this case is what effects the behaviour.

I tentatively think I would apply this to all parts of religion. But that would maintain the separation between culture and religion insofar as it exists, since what you call "the dogma" is, in fact, the religion. Not those portions that

No, that's wrong. You clearly know your point and I don't know mine at all. I think I agree with you.

Though, don't you think, if someone were to commit to religious honesty and attempt to believe in the dogma, to the exclusion of the chaff what's been added in time since, could that be a religion separate from the culture? Could it be called a different religion from that practiced by this person's neighbors?

[soulblade]

No, you mean it just isn't like the mainstream Abrahamic religions most like to attack when they attack religion as a whole.

Its very similar to certain Christian sects and Islam, at its core philosophy. Of course, there are dogmatic differences, but there almost always is.

I was actually referring to the fact that most religions believe in and worship superhuman beings whereas buddhists do not.

[Smegma]

No, you mean it just isn't like the mainstream Abrahamic religions most like to attack when they attack religion as a whole.

Its very similar to certain Christian sects and Islam, at its core philosophy. Of course, there are dogmatic differences, but there almost always is.

I was actually referring to the fact that most religions believe in and worship superhuman beings whereas buddhists do not.

An enlightened one in a way, is like this. I was referring to the part where at the core of its beliefs, this isn't really the main purpose of religions.



@Vjitch: Sure, it has become common for certain hatreds to be standard among many "religious" people, though I'd appreciate some differentiation between the theology and the people who distort it.

[VijchtiDoodah]

Though, don't you think, if someone were to commit to religious honesty and attempt to believe in the dogma, to the exclusion of the chaff what's been added in time since, could that be a religion separate from the culture? Could it be called a different religion from that practiced by this person's neighbors?

Interesting thought. As an quick answer, I don't think any religion can ever be completely divorced from the surrounding culture. Religion necessarily affects the way a person thinks and therefore how they shape culture. The only exception would be hermit religions in which practitioners are completely excluded from society.

For your second question, it appears to me that nearly all religions have some leeway in interpretation. This explains why Christianity includes sects such as Protestantism, for example, and those sects are further divided into denominations such as Lutharan, and each individual believes in their own personal perspective influenced by each major shift in thought. Thus, even in the face of major differences, all personal interpretations, all denominations and all sects of Christianity are still called "Christianity," even though each is strikingly unique (Bhagavan Das goes a bit further and claims that all religions are essentially the same). Many people treat these differences as one religion because members all tend to subscribe to the larger religious culture. Thus, if a group of people, like Fundamentalists, choose to strictly follow scripture, it's still the same religion. The only way to separate oneself is to create a new, separate subculture.

[N. Escalona]

I agree culture is important in defining how religions are distinguished from one another, but dogmatic difference can do this single-handedly as well. Stop me if I'm wrong, but don't Sunnis and Shi'ites have nearly identical culture?

[VijchtiDoodah]

I don't believe the Sunni and Shia cultures are identical, or nearly so, but I know little of Islam. As far as I know, the major cultural difference is that Sunnites elect scholars to offer suggestions about proper behavior whereas Shiite leaders have absolute, infallible authority over laws and customs. Furthermore, both religions operate based on the Koran but each has a unique set of scriptures that comprises a separate canon.

It appears as if they are different cultures separated by a history of violence and it may be the case that dogmatic differences were the catalyst. However, popular Western media often portrays them as a single culture, so I suggest researching the matter.

[Farah]

I agree culture is important in defining how religions are distinguished from one another, but dogmatic difference can do this single-handedly as well. Stop me if I'm wrong, but don't Sunnis and Shi'ites have nearly identical culture?

nope not really, the theistic basis is the same but the very differences lie in the way sunnis/shias do things, their perceptions of the sahabah(prophet's companions) and their rituals.

I don't believe the Sunni and Shia cultures are identical, or nearly so, but I know little of Islam. As far as I know, the major cultural difference is that Sunnites elect scholars to offer suggestions about proper behavior whereas Shiite leaders have absolute, infallible authority over laws and customs. Furthermore, both religions operate based on the Koran but each has a unique set of scriptures that comprises a separate canon.

