May. 15th, 2004 05:45 pm
Philosophical question
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceAt the risk of setting a can opener on Cream of Worm Soup, there's something I've been curious about.
I know a lot of people on my flist here are religious, in various denominations. Not being actively into organized religion myself (though I was raised Christian) I'm curious about how liberal people of faith feel about that.
I understand that it's certainly not necessary to be conservative or reactionary in order to be religious, but I can't escape the fact that there are certain tenets, particularly in some denominations, which are pretty clear about things like the status of women and same-sex activity, etc. and I wonder how people reconcile that?
I know for some people I've talked to, they simply consider themselves Christian in its strictest sense-- following the teachings of Jesus. I can perfectly understand that. I believe Jesus existed, and I think he was a cool guy who had a lot of nice things to say. I don't believe he was the son of God, because I don't believe in a conscious deity, but I think he was generally pretty groovy. It's all the other stuff in the Bible that seems kind of extraneous to me, especially the teachings of Paul, and much of the old testament, and Genesis, etc. and I've wondered how people who believe in the rest of the Bible deal with some of the ickier stuff that's in there. In particular, I've wondered about people who belong to religions which, as an organization, are particularly conservative. To me, it's kind of like having a job, and then finding out your CEO donates to the KKK or something. I'd want out of that job, fast. I wouldn't want to be part of an organization whose leadership actively engages in things I seriously disagree with. Is it a matter of not having other alternatives (like not having another job to go to, for instance)? Or is it more of a desire to try to change the organization from within?
Related, I also wonder how people of faith deal with ecumenical issues. Most religions have some element of one-true-wayism in them, so I've often wondered how different denominations really feel about other faiths. Do they feel that the other people are just misguided, and will find the true way eventually? Or is it something more like accepting something like... God has multiple facets, and therefore any/all religions can be/are right at the same time?
My apologies if any of this comes off as asking someone to justify their beliefs. I'm just curious, really.
I know a lot of people on my flist here are religious, in various denominations. Not being actively into organized religion myself (though I was raised Christian) I'm curious about how liberal people of faith feel about that.
I understand that it's certainly not necessary to be conservative or reactionary in order to be religious, but I can't escape the fact that there are certain tenets, particularly in some denominations, which are pretty clear about things like the status of women and same-sex activity, etc. and I wonder how people reconcile that?
I know for some people I've talked to, they simply consider themselves Christian in its strictest sense-- following the teachings of Jesus. I can perfectly understand that. I believe Jesus existed, and I think he was a cool guy who had a lot of nice things to say. I don't believe he was the son of God, because I don't believe in a conscious deity, but I think he was generally pretty groovy. It's all the other stuff in the Bible that seems kind of extraneous to me, especially the teachings of Paul, and much of the old testament, and Genesis, etc. and I've wondered how people who believe in the rest of the Bible deal with some of the ickier stuff that's in there. In particular, I've wondered about people who belong to religions which, as an organization, are particularly conservative. To me, it's kind of like having a job, and then finding out your CEO donates to the KKK or something. I'd want out of that job, fast. I wouldn't want to be part of an organization whose leadership actively engages in things I seriously disagree with. Is it a matter of not having other alternatives (like not having another job to go to, for instance)? Or is it more of a desire to try to change the organization from within?
Related, I also wonder how people of faith deal with ecumenical issues. Most religions have some element of one-true-wayism in them, so I've often wondered how different denominations really feel about other faiths. Do they feel that the other people are just misguided, and will find the true way eventually? Or is it something more like accepting something like... God has multiple facets, and therefore any/all religions can be/are right at the same time?
My apologies if any of this comes off as asking someone to justify their beliefs. I'm just curious, really.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
What happens is that people very conveniently assume that the Bible is the involate, infalliable word spoken through human intermediaries. Therefore, an;ything relevant 2000 years go is relevant today. Tain't necessarily so, since times have changed etc.
What I want to know is why is it that the same people who decry same sex anything DON'T stone adulterous women because THAT'S in the same book of the bible.
It's a question of education. I believe people can be very good Christians in the "just read the red parts" sense of the word. That doesn't mean you have to buy the rest of the Bible. After all, Christianity is based on teh red parts. Granted, assuming Jesus existed, as a rabbi, he would have been intimate with the Torah.
The Torah does not seem to have impressed him very much, however.