I'm not suggesting religion is "funny" although looking around me I cant help thinking if any god created all this he must have had a sense of humour. But I do think some people take religion far too seriously, particularly people who think their particular god wants them to die for him or kill other people in his name. Imo this sort of fanaticism has nothing to with religion, these people use religion as cover, something to hide behind and unfortunately we (in the UK) are constantly told by PC authorities we must not criticise them because it may offend their delicate sensibilities even though these people are often very vociferous in criticising their host country, in the name of religion of course...
People take religion too seriously...
Well, I live in the UK and I'm not constantly told not to criticise religion (as you can probably see from my postings on this issue).
I do know what you mean though - there is an assumption that religion is not fair game for criticism/humour amongst many people. Why this should be I am not sure. We have no problem laughing at politics (loony left, right-wing fascists, windy liberals etc) which is surely at least as important as religion for most people (I would argue much more important). Neither do we have a problem criticising someone's dress-sense, taste in culture etc. In fact we don't have a problem laughing at ANYTHING that a person has chosen to do, wear, express or belong to. We do, of course, mostly refrain from laughing at physical disability, nationality, ethnic appearance etc, because these are things beyond the control of the individuals concerned. The PC movement is far more concerned with these issues (rightly so) than it is with matters of individual choice (such as politics, religion etc).
Now this is not particularly a denominational issue, as I have pointed out before. Yes, the majority of focus at the moment is on Islam and the Muslim responses to criticism, but don't forget that Christians can be just as reactionary when their views are challenged or satirised - witness Jerry Springer the Opera, Monty Python's Life of Brian etc. (or read the 'CrackerGate scandal' thread for an up to the minute example).
I do know what you mean though - there is an assumption that religion is not fair game for criticism/humour amongst many people. Why this should be I am not sure. We have no problem laughing at politics (loony left, right-wing fascists, windy liberals etc) which is surely at least as important as religion for most people (I would argue much more important). Neither do we have a problem criticising someone's dress-sense, taste in culture etc. In fact we don't have a problem laughing at ANYTHING that a person has chosen to do, wear, express or belong to. We do, of course, mostly refrain from laughing at physical disability, nationality, ethnic appearance etc, because these are things beyond the control of the individuals concerned. The PC movement is far more concerned with these issues (rightly so) than it is with matters of individual choice (such as politics, religion etc).
Now this is not particularly a denominational issue, as I have pointed out before. Yes, the majority of focus at the moment is on Islam and the Muslim responses to criticism, but don't forget that Christians can be just as reactionary when their views are challenged or satirised - witness Jerry Springer the Opera, Monty Python's Life of Brian etc. (or read the 'CrackerGate scandal' thread for an up to the minute example).
Any secular commentator is in a funny position. If they don't take religion seriously they are branded intolerant bigots. However, religious commentators are under no such restrictions - they don't have to - and frequently don't - take any other position but their own seriously. It's perfectly acceptable for religious pundits to insult, distort and mock any secular institution, so it would seem natural for a secular pundit to try to the same to a religious institution, wouldn't it? Well, just try it.
The most disgusting part of it all is that religious commentators are completely and wholly aware of their own hypocrisy. It is nonsense to compare scientific figures like Darwin to religious icons or prophets like Jesus for a number of reasons, but if you assume that it is ok - as many, many religious spokespersons do - then, logically, shouldn't you treat those figures with the same respect that you demand your own religious figures get? And if you demand that your religious precepts be taken seriously according to your own interpretation of them and then claim that the laws of science are religious laws of a sort... shouldn't you show them the same respect as you demand for your own laws, and interpret them according to the context of their "believers"?
Of course, Darwin is not a prophet and science is not a religion, but that's not the point. The point is that if you are going to claim they are, then you should be bound to treat them with the same respect you demand for your own religion and its prophets - assuming you're not a hypocrite. Take a look around. Is that what you see happening? Nope. Religious folk demand that their religion be taken seriously, while insulting, distorting and mocking anything that doesn't fall under it - often times even other religions (for example, just look around these forums and see who has the strongest words against Scientology - the religious folk, or the non-religious ones).
So secular commentators are in a funny position. On the one hand, in order to be taken seriously they have to try to pander to the religious folk, and take the religion seriously (which is why you are being told to take it seriously). On the other, they have to defend their own beliefs against the assaults of religious commentators that don't think they have to be bound by the same rules they set for others (as you have observed with the reverse criticism).
The most disgusting part of it all is that religious commentators are completely and wholly aware of their own hypocrisy. It is nonsense to compare scientific figures like Darwin to religious icons or prophets like Jesus for a number of reasons, but if you assume that it is ok - as many, many religious spokespersons do - then, logically, shouldn't you treat those figures with the same respect that you demand your own religious figures get? And if you demand that your religious precepts be taken seriously according to your own interpretation of them and then claim that the laws of science are religious laws of a sort... shouldn't you show them the same respect as you demand for your own laws, and interpret them according to the context of their "believers"?