It appears as if they are different cultures separated by a history of violence and it may be the case that dogmatic differences were the catalyst. However, popular Western media often portrays them as a single culture, so I suggest researching the matter.

it's a major difference but not just because of the infallible authority of the leaders, they consider these imams akin to prophets etc. while sunnis would consider this a hypocrisy because of the "seal of the prophets"(muhammad is last messenger etc.)
but like i said the distinguishing difference is their perceptions of the sahabah and the order of caliphate that sunnis and shiias consider to be correct. shiias believe that ali(prophet's nephew) should have been the first caliph because of his lineage(nephew of prophet makes him more holy, they call him "alayhis salam" which is a term said by muslims after they say the name of a prophet, whereas a sunni would say "radiyallahu anhu" which is the term for the sahabah), but sunnis believe that abu bakr had the right to be the first caliph because he, according to the prophet muhammad held the highest and strongest iman(belief in god bla bla bla) and thus iman was the way of structuring the order of calpihate, whereas shiias believe that this was wrong and it should have been done via lineage.

wall of text, a bit fragmented but you get the idea hopefully of what i'm saying

[N. Escalona]

Okay, but the original Caliphate dispute was the root cause for all the cultural differences, yes?

Thanks for the lesson BTW.

[Swarmer]

It doesn't matter if homophobia originated somewhere other than the religion, what matters is that it has become a part of the religion through years of teaching.

But which religion are you referring to?  The whole of Christianity, or just the homophobic sect that you are describing?  I don't see how this homophobic sect's dogma affects an entirely different sect, a "sibling node", if you will (I'm thinking of a tree structure, with Christianity as the root).

Yes, homophobia has become a part of that religion, but that religion is not "Christianity".  It's "Culture X's implementation of Christianity."  I don't think you can ever have a perfect cultural implementation of the core religion.  You just end up with various sects and denominations, all having varying beliefs, some more extreme than others.

What I am saying is that religion is extremely diverse even within individual super-religions.  The traits that someone dislikes about a "Christian" might be completely absent from (the ideology and personality of) someone else who calls themselves Christian.  The only way to make a judgement on a religion as a whole is to study the theology of the religion itself, not just the actions of a particular sect/denomination.  It's kind of impractical, and the actions of a majority might indeed say something about the underlying theology, but it's not a direct correlation, so you have to take everything on a case by case basis. 

Interesting thought. As an quick answer, I don't think any religion can ever be completely divorced from the surrounding culture. Religion necessarily affects the way a person thinks and therefore how they shape culture. The only exception would be hermit religions in which practitioners are completely excluded from society.

There are many people who adhere to a specific religious theology, yet distance themselves from that religious culture.  That culture's beliefs may be completely different from this person's, and it wouldn't be fair to judge that person's theology based on a separate culture's actions.

Someone can be religious and not be in a religious culture ( other than his own micro-culture) (and of course his interpretations can also be wildly divergent from the theology itself).

[N. Escalona]

Perhaps even more common is for someone to be integrated into a religious culture but not practice that religion.

[VijchtiDoodah]

It doesn't matter if homophobia originated somewhere other than the religion, what matters is that it has become a part of the religion through years of teaching.

But which religion are you referring to?  The whole of Christianity, or just the homophobic sect that you are describing?

If a given sect is markedly different from that of the larger religion, then it would be reasonable to treat it as a subset of the larger culture.

Interpret that as you will. I don't feel like exploring the social implications of that statement.

[Swarmer]

My point is that a subset does not necessarily influence the superset.

[VijchtiDoodah]

I disagree because the subset is necessarily an interacting part of the whole or else it would be a secluded culture of its own and therefore a subset of nothing. But I believe we agree that it is often inaccurate to judge an entire religion based on the actions or beliefs of one denomination, which I feel is your underlying sentiment.

[Swarmer]

That is the point that I am making, although I don't mean subset as merely "a part of", but rather "a derivation of".  Y is derived from X, and Z is also derived from X.  If Y develops some attribute, it doesn't say anything about Z.  Although in some cases it could be true that Y developed that attribute because of something to do with X.  If that was the case, it is sometimes possible to infer something similar about Z.  But this is not always the case, so when it is, it's important to identify that and explicitly acknowledge the exact relationship that links the different groups together.

[Farah]

Where did we come from?

Well, the universe’s origin has been discovered in the form of the Big Bang Theory, which is upheld by the vast majority of scientists around the world. Scientific theory is the closest piece of rationale based on systematic thought and testing that us as humans can say we have to the actual truth in the understanding of the ways of which the laws of nature and physics work; therefore the theory that we originated from a singularity, provided it is evidenced(which it is).

With this in mind, ponder what one’s existence is. Essentially, everything from our universe’s initial cosmological evolution, the formation of solar systems, galaxies and planets to our existence today is a result of causes and effects. If one follow backwards the causal chain of our existence back to the singularity from which the universe originated, one finds themselves at the end of this chain of causes and effects; but that poses the question: what is the cause of the singularity? Surely it must be theffect of a cause, nothing can cause itself to exist. But then if the singularity is caused, what is the cause of the singularity’s cause? One could go on for a very long time doing this to no avail. Thus one must conclude that there must be a first, uncaused cause of which temporality does not apply.

