CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[PaulF]

In response to the first thread getting so crowded and difficult to follow (Predict the 1st Banning for uncivil behavior in the new Religious Threads...) here is a new thread specifically to discuss aspects of this topic. As the weekend progresses I will attempt to pull the relevant bits out of the old thread and paste them into this one, in order to (attempt to) create one cohesive thread on the subject.

Have at it, INGO:

 

[JettaKnight]

I can now shirk my daily duties three times as much as before!

 

[IndyDave1776]

"It's always a beautiful day in this neighborhood"

--Fred Rogers when asked what epitaph he would have put on his grave stone

 

[IndyDave1776]

So far as I am concerned, on of the most important things we can keep in mind as we address the subject of religion is that the beliefs of no other person can change our own condition. Ideas with which we disagree are not a disease we can catch involuntarily, and no harm can come to us from the ideas of others so long as the First Amendment standards of not establishing a religion, hence legislating what people are required to believe or otherwise penalizing faith or lack thereof, and not interfering with choices and practices of conscience with a few necessary exceptions like not allowing practitioners of some religions to sacrifice people.

I find it encouraging that although there has been spirited discussion (no pun intended), it has stayed within the boundaries of the understanding that others may be brought to one's point of view only through persuasion that one's ideas are better than that person own ideas. More specifically, a person cannot be browbeaten into honestly believing anything other than that the person doing the browbeating is a jerk.

It is also significant that most believers have points where they are not content that their understanding is satisfactory. It may well be a relatively minor issue, maybe not so minor. It may be minor to some but not others. Generally, I can be happy to worship with most different varieties of Christian. Even those with whom I would have numerous doctrinal differences have a basic foundation on which we can agree. I would much rather encourage a believer with whom I have differences of belief in the understanding that I didn't start where I am and he didn't start were he will end up, even if it is developing a greater depth of the same basic understanding.

i also feel compelled to point out that when one approaches the discussion with ears open, it is entirely possible to learn some very interesting new things. I will offer thanks to CathyInBlue for her excellent explanation of evolution which has significantly changed my understanding of the concept. No, it isn't going to shake up my faith, but I am definitely better off for understanding it better than I did before.

As one of the most outspoken dissenters with the previous prohibition against religious discussion, I feel an obligation to encourage everyone to continue as we have been with a good discussion which stands to expand mutual understanding and add depth to our neighbors who often are merely characters on a screen as I am now. I would like to extend my thanks to Fenway for choosing to allow this experiment in what could potentially be troublesome territory and my encouragement to all who are keeping it as a tool of understanding rather than a tool of hostility.

 

[D-Ric902]

Out

 

[findingZzero]

Wherever you are in the universe you know that it works because everything in it is needed. Reconcile with this and life becomes bearable, if not freakin' joyous...

 

[CathyInBlue]

I always thought the religion threads belong, and were going to be created, as a separate forum under the General Interest. Forum » General Interest » Religion. That way, all of these thread title prefixes "CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION" could be dispensed with.

What could I discuss about religion generally?…

How about the position some religionists take that without religion (specificly their religion) there can be no true morality, that morality requires an absolute standard to be useful, otherwise no one's moral compass can possibly point to "true north".

In response to that proposition, I always question why should we use your religion's moral laws, as opposed to some other religion's moral laws?

Second, I reject the whole premise that only religious morality can carry the imprimatur of absolute right and wrong. Raw, unadulterated human reason is entirely capable of crafting a set of moral laws with every bit the authority of religiously based moral laws, and in fact look very much the same as large swaths of various religious moral laws, all while having a rational basis to back them up, which is, in my humble opinion, a basis superior to "Because our god said so."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Salon has the hottest of takes. (Archive link)

Salon: believing in "a phony man in the sky" should disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court

 

[Kart29]

... I reject the whole premise that only religious morality can carry the imprimatur of absolute right and wrong. Raw, unadulterated human reason is entirely capable of crafting a set of moral laws with every bit the authority of religiously based moral laws, and in fact look very much the same as large swaths of various religious moral laws, all while having a rational basis to back them up, which is, in my humble opinion, a basis superior to "Because our god said so."

