Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
<snip>
> (Again, if one admits the Bible is simply allegorical fiction, on par
> with Zeus, Muhammed, and Qutezycoatl, then I'm cool with that. I only
> argue against people who somehow think their religion is more real than
> someone else's, or more real than actual experience as actual science,
> for example.)


I'll admit my religion is less real then someone elses, does that win me
an internet cookie?

>>   How could it not be context-dependent?
> 
> I dunno. Maybe because HE'S GOD!?  ;-)
> 
> I mean, if the message is so important you're going to condemn every
> single animal, plant, and human to eternal torture, you could manage to
> be clear about what you want.

And that's the problem with arguing about religion. There are always
people willing to take the same book and make opposing claims about it.
A sect of the Southern Baptist that I'm familiar with claim that every
word in the Bible is divine and was meant to be read in English, so
every phrase can be taken completely out of context. Arguing about
contradictory phrases resulted in the fall-back argument that one should
"just do what the church says is right." A person was expected to read
the Bible and ask God for the answer, and in the supposed rare case
where that didn't work should slowly escalate their question through the
church ranks, like a tech support request. "Besides, if God won't answer
you with what is the right belief, are you sure you aren't doing
something else wrong?"

The opposite results in the same problem. If the Bible requires intense
readings and thought, then anyone who comes to an answer different from
the correct one is just wrong. And probably either a sinner who wants to
read the wrong answer or just stupid. The end result, from both cases,
is that anyone who thinks differently about someone's choice religion is
 at best a sinner to be converted.

Atheists can fall into the same trap, the difference being that the
perceived sin is a lack of scientific reasoning. I forget if it was
Dawkins or someone else who made a statement that amounted to religion
being a genetic hold over or even a mental illness.

>>   Or maybe if you try to understand the message instead of trying
>> deliberately to misunderstand it to attack people.
> 
> I'm not attacking any person or people. And I *do* understand the
> message. I just don't understand it the same way you do.

Is there such a thing as a deliberate misunderstanding?

> I, however, have no personal interaction with any dieties, so when I
> talk about them, I tend to treat them as fictional. This isn't intended
> to be any more insulting than if I tell you I don't like the same kind
> of music you do or enjoy the same style of novels that you do. If I said
> "Band X sucks" and they're your favorite band, would you feel insulted?
> Nor should you when I point out flaws in the literal interpretation of
> religious texts that you believe or don't.

That might be a bad example. If I were to recommend a book to a friend,
I could explain to them the reasons that I liked the book. The reason is
personal, but based on things that can be shared. A book that tells a
story I can relate to might not touch someone else the same way, but
when explained I suspect that other people would at least be able to
understand why I liked that book. At least, you could suggest they just
read it. "Just be Christian for a week," doesn't have the same effect.

I've rarely heard religion discussed the same way. Most people that I've
discussed religion with can not express why they chose the religion that
they practice, in any definable way. They start with the same phrases
used to describe a book they like, "It touched me." or "It was what I
needed to hear." Or they describe it like friends, "They were there for
me." However, when trying to connect those reasons to something tangible
they can share, they eventually go with "Well, it just seems right to me."

Those still following the religion they were raised with don't even
offer those reasons.

Post a reply to this message