This conclusion may sound absurd to many, as humans apply relative temporality in order to conceptualize various premises they come across in day-to-day life. An alternative conclusion one may offer is that the universe is the first cause of our existence. The problem is that despite that seeming to be a rational argument, it begs the question: How can the universe cause itself when it is bound in temporality?

One may think after reading this, that I am religious for these reasons. This is not neccesarily true as I only identify this cause as that; a cause. Not a being with infinite potential, not an all-merciful, all-just and benificient creator of mankind. My only claim to knowledge with regards to the cause is it is just a cause not bound within time, matter and space as it is what caused these very things itself! To apply relative attributes to the cause is indeed, absurd. Despite this, I am a theist. I just don’t worship this cause, I don’t give a name to this cause unless I feel like doing so. But I am religious, and I shall give the reasons why later on in this text.

This may cause a bit of confusion with one reading this. Allow me to clarify; I believe that this postulated prenatural being exists, but I do not believe that this being has sent scripture to earth in order for us to live are lives according to. This is not because I think it is absurd to believe that, but my thinking hits a wall when thinking in terms of religion as it begs the question: “How do you prove that this scripture came from this immaterial being?” One cannot conclusively prove that it does, nor can one prove it does not as there are concepts in some scriptures(the Qur’an for example) which present scientific premises not discovered until thousands of years after the scripture came into light(namely, the universe’s expansion) which cannot be ignored.

In light of all of this, I am religious. Why? I was thinking one day and I thought to myself, “What is the harm in taking this being and living in accord with the rules of a religion?”. So I drew a table with all the possibilites of living life in accord with a religion against whether God existed in accord with the religion or not. This table shows a better advantage of living a life religiously, since if God exists in accord with the religion, I go to heaven and if he doesn’t, I rot. I have no way of knowing which is true, the only claim to knowledge I shall have is that there is a First Cause. I did this table without knowledge of Pascal’s Wager, which posed a similar premise. Which religion do I attribute myself with? The one of my parents; Islam. For convenience and I rolled a dice with 6 major religions and got it anyways.

just a post from my blog, my answer to the whole "where did we come from" question.

[MadDog]

Religion is basically one of the three reasons why people get up in the morning.

Ask yourself: You woke up today. Why did you get up? Why bother? Why are you here? Why are you living? Did you ask to be born? Of course not. Then why should you have to be here? What's the point of living? Life is miserable. A lot of people have awful lives. Why bother to get up? Why live?

Reason 1. Religion: You believe in an afterlife, or heaven, where life will not be misery. Life will be peace, tranquility. Happiness. You even get to see deceased loved ones. It's... heaven. BUT you can only get in if you're good in life, meaning, don't kill someone, don't steal, hurt, or cheat. If you do, you get sent to hell, where the devil pokes you with a pitchfork for all eternity. And you can't take the easy route and blow your brains out, 'cause that's against the rules. You've gotta tough it out like everyone else. So, you get up in the morning, and live your life, believing when you die, if you were good, you go to heaven. When life get's especially difficult, you pray to God, and ask for his support as you get through it. You have no one else to turn to, and need some sort of comfort.

Reason 2: Greed. You wake up because you want money, power, fame. Become a billionare, and make your own heaven with money. Sports cars, mansions, yachts, women, influence, you name it. You become a somebody in life, and find your own peace. Whether getting this is legit or wrong doesn't really matter, because you're so ambitious... so greedy, you'll do anything for that Ferrari. Criminals fit in here. So do sleazy, ambulance-chasing lawyers.

Reason 3: Existentialism. What is that? Basically, it's the belief that your primary purpose in life is to make the lives of others less painful. You find happiness by aiding the sick and dying. You get up in the morning because they want to better the world. Nurses are a good example of existentialists. See, people normally think a doctor would be a good example, but doctors are usually ambitious. They care about the money. Nurses probably care about helping others more.

So what are you? You can be a mix, sure, but which?

I'd say I'm mostly religious. I pray for my brother every night. I don't think I've missed a night in 3 years. Not one. And he's still alive... is there really a God? Does he really listen to me? I want to say yes. I wake up every morning thinking if I'm a good person, maybe God will protect those I love. Is that the answer?

[Thinkto urself]

I wake up because it's nearly 90 degrees where my bed sits in the morning, and having open shades doesn't help.

[~Niko~]

I don't need religion, I wake up today because I was hungry.