church, gays, and a blonde

[Naffa]

Religion doesn't have to be absolute and unchanging, you might choose to call that selling out but there's no reason why religion cannot or should not adapt. It's almost funny in some ways that if religion tries to adapt then it gets slated for it as selling out, if it doesn't then it's an anachronism - seems there's no way to win.

I don't understand how people can say that. If you honestly believe that's true, then you've just nullified the whole foundational purpose of religion and deemed it false. Either the religion preaches the word of God, and is therefore moral by default, or it does not preach the word of God, and is therefore immoral by default.

If religion adapts as time goes on, then it's quite clear that there's nothing holy, nor supernatural about it (which should be apparent anyway).

 

[semi-pro waster]

I don't understand how people can say that. If you honestly believe that's true, then you've just nullified the whole foundational purpose of religion and deemed it false. Either the religion preaches the word of God, and is therefore moral by default, or it does not preach the word of God, and is therefore immoral by default.

If religion adapts as time goes on, then it's quite clear that there's nothing holy, nor supernatural about it (which should be apparent anyway).

Or you're saying that religion is everlasting and unchanging which does not have to be so. It depends on how you approach religion and what you want from it - if you want an eternal set of moral codes and believe that none of the beliefs and practices of the time can ever be modified then you'd be at least partially right, if however you view it as a set of guidelines as appropriate at the time(s) they have been expounded then religion does not have to remain unvaried.

We could also get into relative morality -why must there be an absolute, it's either preaching the word of god and moral or not and it is immoral? If you believe the word of god to be that "thou shalt not kill" then is preaching that (even if there is no word of god) immoral? I'd personally call that a fairly obvious 'good' moral stance but then maybe that's down to a belief that pragmatism is sometimes more useful than idealism.

I'll put in the usual disclaimer: I'm not religious in the least but I try never to presume to tell other people how they should take their religion so if people want to have their religion adapt and change through usage then that's up to them.

 

[Naffa]

Or you're saying that religion is everlasting and unchanging which does not have to be so. It depends on how you approach religion and what you want from it - if you want an eternal set of moral codes and believe that none of the beliefs and practices of the time can ever be modified then you'd be at least partially right, if however you view it as a set of guidelines as appropriate at the time(s) they have been expounded then religion does not have to remain unvaried.

Like I've said time again, all I know is what the canon actually says. As far as it's purpose goes, I cannot see how it can claim to be anything other than an eternal set of moral codes. Not that I deem the vast majority of any of the monotheistic canons as moral. I can see the 'point' of religion beginning to fade if, in it's own eyes, it ceases to be an immovable, everlasting obelisk of moral teaching.

We could also get into relative morality -why must there be an absolute, it's either preaching the word of god and moral or not and it is immoral? If you believe the word of god to be that "thou shalt not kill" then is preaching that (even if there is no word of god) immoral? I'd personally call that a fairly obvious 'good' moral stance but then maybe that's down to a belief that pragmatism is sometimes more useful than idealism.

I couldn't agree more on the question of relative morality, absolute morality does not exist, and yet, it's something that the Bible (for example) unshakably preaches to be the case. It's fairly generic to say that "the ten commandments are moral, and a good starting point for one to lead a moral life", when there are several quite severely immoral parts. On another note, immediately after Moses apparently delivered the commandment of 'You shall not murder", he incited all of his followers to raise arms and slaughter the infidels, and people that refused to accept his teachings.

I'll put in the usual disclaimer: I'm not religious in the least but I try never to presume to tell other people how they should take their religion so if people want to have their religion adapt and change through usage then that's up to them.

That's fair enough, and a point one would find it difficult to object to. But I will reiterate, all I know is what the scripture says and what the canon preaches.

 

[Jokester]

I agree with naffa on this, if speciific religions change their preaching to fit in with contemporary ideas and morals then it does expose them for being a bag of *****. It clearly just makes them pandering to society and offering a "spiritual" product to people in return for money and power.

 

[Tokenbrit]

I agree with naffa on this, if speciific religions change their preaching to fit in with contemporary ideas and morals then it does expose them for being a bag of *****. It clearly just makes them pandering to society and offering a "spiritual" product to people in return for money and power.

