And some of them say "Democraps" instead of "Democrats". — baker
The question of whether a religious institution can be determined as per se evil from a cursory and decontextualized reading of their religious doctrine remains in the negative. — Hanover
Link this back to what we're talking about. — Hanover
Your first question ("who says?") is answered by yourself in your response to me. — Hanover
Every document can be hypothesized into a bad document. — Hanover
Yes, but that's because a Ugandan, like it or not, is not under the jurisdiction of the US constitution and you, like it or not, are.
This is not the case with the Bible, which is just a book and people voluntarily follow some, all, or none of it's edicts as they see fit.
The difference is one of pragmatism. I can quite legitimately, intervene in people's interpretation of religious texts. I might say to the Pope "look at this line from the bible, isn't this all nonsense", and he could say "yes, you're right, sod this for a game of soldiers". In contrast, I could provide the best argument in the world to a judge about some line in a legal document and he'd still have to say "well, that's the way the legal community have interpreted it so there's little I can do".
Each individual member of the legal community is constrained to some extent by the others and subject to their interpretation regardless.
Each individual member of a religion could make up a new rule, walk away entirely, or not as they see fit and they'd be in no way bound by traditional interpretations. They could invent a new church, a new cult, an entirely new religion, or abandon the project entirely.
You're treating biblical law as if it applied in the same way as actual law. It doesn't. Biblical law is entirely optional. Take all of it, some of it, none of it, as you see fit. Make it up as you go along, stick to 2000yr old edicts, listen to your pastors, ignore them entirely, whatever you like. As such, there's no reason at all why a complete outsider might not take part in the discussion on the basis of what each line/section/story means to them, it's possible that their unique take might change the understanding of any individual, since there's no practical constraint on what the 'right' interpretation is. — Isaac
The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means. — Hanover
This is just incorrect and largely why you're not afforded a seat at the table when offering interpretations of biblical sources. There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation. — Hanover
There is no one true faith or one interpretation. — Ennui Elucidator
And pretty much every religion/spirituality categorically disagrees with your claim. — baker
Who is writing your posts? [...]
— baker
You need to differentiate the writer and what's written (the topic at hand). — jorndoe
You have to then insist on the authority of your own conventions over those of the folk who would stone adulterers. — Banno
This is just incorrect and largely why you're not afforded a seat at the table when offering interpretations of biblical sources. There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation. — Hanover
Sure, but my religion does agree with me. And has for a few thousand years. — Ennui Elucidator
The claim of being “right” for all of time lacks the sort of humility required from fallible people in an ever changing world.
My interest here is as to the extent to which Christians (and Muslims) ought be allowed at the table when ethical issues are discussed. — Banno
Sure, but the point is that there is a whole culture of people refusing to play by the rules. We cannot just ignore them, nor their success.
— baker
OK, what is it you suggest? — Isaac
Then you don't have much of a case for fairness.
— baker
I don't see how. Are you saying that I can only make a case the we ought have something if it's actually indispensable. That seems like an unreasonably high threshold.
I think it's reasonable for people to venture an opinion on the contents of the bible as any other book, without needing to become part of some peculiar game of make-believe.
( 1 ) Christians act as if X is good.
( 2 ) X is bad.
( 3 ) If someone acts as if X is good when X is bad then their judgement should be questioned.
( 4 ) Christians' judgement should be questioned.
Which is a perfectly valid argument. I don't think it's currently sound though, as premise ( 1 ) seems insufficiently justified. The reason being that despite the sophistication of the belief account you've provided, there currently isn't an articulated link between why worshipping an entity which approves of X means acting as if X is good. — fdrake
The whole point of religion is about being right, for all times!! — baker
Orthodoxy does not exist in Hinduism, as the word Hindu itself collectively refers to the various beliefs of people who lived beyond the Sindhu river of the Indus Valley Civilization. It is a synthesis of the accepted teachings of each of thousands of gurus, who others equate to prophets, and has no founder, no authority or command, but recommendations. The term most equivalent to orthodoxy at best has the meaning of "commonly accepted" traditions rather than the usual meaning of "conforming to a doctrine", for example, what people of middle eastern faiths attempt to equate as doctrine in Hindu philosophies is Sanatana Dharma, but which at best can be translated to mean "ageless traditions", hence denoting that they are accepted not through doctrine and force but through multi-generational tests of adoption and retention based on circumstantial attrition through millennia.
— “Wikipedia on Orthodoxy”
So what are we, as outsiders, supposed to do? — baker
Engage as the context determines. If I can't see a way in which someone's belief could harm my community, then I've no business interfering. If I can, I've reasonable ground to interfere. — Isaac
What's not reasonable is suggesting that I ought to base my interference on someone else's judgement of whether the belief/text/law might harm my community. That would be absurd. We don't routinely act on the basis of other people's beliefs.
The whole point of religion is about being right, for all times!!
— baker
There is no “point” to religion. — Ennui Elucidator
Religions are not static and change over time. Some religions are more willing to acknowledge that change than others. At any moment in time, there are diversity of opinions among adherents. Some of those opinions are deemed “orthodox” and others “heterodox”, but that doesn’t mean that all disagreements require that there be only one answer.
Between Islam an Hinduism, you’ve got around 3 billion people out of a world population of 8 billion. Go tell them what their “religion” is supposed to be.
I can't find it.P.S. The random article I linked has a section entitled “Ontology of truth: How many answers are ‘correct’ in the sight of God?” that you may find of interest.
I can't find it. — baker
Ontology of truth: How many answers are ‘correct’ in the sight of God?
When scholars differ on a matter, is there only one true answer in the sight of God or are there multiple correct answers? There is agreement that in the case of differences in the canonical modes of reciting the Qurʾan (qirāʾāt) there are multiple correct answers,[79] and in differences in doctrinal fundamentals, there is only one correct answer.80 But what about differences in jurisprudence or secondary matters of the religion that are open to interpretation (furūʿ)?81 There is considerable discussion of this topic in the Islamic tradition and the two competing camps are called muṣawwibah (those who affirm multiple true answers; i.e., truth pluralism)82 and mukhaṭṭiʾah (those who affirm only one true answer). . . .
— Difference of Opinion: Where Do We Draw the Line?
that they are right and I am wrong, and that their religion is the one and only right on — baker
Religious exclusivism, or exclusivity, is the doctrine or belief that only one particular religion or belief system is true.[1] This is in contrast to religious pluralism, which believes that all religions provide valid responses to the existence of God.[2] . . . — Wikipedia on Religious Exclusivism
2. Religious Pluralism
A theory of religious pluralism says that all religions of some kind are the same in some valuable respect(s). While this is compatible with some religion being the best in some other respect(s), the theorists using this label have in mind that many religions are equal regarding the central value(s) of religion. (Legenhausen 2009)
The term “religious pluralism” is almost always used for a theory asserting positive value for many or most religions. But one may talk also of “negative religious pluralism” in which most or all religions have little or no positive value and are equal in this respect. This would be the view of many naturalists, who hold that all religions are the product of human imagination, and fail to have most or all of the values claimed for them. (Byrne 2004; Feuerbach 1967)
— IEP on Religious Diversity
Here is a snip-it. — Ennui Elucidator
I'm happy to discuss the topic if you like, but I can't help but feel that you are more interested in maintaining a view in support of your religious politics rather than learning something about religion. Just let me know which direction you want to go in.
As I've noted, you have thoroughly defeated a certain sort of religious fundamentalism... — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.