Of course, Darwin is not a prophet and science is not a religion, but that's not the point. The point is that if you are going to claim they are, then you should be bound to treat them with the same respect you demand for your own religion and its prophets - assuming you're not a hypocrite. Take a look around. Is that what you see happening? Nope. Religious folk demand that their religion be taken seriously, while insulting, distorting and mocking anything that doesn't fall under it - often times even other religions (for example, just look around these forums and see who has the strongest words against Scientology - the religious folk, or the non-religious ones).
So secular commentators are in a funny position. On the one hand, in order to be taken seriously they have to try to pander to the religious folk, and take the religion seriously (which is why you are being told to take it seriously). On the other, they have to defend their own beliefs against the assaults of religious commentators that don't think they have to be bound by the same rules they set for others (as you have observed with the reverse criticism).
I agree with you. Furthermore, I think religion ought to be a personal issue. As in, no organized churches and denominations and so on. I believe that that's the sort of thing that not only the religious experience, but also causes people to be so damn uptight about their religion.
For instance, you don't get this sort of backlash when you make fun of a friend's weird haircut or your mom's taste in music, do you? No, because those are individual, personal things.
But that's just what I think. *shrug*
For instance, you don't get this sort of backlash when you make fun of a friend's weird haircut or your mom's taste in music, do you? No, because those are individual, personal things.
But that's just what I think. *shrug*
I think that is is logical that people take it seriously (I said it is logical, I obviously don't mean it is any good considering the damages that it creates)
But let's consider the point of view of somebody believing there is a almighty god, what could be more important than that.
I like what a philosopher said "If I would believe in god I would be so proud that I will walk naked in the street"
If God exist does something else matter?
Also to some people asking him "how can you live believing in nothing", he answered "And you, how, believing in everything, can you live only the way you do"
But let's consider the point of view of somebody believing there is a almighty god, what could be more important than that.
I like what a philosopher said "If I would believe in god I would be so proud that I will walk naked in the street"
If God exist does something else matter?
Also to some people asking him "how can you live believing in nothing", he answered "And you, how, believing in everything, can you live only the way you do"
Logical? I'm not sure about that.
If you consider such episodes as the Danish Cartoons, Jerry Springer the Opera etc then I don't see logic - I see an attempt to dictate.
If someone believes in a particular Deity and follows a particular religion then that is their choice and, presumably, they believe it will lead to their own salvation.
Why should they be concerned with others who follow a different path? Why should they feel it necessary to impose their belief system on those who choose, for their own reasons, not to follow that system? The answer can only be that their belief system requires them to evangelise or convert others. Now that is indeed logical - but only from the perspective of the religion itself. If they were behaving logically they would simply present their arguments and leave others to present counter-argument or criticism. This is not what happens is it? What we have is evangelical Christians and Muslims insisting that their standards and beliefs should apply to everyone, and threatening sanctions on anyone who stands against such beliefs.
No Muslim is required to look at the Danish cartoons. No Christian is required to buy a ticket for Jerry Springer the Opera. Both groups are free to preach their message in peace to those who wish to hear it.
If you consider such episodes as the Danish Cartoons, Jerry Springer the Opera etc then I don't see logic - I see an attempt to dictate.
If someone believes in a particular Deity and follows a particular religion then that is their choice and, presumably, they believe it will lead to their own salvation.
Why should they be concerned with others who follow a different path? Why should they feel it necessary to impose their belief system on those who choose, for their own reasons, not to follow that system? The answer can only be that their belief system requires them to evangelise or convert others. Now that is indeed logical - but only from the perspective of the religion itself. If they were behaving logically they would simply present their arguments and leave others to present counter-argument or criticism. This is not what happens is it? What we have is evangelical Christians and Muslims insisting that their standards and beliefs should apply to everyone, and threatening sanctions on anyone who stands against such beliefs.
No Muslim is required to look at the Danish cartoons. No Christian is required to buy a ticket for Jerry Springer the Opera. Both groups are free to preach their message in peace to those who wish to hear it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Logical? I'm not sure about that.
