Where is the line between critiquing a religion and attacking a religion (Christian, America)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point is that religion(s) can morph, adapt, or otherwise switch things up to remain viable and current with the times. IMO this behavior can be more about congregant retention and/or hopes of attracting new congregants and having the religion and its infrastructure survive over enacting the changes to enhance and deepen the core principles and values of the religion(s).
Furthermore, members of a religion(s) can easily justify or "explain away" these changes saying that a particular tenet/rule/doctrine/etc. is subjective and therefore subject to interpretation.
This can come across as self serving and disingenuous to the non-religious and/or members of a different religion that may not enact as many reforms or changes. Again, IMO, it can act as an element that may serve to discredit the religion or prove it false.
what's that saying? "haters gonna hate"
and cynics about religion are going to be cynical about religion.
there have been atheists posting on the forum criticizing religion for "not changing with the times."
and here with post above there are atheists posting who are criticizing religion FOR "changing with the times."
the consistent element is there are atheists on the forum cynical about religion regardless of what stance they take.
My point is that religion(s) can morph, adapt, or otherwise switch things up to remain viable and current with the times. IMO this behavior can be more about congregant retention and/or hopes of attracting new congregants and having the religion and its infrastructure survive over enacting the changes to enhance and deepen the core principles and values of the religion(s).
Furthermore, members of a religion(s) can easily justify or "explain away" these changes saying that a particular tenet/rule/doctrine/etc. is subjective and therefore subject to interpretation.
This can come across as self serving and disingenuous to the non-religious and/or members of a different religion that may not enact as many reforms or changes. Again, IMO, it can act as an element that may serve to discredit the religion or prove it false.
Bolded. As a practitioner of the essential aspects of my religion, and as a supporter of reforms, should i care what outsiders to the religion, and atheists (!) think about it? Personally, i dont give a ****.
Reforms are needed because texts that are perfectly good can be distorted in translation, inadvertently or in ignorance and intentionally, with misogyny and hate, and taught to those who have no time or capability to access the texts. Such as racism, casteism, sexism and all such evil practices. It is human error.
All religions have two parts, as i see it. One is behavior control so a civil society can be obtained. It is an imperfect system with good intention to start with. When the imperfections overwhelm the good, we get tyranny, an unjust, exploitive, communal society. This needs constant and vigilant reforms.
Then there is the spiritual aspect, which while based on the texts, are philosophical and metaphysical inquiry the relationship between the incarnated world and the Unseen that exists and pervades everything. This is the aspect that is complex and needs to be complex.
Some religions are easier to reform, such as Hinduism. It is not institutionalized, nobody can tell me I am a Hindu or not. Thus Hindus have always been secular, and consider the two parts distinct. India has never had a theocracy or state religion, not under the Mughals, not under British colonization, not in Independence. It is not Utopia, but is what it is.
Other religions are not so easy. But they still do. The sharia laws have been modified due to demand from Indian Muslim women.
Indian Catholic women had divorce laws changed.
Hindu women had inheritance rights equalized.
American Churches celebrate gay marriages.
That is how we religionists roll. Atheist cannot understand it and insist reforms should not happen because the is somehow not a “true” religion? Go ahead and throw a tantrum. We will watch.
what's that saying? "haters gonna hate"
and cynics about religion are going to be cynical about religion.
there have been atheists posting on the forum criticizing religion for "not changing with the times."
and here with post above there are atheists posting who are criticizing religion FOR "changing with the times."
the consistent element is there are atheists on the forum cynical about religion regardless of what stance they take.
Well, take the example I gave above. Were they totally wrong and misguided for a few hundred years before, or are they totally wrong and misguided now? Either way it's no badge of excellence.
Bolded. As a practitioner of the essential aspects of my religion, and as a supporter of reforms, should i care what outsiders to the religion, and atheists (!) think about it? Personally, i dont give a ****.
Reforms are needed because texts that are perfectly good can be distorted in translation, inadvertently or in ignorance and intentionally, with misogyny and hate, and taught to those who have no time or capability to access the texts. Such as racism, casteism, sexism and all such evil practices. It is human error.
All religions have two parts, as i see it. One is behavior control so a civil society can be obtained. It is an imperfect system with good intention to start with. When the imperfections overwhelm the good, we get tyranny, an unjust, exploitive, communal society. This needs constant and vigilant reforms.
Then there is the spiritual aspect, which while based on the texts, are philosophical and metaphysical inquiry the relationship between the incarnated world and the Unseen that exists and pervades everything. This is the aspect that is complex and needs to be complex.
Some religions are easier to reform, such as Hinduism. It is not institutionalized, nobody can tell me I am a Hindu or not. Thus Hindus have always been secular, and consider the two parts distinct. India has never had a theocracy or state religion, not under the Mughals, not under British colonization, not in Independence. It is not Utopia, but is what it is.