Nope.

Theology as a branch of philosophy is an intellectual science and open to new ideas and theories. As time passes different ideologies wax and wane as in any field.

For Judeo-Christian people the bible provides a partial history of theological ideas and also a frame of reference for new ideas. As a history it gives a record of the religious experiences of the Jewish people and the early church. These experiences were influenced by the society they lived in and the general philosophy of the time.

The only immutable moral law for Christians is that you should love God and one another.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Well, it's a fairly reasonable assumption to come to, given that churchs of all forms preach that your brother is committing a cardinal sin and is to face eternal damnation in the firey depths of hell.

+2

 

[The Mad Rapper]

I agree with naffa on this, if speciific religions change their preaching to fit in with contemporary ideas and morals then it does expose them for being a bag of *****. It clearly just makes them pandering to society and offering a "spiritual" product to people in return for money and power.

I agree. If they dislike homos then they should stick to it. Religion shouldn't move with the times.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

The only immutable moral law for Christians is that you should love God and one another.

ORLY?

The Bible is the greatest work of fiction ever. And it's full of so many contradictions as to render it useless.

 

[Naffa]

Nope.

Theology as a branch of philosophy is an intellectual science and open to new ideas and theories. As time passes different ideologies wax and wane as in any field.

For Judeo-Christian people the bible provides a partial history of theological ideas and also a frame of reference for new ideas. As a history it gives a record of the religious experiences of the Jewish people and the early church. These experiences were influenced by the society they lived in and the general philosophy of the time.

The only immutable moral law for Christians is that you should love God and one another.

Wow...Are you going to ignore all of the commandments (regardless of which Decalogue you choose to reference)? Cafeteria Christians are even more unimpressive than the fundamentalist ones.

I don't even know that I accept theology as an entity in itself, I certainly don't accept it as a branch of philosophy.

 

[trancesphere]

I agree. If they dislike homos then they should stick to it. Religion shouldn't move with the times.

So you think that stoning people to death is acceptable?

 

[Naffa]

So you think that stoning people to death is acceptable?

I think you totally misunderstood Rapper's point. He was saying that if a religion preaches that homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuals are bound to hell then it shouldn't suddenly change it's mind and decide that from this moment on, homosexuals no longer go to hell. It's just nonsense.

 

[Tokenbrit]

Wow...Are you going to ignore all of the commandments (regardless of which Decalogue you choose to reference)? Cafeteria Christians are even more unimpressive than the fundamentalist ones.

I don't even know that I accept theology as an entity in itself, I certainly don't accept it as a branch of philosophy.

They represent the beliefs of a people in a different society in a different time, even assuming they are recorded perfectly.

Furthermore they have been superseded by the idea "love god, love everybody else" which is far more encompassing anyway.

I know it must be inconvenient for you that modern Christians don't rigidly subscribe to a 6000 year old philosophy from a different continent, and hence your criticisms (doubtless parroted from Richard Dawkins or some dank corner of the internet) are pretty much irrelevant, but dems the apples.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

I think you totally misunderstood Rapper's point. He was saying that if a religion preaches that homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuals are bound to hell then it shouldn't suddenly change it's mind and decide that from this moment on, homosexuals no longer go to hell. It's just nonsense.

Indeed. Thank you. Consistency is key.

 

[Rroff]

I see your point, but in the eyes of Christianity, there are few without sin. Also, a Christian would say that God loves everyone, and is forgiving. It's the forgiving that makes him divine. Christ forgave those who put him to death.

We could go all day with this, there are many complications and even conflicting inconsistencies to discuss.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were many churches in the world where homosexuals were not allowed to enter (think of some of the Bible states in the deep south USA etc). However, in the UK such things would likely cause some sort of public outrage, so I find it unlikely, and thus a very ill-informed question if you had any idea what churches were like in this country. It sounds like the person in question has never been to one.

Yeah its a funny hypocrisy - while the main UK churches probably are too politically correct to discriminate theres plenty of smaller ones in the UK where homosexuality is taboo (see passages quoted in posts above) and they wouldn't willingly let someone of that orientation through the doors.

 

[james.miller]

somebody should just ask god what he thinks on the matter.....