If you consider such episodes as the Danish Cartoons, Jerry Springer the Opera etc then I don't see logic - I see an attempt to dictate. If someone believes in a particular Deity and follows a particular religion then that is their choice and, presumably, they believe it will lead to their own salvation. Why should they be concerned with others who follow a different path? Why should they feel it necessary to impose their belief system on those who choose, for their own reasons, not to follow that system? The answer can only be that their belief system requires them to evangelise or convert others. Now that is indeed logical - but only from the perspective of the religion itself. If they were behaving logically they would simply present their arguments and leave others to present counter-argument or criticism. This is not what happens is it? What we have is evangelical Christians and Muslims insisting that their standards and beliefs should apply to everyone, and threatening sanctions on anyone who stands against such beliefs. No Muslim is required to look at the Danish cartoons. No Christian is required to buy a ticket for Jerry Springer the Opera. Both groups are free to preach their message in peace to those who wish to hear it. |
I agree that the actions like the things about the cartoons or similar kind of things are not logical.
My point was that the logical part refers to the title of the thread: it is logical that believers take religion seriously because if you believe in God it should the most important thing for you.
But of course that is not an excuse to be intolerant or agressive.
| fx-trading-education wrote: |
| I agree that the actions like the things about the cartoons or similar kind of things are not logical.
My point was that the logical part refers to the title of the thread: it is logical that believers take religion seriously because if you believe in God it should the most important thing for you. |
What I think most people do is adopt the parts of their religious faith that are not too difficult for them.
Here is my opinion about Christianity, I think christians believe that they will be forgiven for whatever sinful actions they commit. I don't know why they have that kind of view in mind. I want to know what makes them think like that, for example; to take someone's life away and to be cleansed and be forgiven. How is it possible for the family who has lost a loved one because of a murder crime committed by a person filled with deep hatred and then be forgivin for his sinful actions. I want someone to explain to me in details. This is the part I don't understand about Christianity. I think if such a person has committed a very sinful act, He or she should be punished really bad by the law. Back then people use to take law very seriously but now a days it is just like a play. No one really cares about whether a person committed a murder or not. The people now a days don't really care about what goes around them. I also have another opinion about Muslim. I think Muslims religion is a very strict religion. The married women in their country are not allowed to show their faces. They think that if a married women shows her face, she is seducing other men and that she is avoiding her husband. If the husband see this kind of act by a women, I heard that the husband some hows kills his wife because she was avoiding her husband and seducing other man by show off her beautiful face or not. My view is that whether a women shows her face or not, a man is going to want to know what's under the scarve. They just like to see a face of a women. I think that is just way the man wants to see a women without having the scarve all around her face. Why do they muslim die for the sake of Allah? I think that's the most dangerous act. They have never seen Allah and there is no such strong fact to support that Allah had magic powers like God. My thought is that why would the people of Muslim lay their life for him? I understand that you can worship God and offer him water and flowers but I don't think it is nescessary to lay your own life for someone else. What is your view on these two most famous religion?
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
What I think most people do is adopt the parts of their religious faith that are not too difficult for them. |
Yes but people acting like that are not really religious people. They act like religion is kind of supermarket where you can choose what you want and don't take what you don't want.
But that is not religious it is just hypocrite I guess. In Europe I think that many people claiming that they believe in God are not very serious about it (even if they think they are) but it is quite different depending on the country. If people say they believe in God and act as it is of secondary importance then they cannot be really serious about it. But maybe that is good and makes life better in Europe than somewhere else...
Oh yes - I'm very glad that people do behave like this. I consider it to be much more rational than taking a strict literal approach. We can see the results of taking such an approach in the words and deeds of both Christian and Muslim 'extremists'.
Some philosophers say that most people who claim they "believe" in their respective religious beliefs don't really believe at all. The idea is that you can't really believe what you don't understand, and most religious beliefs are, frankly, unintelligible (and the faithful will happily admit that, too).
The philosophers say that these people don't really "believe" in their religion, they believe in believing in their religion. That seems to be the case for most modern "religious" folk. They don't really believe in half the carp their religion claims, but by gum don't you dare tell them their religion is nonsense!
The philosophers say that these people don't really "believe" in their religion, they believe in believing in their religion. That seems to be the case for most modern "religious" folk. They don't really believe in half the carp their religion claims, but by gum don't you dare tell them their religion is nonsense!
I would have to agree with that. This can easily be demonstrated by simple question and answer.
As someone familiar with Catholic dogma I have often asked Catholics about their faith. Specifically I ask about core items of dogma such as the Trinity and Transubstantiation. What I generally find is that the person doesn't really understand what the dogmatic position actually is. When asked to explain such concepts, the normal reaction I get is that the person will either hedge around the issue, or laugh nervously and make some excuse about not being an expert in the theology.
Now, the objection to this, by the religious, is often - well not everyone understands science either so there is an analogy. The analogy could be framed specifically in the terms that not everyone understands Quantum Physics or Relativity, but they are happy to 'go along with the theory', in the same way that religious believers might not understand the details of specific dogma but they are happy to go along with it. This, of course, assumes that there is a perfectly logical explanation of concepts like the Trinity and Transubstantiation, and that the average 'believer' may not understand the details, but those details do indeed exist, just as the math and science behind Relativity and QM exists.