Other religions are not so easy. But they still do. The sharia laws have been modified due to demand from Indian Muslim women.
Indian Catholic women had divorce laws changed.
Hindu women had inheritance rights equalized.
American Churches celebrate gay marriages. That is how we religionists roll. Atheist cannot understand it and insist reforms should not happen because the is somehow not a “true” religion? Go ahead and throw a tantrum. We will watch.
Well, take the example I gave above. Were they totally wrong and misguided for a few hundred years before, or are they totally wrong and misguided now? Either way it's no badge of excellence.
view expressed in post above demonstrates that there are atheists who hold the belief that religion is "totally wrong and misguided" no matter what stance it takes.
that says more about the mindset of the atheists holding that belief,
than it does about any claims they make.
critiquing a religion is only useful if you are within the fold
That would be true if religion stayed within the fold, but when it proselytizes, evangelists, and impacts the lives of those outside the fold, that consideration MUST be forgone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
one needs to have deep understanding of a subject to offer any useful critique.
Not so, to reach depth, one must inherently do so in steps, and critiquing each step would be fundamental to fully develop an understanding both in part and in total of the subject. One could critique a musician's intonation separately from their vibrato, for example, without being a musician themselves, simply by having an accurate auditory perception of pitch.
That would be true if religion stayed within the fold, but when it proselytizes, evangelists, and impacts the lives of those outside the fold, that consideration MUST be forgone.
Not so, to reach depth, one must inherently do so in steps, and critiquing each step would be fundamental to fully develop an understanding both in part and in total of the subject. One could critique a musician's intonation separately from their vibrato, for example, without being a musician themselves, simply by having an accurate auditory perception of pitch.
yeah but people who claim music does not exist and is a fairy tale
are in no position to evaluate anything regarding music.
their understanding is zero zip nothing non-existent the empty set when it comes to the subject of music.
there is no understanding in part, there is no understanding in total. all subsets of the empty set are still an empty set.
there is no acuity of perception for someone who says music does not exist.
view expressed in post above demonstrates that there are atheists who hold the belief that religion is "totally wrong and misguided" no matter what stance it takes.
that says more about the mindset of the atheists holding that belief,
than it does about any claims they make.
You didn't answer the question. You never answer questions you don't like.
yeah but people who claim music does not exist and is a fairy tale
are in no position to evaluate anything regarding music.
their understanding is zero zip nothing non-existent the empty set when it comes to the subject of music.
there is no understanding in part, there is no understanding in total. all subsets of the empty set are still an empty set.
there is no acuity of perception for someone who says music does not exist.
So I have to believe in the Christian god to be a historian studying Christianity.
So I have to believe in unicorns before I can evaluate whether they exist or not.
Bolded. As a practitioner of the essential aspects of my religion, and as a supporter of reforms, should i care what outsiders to the religion, and atheists (!) think about it? Personally, i dont give a ****.
Reforms are needed because texts that are perfectly good can be distorted in translation, inadvertently or in ignorance and intentionally, with misogyny and hate, and taught to those who have no time or capability to access the texts. Such as racism, casteism, sexism and all such evil practices. It is human error.
All religions have two parts, as i see it. One is behavior control so a civil society can be obtained. It is an imperfect system with good intention to start with. When the imperfections overwhelm the good, we get tyranny, an unjust, exploitive, communal society. This needs constant and vigilant reforms.
Then there is the spiritual aspect, which while based on the texts, are philosophical and metaphysical inquiry the relationship between the incarnated world and the Unseen that exists and pervades everything. This is the aspect that is complex and needs to be complex.
Some religions are easier to reform, such as Hinduism. It is not institutionalized, nobody can tell me I am a Hindu or not. Thus Hindus have always been secular, and consider the two parts distinct. India has never had a theocracy or state religion, not under the Mughals, not under British colonization, not in Independence. It is not Utopia, but is what it is.
Other religions are not so easy. But they still do. The sharia laws have been modified due to demand from Indian Muslim women.
Indian Catholic women had divorce laws changed.
Hindu women had inheritance rights equalized.
American Churches celebrate gay marriages.
That is how we religionists roll. Atheist cannot understand it and insist reforms should not happen because the is somehow not a “true” religion? Go ahead and throw a tantrum. We will watch.
For most religions, it has been the primitive and ignorant demand that what has been divinely revealed and interpreted by our ancestors cannot be wrong and must be believed as a sign of faith in God. It is a naive and preposterous claim that has stagnated understanding of ongoing divine inspirations as heresies that should have resulted in the evolution of our understanding of the "spiritual solid food."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For most religions, it has been the primitive and ignorant demand that what has been divinely revealed and interpreted by our ancestors cannot be wrong and must be believed as a sign of faith in God. It is a naive and preposterous claim that has stagnated understanding of ongoing divine inspirations as heresies that should have resulted in the evolution of our understanding of the "spiritual solid food."