 

[trancesphere]

I think you totally misunderstood Rapper's point. He was saying that if a religion preaches that homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuals are bound to hell then it shouldn't suddenly change it's mind and decide that from this moment on, homosexuals no longer go to hell. It's just nonsense.

Religion preaches that being stoned to death is an acceptable punishment for certain crimes. Religion shouldnt move with times. So therefore it should be used for those crimes today?

 

[Naffa]

They represent the beliefs of a people in a different society in a different time, even assuming they are recorded perfectly.

Furthermore they have been superseded by the idea "love god, love everybody else" which is far more encompassing anyway.

I know it must be inconvenient for you that modern Christians don't rigidly subscribe to a 6000 year old philosophy from a different continent, and hence your criticisms (doubtless parroted from Richard Dawkins or some dank corner of the internet) are pretty much irrelevant, but dems the apples.

Excuse me, but the inconvenience upon my shoulders. I'm going to assume that you're a practising Christian (feel free to correct me). I've no idea how you've come to the conclusion that it's my inconvenience that you cease to adhere to scripture dating back thousands of years, the problem is all yours I'm afraid.

Your religion claims something as fact, and is infallible, anybody that questions it or doesn't obey gets a first class ticket to hell. But oh wait! That's no longer acceptable, we better update what qualifies you for hell to be in line with modern times. Did all of the people that apparently went to hell for doing something that's now acceptable get raptured into heaven? The most obvious example of this is regarding the Pope's shifting of policy regarding unbaptised babies going into limbo. So many parents nearly went mad thinking that their children were in limbo for eternity as they were unable to baptise them before they perished. Now, the Pope has changed his policy and decided that it's not the case, and he's really to be infallible all over again (how do you think the parents felt about that?). Utter nonsense.

Religion preaches that stoning by death is an acceptable punishment for certern crimes. Religion shouldnt move with times. So therefore it should be used for those crimes today?

Thank you, you've done an exemplary job in crystallising my point. You're quite correct, religion should consider it ok to do such things. It's one of the reasons why I find religion so utterly distasteful.

 

[Jokester]

Nope.

Theology as a branch of philosophy is an intellectual science and open to new ideas and theories. As time passes different ideologies wax and wane as in any field.

For Judeo-Christian people the bible provides a partial history of theological ideas and also a frame of reference for new ideas. As a history it gives a record of the religious experiences of the Jewish people and the early church. These experiences were influenced by the society they lived in and the general philosophy of the time.

The only immutable moral law for Christians is that you should love God and one another.

Doesn't this mean then that the Bible is a load of tosh then?

 

[Tokenbrit]

Indeed. Thank you. Consistency is key.

For one thing, referring to "a religion" as a single organism capable of making a decision is a fallacy.

A religion is nothing but a group of people with, to some extent, similar views. There can be as many denominations within the religion as there are people. People change their minds all the time, they grow older, experience new things and are exposed to new ideas and ergo change their views.

Having the courage to accept that your views are wrong and outdated and to change them is a very laudable facet to a person.

 

[Tokenbrit]

Excuse me, but the inconvenience upon my shoulders. I'm going to assume that you're a practising Christian (feel free to correct me). I've no idea how you've come to the conclusion that it's my inconvenience that you cease to adhere to scripture dating back thousands of years, the problem is all yours I'm afraid.

Your religion claims something as fact, and is infallible, anybody that questions it or doesn't obey gets a first class ticket to hell. But oh wait! That's no longer acceptable, we better update what qualifies you for hell to be in line with modern times. Did all of the people that apparently went to hell for doing something that's now acceptable get raptured into heaven? The most obvious example of this is regarding the Pope's shifting of policy regarding unbaptised babies going into limbo. So many parents nearly went mad thinking that their children were in limbo for eternity as they were unable to baptise them before they perished. Now, the Pope has changed his policy and decided that it's not the case, and he's really to be infallible all over again (how do you think the parents felt about that?). Utter nonsense.

Thank you, you've done an exemplary job in crystallising my point. You're quite correct, religion should consider it ok to do such things. It's one of the reasons why I find religion so utterly distasteful.

Why are you allowed to define what "my religion" is?

Only I get to do that.