WRONG!
As someone familiar with Catholic dogma I have often asked Catholics about their faith. Specifically I ask about core items of dogma such as the Trinity and Transubstantiation. What I generally find is that the person doesn't really understand what the dogmatic position actually is. When asked to explain such concepts, the normal reaction I get is that the person will either hedge around the issue, or laugh nervously and make some excuse about not being an expert in the theology.
Now, the objection to this, by the religious, is often - well not everyone understands science either so there is an analogy. The analogy could be framed specifically in the terms that not everyone understands Quantum Physics or Relativity, but they are happy to 'go along with the theory', in the same way that religious believers might not understand the details of specific dogma but they are happy to go along with it. This, of course, assumes that there is a perfectly logical explanation of concepts like the Trinity and Transubstantiation, and that the average 'believer' may not understand the details, but those details do indeed exist, just as the math and science behind Relativity and QM exists.
WRONG!
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Now, the objection to this, by the religious, is often - well not everyone understands science either so there is an analogy. The analogy could be framed specifically in the terms that not everyone understands Quantum Physics or Relativity, but they are happy to 'go along with the theory', in the same way that religious believers might not understand the details of specific dogma but they are happy to go along with it. This, of course, assumes that there is a perfectly logical explanation of concepts like the Trinity and Transubstantiation, and that the average 'believer' may not understand the details, but those details do indeed exist, just as the math and science behind Relativity and QM exists.
WRONG! |
Interesting hedge. The next time someone tries that on you, ask: "Ok then, who should i ask? Because if i don't understand QM, i know who to ask about it to explain it to me. Who should i ask about ____________ (the Trinity, Transubstantiation, whatever)? Recommend a book."
Of course, inevitably some wag is going to suggest the Bible, at which point you can point out that none of those things are described in there.
Well most strong Christians that I know would have no problem giving you a long list of books to read in this situation. They would, however, have difficulty in giving you titles of books that aren't complete crap.
The other response you may get in this situation is the old "you have to feel it" or "you have to have faith."
The other response you may get in this situation is the old "you have to feel it" or "you have to have faith."
Faith is supposed to be personal. Somewhere it has been taken over by charismatic people and turned into religion. atul| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Well most strong Christians that I know would have no problem giving you a long list of books to read in this situation. They would, however, have difficulty in giving you titles of books that aren't complete crap. |
If they can actually give me a book that explains those things, i'd happily read it. But i would have to demand from them that it actually explains - not just states, but explains. If they recommend a book, just ask how it explains the topic - not what the explanation is, but how the explaining is done.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| The other response you may get in this situation is the old "you have to feel it" or "you have to have faith." |
That is what it always comes down to, no matter how strongly people have tried to deny it.
i'm also amused by the religious folk that promise they will answer my questions... only to give up a few minutes later and tell me that it's wrong to ask so many questions. (You can even find examples of it here on Frihost.)
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I do know what you mean though - there is an assumption that religion is not fair game for criticism/humour amongst many people. Why this should be I am not sure. We have no problem laughing at politics (loony left, right-wing fascists, windy liberals etc) which is surely at least as important as religion for most people (I would argue much more important). |
I don't know about British humour, because it tends to involve a lot less religion, but here in Canada, it seems to be more than fair game, but more of an expectation. Almost every comedy skit that you see nowadays will have some joke about religion. Mostly Christianity. People haven't loosened up enough over in North America to make fun of other religions. We have a bad track record in that sence (with the natives, and the American Melting Pot). I think it has to be in good taste. That's all. The touching jokes are kind of offensive (even if your aren't a Catholic).
| kevbailey wrote: | ||
I don't know about British humour, because it tends to involve a lot less religion, but here in Canada, it seems to be more than fair game, but more of an expectation. Almost every comedy skit that you see nowadays will have some joke about religion. Mostly Christianity. People haven't loosened up enough over in North America to make fun of other religions. We have a bad track record in that sence (with the natives, and the American Melting Pot). I think it has to be in good taste. That's all. The touching jokes are kind of offensive (even if your aren't a Catholic). |
A comedian's job is to offend.
an Some people take jokes seriously.
Religion is the result of early human research on how man came into being along with of course, the earth and all its living creatures. It requires lots of commitment in mind to accept that they could be wrong.
But what is the truth - Religion or Nature and where do they meet?
You expect us to come with an answer in what you should believe in? Or have I completely misunderstodd what you just said?
There is no answer. It's a complete paradox.
Think of it like this, God can make a stone that he cannot lift. But, being omnipotent, he can lift the stone. But with the power of his omnipotence, he can lift the stone which he originally could not lift by using his power so that it appears that he has not lifted the stone at all. So, he can do anything.
