stuff
Member
This might sound offensive but its not intended that way- I'm just curious- Why don't you just find one faith?
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Religious affiliation (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter chookyn
- Start date
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
I don't think she's talking about herself, but rather asking hypothetically...
stuff
Member
Oh well the question stands hypothetically- Why is it so hard for people to just accept one faith?
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
Ask them.
stuff
Member
I don't think I know anyone like that. I know people who pick bits out of their faith to believe and disregard other bits but thats about all.
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
Haha, theological cherry-picking. Tolerable to a point.
stuff
Member
It's not tolerable its annoying. If you have faith in something you have faith in all of it- you can't pick and choose what you like.
santaslayer
Active Member
hence my original question!
Thats probably either becuase their not serious about life/faith, or then they realise some irrational (perhaps unacceptable, to them) aspects of thier faith but arent willing to give up something theyve held for so long. (I mean most ppl inherit their faith form thier parents. Unfortunate, but true)
In either case, its a wrong decision.
Why not? Why is it that someone must obey certain rules in order to be recognised as a follower of a certain faith? Why can it not be left at the fact that the person identifies themselves as a believer?
I still think that anyone who sees themselves as being a serious believer is one, regardless of the position of the relevant institutional bodies. It is your interpretation of faith that gets you through life, not that of the church or religious text.
Interpretation... Circular arguments rock.
But wont individual interpreataitons that are not based on anything (text or otherwsie) preclude any notion of an absolute reality. I mean if everyone decided to do thier own interpreting of 'faith' we wouldnt get two ppl in any one faith. It seems a very frivolous outlook on life. Lacking any inkling of seriousness or rationality.
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
I say tolerable to a point because it is unavoidable that once one thinks deeply about their faith they will come up to something they disagree with. They must resolve themselves to it somehow. For example, many Catholics have a problem with the sinful definition of premarital sex as fornication. I know almost every Catholic I've met at uni has done the dirty, and those who are true of faith have had to come to terms with it. How do you judge your religious values against your secular "obligations"?
Again, the homosexuality issue comes to mind. But I'm tired, and I have work to do.
Perhaps, but it depends on what type of a disagreement it is. If its a rational problem, then one can see a need to perhaps rethink, but if (as in the example you gave) its an issue coz your faith doesnt allow you do something you feel like doing then i think the problems with you, your letting your desires get in the way of rational behaviour. I mean one of the main purposes of any law is to regulate, and that almost always means having your freedoms checked.
So for example, if you can find something rationally wrong with the prohibition of adultery or fornication, thats understandable, but if just dont like the law coz you could enjoy yourself more without it, then its not.
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
Ok that wasn't the best example (since I should have explained what I meant more clearly) but I have been trying to avoid the issue of homosexuality because I myself am still unsure of what I think. That said, the issue remains the best example available.
fashionista
Tastes like chicken
wut annoys me is some selected pple of my religion (Islam) take an 'extremist' view towards ather religions hence a quote from an anonymous associate
"I let my son socialise with people of other religions but i encourage him not to bring them home" (ok that might not be word for word but the general jist of it was what was said) im thinking WTF??? y the discrimination as to who your son is 'bringing home'?? if his faith is strong shouldn't it not matter who he makes friendships with? i like that in my religion it says 'let unto others their religions and unto you yours" (again not word for word but i cant remember how it is stated...but thats wut it means). sorry if that seemed a lil bit outta place but i had to get it off my chest
bye!!! :wave:
"I let my son socialise with people of other religions but i encourage him not to bring them home" (ok that might not be word for word but the general jist of it was what was said) im thinking WTF??? y the discrimination as to who your son is 'bringing home'?? if his faith is strong shouldn't it not matter who he makes friendships with? i like that in my religion it says 'let unto others their religions and unto you yours" (again not word for word but i cant remember how it is stated...but thats wut it means). sorry if that seemed a lil bit outta place but i had to get it off my chest
bye!!! :wave:
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
Tim, I appreciate that you may believe our religions are "filled with holes", however I remind you that such has no bearing on our faith.
To me it illustrates your ignorance of the details of religion, because you have not bothered to ask how we see the things you consider to be "holes". If you want to make such statements then you must be prepared to clarify and support them (like any good law student).
To me it illustrates your ignorance of the details of religion, because you have not bothered to ask how we see the things you consider to be "holes". If you want to make such statements then you must be prepared to clarify and support them (like any good law student
).kaseita
Member
please point out a hole in christianity. me thinks the biggest 'hole' you may find is that the whole thing is based on faith (as u have been pushing), but i don't consider it a hole.
those are possible causes for a person being christian. however, I would think that the majority of people who are religiously pounded from a young age, would enter an age like ours, and then realise that they can actually decide whether they believe in what they've learnt or not, since they would be exposed to people like yourself, or they would see in their own life that they aren't really christian, or never really cared for their religion and so never were really christian.
just because you have faith, doesn't mean you can't question. you work from creating assumptions, and when u agree to assume something, then you question to see whether that religion fits your assumptions (as in science). if I assume there's a God, and then I read an account of how he supposedly created the world, I can question whether he could do it that way, and if I've assumed that a God exists (and is all-powerful, etc), then I can believe that he did it that way (a simplistic example).
a more complex example would be whether Jesus was who he claimed to be (i think i can safely assume that he existed, based on external historical evidence, unless u want to be pedantic and believe absolutely nothing about history). this again would be based on the basic assumptions you made before (not included here).
both non-religious and religious start at the first assumption - is there a God/supernatural being? being non-religious, u say no, and u stop there. if your religious, then you keep going, asking if he existed, what did he do, what is he doing, etc. (or 'it'), and so yes, religion does get narrower. however, u also become narrow by not even considering the case, and u isolate yourself from important questions about your very existence.
you are, however broad in the sense that ur beliefs adapt to your environment, and aren't essentially fixed (though of course there will be some things that will remain fixed due to your environment).
the way that you think would be environmental. people would go and create their own religions (otherwise there would only be one). however, your not considering the case where God did exist, and he did talk to people, and hence, the religion was based on what they saw and heard. this would lead to a religion being created on something that was true! then the question would be which one is true?
as for genes, i don't think we know enough about genes to be able to say whether it has an effect on our way of thinking or not. (though there wouldn't be a 'christian' gene say)
sorry, haven't read the rest of the posts before this page. this has gotten rather long!