I'd be truly interested to hear some of the "rational" basis for a morality system without a religious foundation. (I use quotes because a religious basis for morality is surely not irrational.) Anyone care to present the argument(s) for my education and interest?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I'd be truly interested to hear some of the "rational" basis for a morality system without a religious foundation. (I use quotes because a religious basis for morality is surely not irrational.) Anyone care to present the argument(s) for my education and interest?

A secular morality doesn't have to be any more complicated than a set of standards (you might even call them rules) by which people have agreed to live. I believe rule of law is an example of secular morality.

Whenever I hear someone say "You can't legislate morality." I think to myself "Sure you can. What IS legislation, if not that morality which people have decided is fair and prudent to impose upon ourselves and each other?"

 

[Kart29]

A secular morality doesn't have to be any more complicated than a set of standards (you might even call them rules) by which people have agreed to live. I believe rule of law is an example of secular morality.

Whenever I hear someone say "You can't legislate morality." I think to myself "Sure you can. What IS legislation, if not that morality which people have decided is fair and prudent to impose upon ourselves and each other?"

If you are saying that laws made up by popular opinion are the foundation upon which to build a moral code, well... that doesn't seem very authoritative or backed up by reason. At best that seems more like a rough sketch of a system of ethics rather than morals. There are probably many things that most of us would consider immoral but are not criminal (and vice-versa!)

The assertion was that an authoritative moral code can have its basis in human reason rather than the character of God. I'm not questioning that a set of standards can be developed by men, but I'm curious as to the foundational reasoning upon which those standards are built. Maybe, the basic question is more about how one determines good vs. evil without looking to something superior to mankind. Even one example would be interesting to consider.

I guess I'm asking for a statement that starts out, "Lying is right/wrong because... (insert rational basis for (dis)honesty here)", or something like that.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

At best that seems more like a rough sketch of a system of ethics rather than morals.

The way I see it, it's only a rough sketch if the people who "draw it up" don't apply their full efforts at defining principals. Even with religious-based morals, don't people have to have much discussion about which things are serious and which aren't? After all, you can receive a death penalty for violation of one of the ten commandments, but violating others wouldn't be illegal at all. So, it's not like biblical morals are all held to at face value (at least not for most of society). The same discussion and decision-making that allowed that could also be held on a purely secular level.

I guess I'm asking for a statement that starts out, "Lying is right/wrong because... (insert rational basis for (dis)honesty here)", or something like that.

So, I guess what I'm saying is "Lying (for example) is wrong because.........we've all talked about it and have decided to formally decree that it is so."

 

[IndyDave1776]

Salon has the hottest of takes. (Archive link)

Salon: believing in "a phony man in the sky" should disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court

In that case, they better get busy on demanding the removal of the institution of the Supreme Court, or did they fail to notice that it is entrenched in such belief right down to the decoration on the building?

 

[JettaKnight]

In that case, they better get busy on demanding the removal of the institution of the Supreme Court, or did they fail to notice that it is entrenched in such belief right down to the decoration on the building?

That's just for show. You're not actually suppose to believe that and live life accordingly. As for the history - we can just revise that to exclude that messy God stuff.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Vatican Formally Recognizes Palestinian State by Signing Treaty

 

[JettaKnight]

 

[IndyDave1776]

It would be difficulty to improve on this response. Why? Why in the universe would the Vatican do this?

 

[JettaKnight]

It would be difficulty to improve on this response. Why? Why in the universe would the Vatican do this?

I'm going to keep my mouth shut.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Adidas will cancel any sponsorship deal they have with a player if it turns out he has anything to do with Scientology

Surely some here on INGO think this should be illegal.

 

[T.Lex]

Adidas will cancel any sponsorship deal they have with a player if it turns out he has anything to do with Scientology

Surely some here on INGO think this should be illegal.

This is a paradox.

Under the various RFRA incarnations, the company can refuse to deal with what it believes are heretics.

Yet, under RFRA and anti-discrimination laws, players are allowed to practice their religious beliefs without fear of reprisal.