Think of it like this, God can make a stone that he cannot lift. But, being omnipotent, he can lift the stone. But with the power of his omnipotence, he can lift the stone which he originally could not lift by using his power so that it appears that he has not lifted the stone at all. So, he can do anything.
a lot of jokes are about religion sorta so i doubt we take it serious :p
ofc people ( for example the Mohamed cartoons ) can act stupid just because someone made cartoons.... thats just lame
in here we laugh with our saints a lot, but in other religions people can't deal with that...
ofc people ( for example the Mohamed cartoons ) can act stupid just because someone made cartoons.... thats just lame
in here we laugh with our saints a lot, but in other religions people can't deal with that...| Poetsunited wrote: |
| a lot of jokes are about religion sorta so i doubt we take it serious :p
ofc people ( for example the Mohamed cartoons ) can act stupid just because someone made cartoons.... thats just lame in here we laugh with our saints a lot, but in other religions people can't deal with that... |
Who is "we"? (hopefully you didn't mean to use the word saints in there...otherwise you're likely a Catholic and you have absolutely no room to talk). Name your religion, we'll find you a nice radical story. Please don't act like every religion except your own is crazy and has nutcases in it doing stupid stuff.
| catscratches wrote: |
| You expect us to come with an answer in what you should believe in? Or have I completely misunderstodd what you just said? |
Lerts not make this so personal.
Faith is Personal
Religion is community based faith.
Many wars/crusades/genocides have happenned in the name of of religion and still I get replies (in a forum) like- what happened in Gujrat was good........
| Quote: |
| I think religion ought to be a personal issue. As in, no organized churches and denominations and so on. |
You have the personal choice as to whether or not you join a denomination or organized church, just as anyone else has the right to enjoy them.
| aames_prov356 wrote: | ||
You have the personal choice as to whether or not you join a denomination or organized church, just as anyone else has the right to enjoy them. |
Not in reality. The huge majority of people belong to the same faith that their parents belong to. That indicates to me that any personal choice is secondary and that the real decider is the indoctrination you receive as a child.
| Quote: |
| aames_prov356 wrote:
Quote: I think religion ought to be a personal issue. As in, no organized churches and denominations and so on. You have the personal choice as to whether or not you join a denomination or organized church, just as anyone else has the right to enjoy them. Not in reality. The huge majority of people belong to the same faith that their parents belong to. That indicates to me that any personal choice is secondary and that the real decider is the indoctrination you receive as a child. |
When you are a child, yes. Most people don't have a choice of what denomination or faith that they belong to because they go wherever their parents go. However, there are people all over the world, China especially, where teenagers are converting to Christianity of their own free will-without their parents' knowledge or consent- despite the fact that they had lived their entire lives in one religion that is completely different from it. This conversion could very well lead to their own death. No one can argue really that they did not make that choice of their own free will. Anywhere else, even if you are forced to attend church as a child, when you are an adult, you still have the choice as to whether you continue to go. Your parents can't make your decisions for you whenever you're all grown. You are responsible for your own decisions. Though many continue in the faith of their parents, there are many who turn away from what their parents believed and went to what faith that they wanted to. There are people that chat in this forum that were raised catholic and have become atheists...you can't tell me that that was not their choice, because it was.
The growth of Christianity in China is not really surprising. In the post-Mao era, religion has once again been 'allowed' by the state and Christian missionaries have made great efforts to convert the 'heathen' Chinese. Most of the converts come from non-religious households rather than converting from Confucianism or Taoism. The people converting are under no death threat since the Chinese state now recognises Christianity and does not generally persecute Christians, providing they follow certain restrictions imposed by the state. There are some Christian sects which are not officially recognised by the state (generally called 'house churches') and members of these do suffer occasional persecution but I believe this has been declining significantly in recent times.
I did not suggest that nobody converts from the religion of their parents - clearly some people do. It is, however, a very tiny number compared to those who remain in their parents' faith system.
I did not suggest that nobody converts from the religion of their parents - clearly some people do. It is, however, a very tiny number compared to those who remain in their parents' faith system.
And what is wrong with them staying in the same system of faith as their parents?What I was trying to imply was that everyone makes their choice-including those who remain in the faith that they were raised in.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| And what is wrong with them staying in the same system of faith as their parents?What I was trying to imply was that everyone makes their choice-including those who remain in the faith that they were raised in. |
Yeah, but they still make the choice to go with the flow. It is their choice to go with the flow.
Back to what sondosia said. Whether people just go with the flow or they walk away, they make a choice. It is no one's right to dictate whether they can or cannot go to an organized church or religion. When a person makes that choice to continue going, no matter the reason, it is still personal, because they have their own reasons. You don't have to go, so really, why do you personally have a problem with it? If people go to "go with the flow" and are unhappy, that is their problem, not yours.
| Quote: |
| Furthermore, I think religion ought to be a personal issue. As in, no organized churches and denominations and so on. |
Back to what sondosia said. Whether people just go with the flow or they walk away, they make a choice. It is no one's right to dictate whether they can or cannot go to an organized church or religion. When a person makes that choice to continue going, no matter the reason, it is still personal, because they have their own reasons. You don't have to go, so really, why do you personally have a problem with it? If people go to "go with the flow" and are unhappy, that is their problem, not yours.
No, it is not the same thing at all. To make a choice you must be aware of the alternatives available to you. Most religions go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that those alternatives are not available - either by classifying them as evil/heresy or by simply ignoring them. Then you have the social and peer pressure used to ensure that people stay in the religion of their 'family'. For many people there is no real choice.
| Quote: |
| And I say that most people do NOT make a conscious choice - they simply 'go with the flow'. |
I'm going to start off by copying exactly what the definition of conscious is according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Conscious is " perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation". A Choice is "care in selecting". So thus, a conscious choice, by definition is a "care in selecting while perceiving, apprehending or noticing with a degree of controlled thought of observation."
| Quote: |
| No, it is not the same thing at all. To make a choice you must be aware of the alternatives available to you. Most religions go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that those alternatives are not available - either by classifying them as evil/heresy or by simply ignoring them. Then you have the social and peer pressure used to ensure that people stay in the religion of their 'family'. For many people there is no real choice. |
But they are aware of the alternatives. Most religions aren't segregated from society(If there are, then they are few). They are in the world with other people of other faiths every day. They know what is out there and they can choose to convert. Social and peer pressure can affect one's choices, but it is still a choice. If a person wants to convert to Christianity to Islam in an country of mostly Islamic people, yeah they are under a great deal of pressure to stay in the Islamic faith. However, it is still the person's choice as to whether they cave or not. I'll use a different example. There's a pretty good teenager, okay? He goes to school, does his homework, etc... Like most teens, he is under immense pressure to go out drinking and doing drugs with his buddies. He caves. Did he make the conscious decision? Yes. He knew that there was a choice, meaning that there were options, and that he was aware that they existed. If he got caught by the cops is he going to get off because he supposedly didn't make a "conscious choice" due to the amount of peer pressure? No, because he is still responsible for his own actions. Same with religion. People in every religion know what different religions are out there. They may face the peer pressure to stay where they are at, but regardless of which direction they decide to take, they make a "conscious choice" because they: 1- know the options 2- know the consequences of what may happen if they choose each choice (because if a religion is classified as "evil or heresy", then they obviously know that persecution is inevitable).
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| But they are aware of the alternatives. Most religions aren't segregated from society(If there are, then they are few). They are in the world with other people of other faiths every day. They know what is out there and they can choose to convert. Social and peer pressure can affect one's choices, but it is still a choice. If a person wants to convert to Christianity to Islam in an country of mostly Islamic people, yeah they are under a great deal of pressure to stay in the Islamic faith. However, it is still the person's choice as to whether they cave or not. I'll use a different example. There's a pretty good teenager, okay? He goes to school, does his homework, etc... Like most teens, he is under immense pressure to go out drinking and doing drugs with his buddies. He caves. Did he make the conscious decision? Yes. He knew that there was a choice, meaning that there were options, and that he was aware that they existed. If he got caught by the cops is he going to get off because he supposedly didn't make a "conscious choice" due to the amount of peer pressure? No, because he is still responsible for his own actions. Same with religion. People in every religion know what different religions are out there. They may face the peer pressure to stay where they are at, but regardless of which direction they decide to take, they make a "conscious choice" because they: 1- know the options 2- know the consequences of what may happen if they choose each choice (because if a religion is classified as "evil or heresy", then they obviously know that persecution is inevitable). |
Er...no that is a false dichotomy. Try another example:
The teenager is a Christian. He lives in the bible-belt and comes from a fundamentalist Christian family. He has never been exposed to other faiths - apart from in a very negative way where they are held up as examples of heathen and godless practices. He knows that if he renounces his faith that he will be shunned socially and that his family will reject him.
Do you consider that a free choice? Clearly by your own definition it is not, since the teenager is NOT fully aware of the alternatives and is coerced into remaining within his faith system.
Take another example - you are held at gunpoint and told that unless you renounce your faith you will surely die. Is that a free choice? Certainly it would not be considered so in law. Clearly you can choose to die and remain true to your faith, but to be classified as a free and conscious choice requires more - it requires that there is no element of coercion.
| Quote: |
| Er...no that is a false dichotomy. Try another example:
The teenager is a Christian. He lives in the bible-belt and comes from a fundamentalist Christian family. He has never been exposed to other faiths - apart from in a very negative way where they are held up as examples of heathen and godless practices. He knows that if he renounces his faith that he will be shunned socially and that his family will reject him. Do you consider that a free choice? Clearly by your own definition it is not, since the teenager is NOT fully aware of the alternatives and is coerced into remaining within his faith system. Take another example - you are held at gunpoint and told that unless you renounce your faith you will surely die. Is that a free choice? Certainly it would not be considered so in law. Clearly you can choose to die and remain true to your faith, but to be classified as a free and conscious choice requires more - it requires that there is no element of coercion |
He-the first teen- has two directions/alternatives he can take. He can one: remain in his original faith or two: go to the other faith. Those are two clear alternatives that the teenager would be aware of. If the teen caves under the pressure that he/she might be shunned, that is still his choice, since by what I have already stated as the definition of conscious choice, he/she has made a decision with careful consideration of the consequences that each choice would entail. He/She knows that if they stay in the faith that they are in they may not feel like they are where they need to be. However, he/she also knows that if they change denomination/faith they may be shunned. A person fully aware of the consequences and makes a choice, is making a conscious decision. Whereas a person who does not know the consequences of a decision is not making a conscious decision, usually because it is so hastily made, there is no time to weigh the options. When it comes to deciding which faith you wish to pursue, you usually spend a considerable amount of time considering and consciously weighing the options, which, as I have already stated, makes it a conscious, and free-I might add-choice. Just because there may be consequences with a certain action does not mean that it is not an action of free choice. Just a note though. Most Christian families would not ostracize their children/siblings/etc... for changing religion. They may be upset and hurt, but they wouldn't shun them (with the exception of the Amish-and that's a minority).Why? because they are 1) still family 2) if you know anything about the bible, you will know about the story of the prodigal son. sometimes you have to just let your children go and let them make their own decisions.
When you are being held at gunpoint, you still have the choice. You don't have to denounce your faith. If you have true faith then you would be willing to die rather than give it up. You still have the choice, regardless of the gun to your head. People who have died rather than denounce their faith display that you do have a choice...no one can make you do anything. No one can get inside of your mouth and make you denounce your faith. Only you can do that. If you value your life more than your faith, then apparently it is not only carries no value in your life, but in denouncing this faith that you supposedly have, have made that choice to form those words.
| Quote: |
| Er...no that is a false dichotomy. Try another example:
The teenager is a Christian. He lives in the bible-belt and comes from a fundamentalist Christian family. He has never been exposed to other faiths - apart from in a very negative way where they are held up as examples of heathen and godless practices. He knows that if he renounces his faith that he will be shunned socially and that his family will reject him. Do you consider that a free choice? Clearly by your own definition it is not, since the teenager is NOT fully aware of the alternatives and is coerced into remaining within his faith system. Take another example - you are held at gunpoint and told that unless you renounce your faith you will surely die. Is that a free choice? Certainly it would not be considered so in law. Clearly you can choose to die and remain true to your faith, but to be classified as a free and conscious choice requires more - it requires that there is no element of coercion |
He-the first teen- has two directions/alternatives he can take. He can one: remain in his original faith or two: go to the other faith. Those are two clear alternatives that the teenager would be aware of. If the teen caves under the pressure that he/she might be shunned, that is still his choice, since by what I have already stated as the definition of conscious choice, he/she has made a decision with careful consideration of the consequences that each choice would entail. He/She knows that if they stay in the faith that they are in they may not feel like they are where they need to be. However, he/she also knows that if they change denomination/faith they may be shunned. A person fully aware of the consequences and makes a choice, is making a conscious decision. Whereas a person who does not know the consequences of a decision is not making a conscious decision, usually because it is so hastily made, there is no time to weigh the options. When it comes to deciding which faith you wish to pursue, you usually spend a considerable amount of time considering and consciously weighing the options, which, as I have already stated, makes it a conscious, and free-I might add-choice. Just because there may be consequences with a certain action does not mean that it is not an action of free choice. Just a note though. Most Christian families would not ostracize their children/siblings/etc... for changing religion. They may be upset and hurt, but they wouldn't shun them (with the exception of the Amish-and that's a minority).Why? because they are 1) still family 2) if you know anything about the bible, you will know about the story of the prodigal son. sometimes you have to just let your children go and let them make their own decisions.
When you are being held at gunpoint, you still have the choice. You don't have to denounce your faith. If you have true faith then you would be willing to die rather than give it up. You still have the choice, regardless of the gun to your head. People who have died rather than denounce their faith display that you do have a choice...no one can make you do anything. No one can get inside of your mouth and make you denounce your faith. Only you can do that. If you value your life more than your faith, then apparently it is not only carries no value in your life, but in denouncing this faith that you supposedly have, have made that choice to form those words.
Well, you have a very selective definition of choice if that is what you believe. Certainly the law would not agree*, neither would most moral philosophers. A free choice is one without coercion. If there is coercion then there is no free choice.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/coercion
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/coercion
| Quote: |
| A free choice is one without coercion. If there is coercion then there is no free choice. |
How is peer pressure coercion. Legally, someone who peer pressures someone else into drinking underage or comitting any other crime that they wouldn't normally commit wouldn't be held accountable for the person who commited the crime. No, the person who made the decision to commit the crime would be held accountable.
| aames_prov356 wrote: | ||
How is peer pressure coercion. Legally, someone who peer pressures someone else into drinking underage or comitting any other crime that they wouldn't normally commit wouldn't be held accountable for the person who commited the crime. No, the person who made the decision to commit the crime would be held accountable. |
Err....not exactly. In the case of peer pressure it would be mitigating evidence, rather than evidence to acquit, but we are not talking about peer pressure only - we are talking about pressure from family and the society around the individual. We are talking about scare stories of hell and damnation. We are talking about being shunned by the people you know and love. You say this doesn't happen - you are wrong. It happens quite frequently. It happened to me and I know several other people with the same experiences. My father refused to speak to me for years after I told him that I had rejected Catholicism. That was very difficult - particularly since he died before we achieved anything I would call a proper reconciliation. My grandfather did the same and it was only a few months before HE died that we finally made our peace.
When such pressure is applied by adults to minors then it IS LEGALLY coercion.
| Quote: |
| Err....not exactly. In the case of peer pressure it would be mitigating evidence, rather than evidence to acquit, but we are not talking about peer pressure only - we are talking about pressure from family and the society around the individual. We are talking about scare stories of hell and damnation. We are talking about being shunned by the people you know and love. You say this doesn't happen - you are wrong. It happens quite frequently. It happened to me and I know several other people with the same experiences. My father refused to speak to me for years after I told him that I had rejected Catholicism. That was very difficult - particularly since he died before we achieved anything I would call a proper reconciliation. My grandfather did the same and it was only a few months before HE died that we finally made our peace.
When such pressure is applied by adults to minors then it IS LEGALLY coercion. |
I never said that it never happens...it is just rare. In the cases where it does happen, it is wrong, and I am sorry that you had to experinece that. However, you still made that decision to reject Catholicism, regardless of the fact that you probably knew what your father would do when you told him.
Not to take away from what you experienced, I know plenty people who have left their faith after high school and did not experience being shunned by their parents-and I do live in a Bible Belt, surrounded by Catholics and Lutherans. My church is one of the few Baptist in the area actually. So it can go both ways. My mom walked away from her faith for a time as well and her parents did not shun her, despite their disappointment.
I can see where you would think that religion is a set of rituals, where you have little or no choice, given your upbringing. However, you have to realize that not all religions are that way. Baptist is a prime example. In my denomination the only ritual that we really observe is the Lord's Supper. Other than that, you do what you feel led to do. If you want to sing a popular Christian song in a service, you can. If you want to shout amen, you can do that too. Whereas, Catholicism is mostly rituals, ie doing x number of Hail Mary's for doing a particular sin or paying the Church money so you won't go to what they believe as Purgatory. You get my point though. It may seem completely off topic, but you have to realize that I have grown up with free choice when it comes to church.There are faiths that in some regions, coercion is used to deter people from converting, but
regardless of the pressure, any person has the choice. No one can trully make a decision for another person. They can pressure a person, but not decide for them. Religion is a matter of the heart. No one can change that part of you. Just as I cannot force you to believe the same way that I do, though I could try (which I won't because I don't believe that beliefs can be forced), because you have to make that decision all by yourself, or it isn't in itself true faith. It would just be empty words. Those who are part of a religion where you aren't forced to stay or you'll be shunned do not follow a true faith because they do not understand that. But not all religions are like that. Mine in particular.
But still, the debate was originally over conscioius choice, not free choice.
| Quote: |
| The growth of Christianity in China is not really surprising. In the post-Mao era, religion has once again been 'allowed' by the state and Christian missionaries have made great efforts to convert the 'heathen' Chinese. Most of the converts come from non-religious households rather than converting from Confucianism or Taoism. The people converting are under no death threat since the Chinese state now recognises Christianity and does not generally persecute Christians, providing they follow certain restrictions imposed by the state. There are some Christian sects which are not officially recognised by the state (generally called 'house churches') and members of these do suffer occasional persecution but I believe this has been declining significantly in recent times. |
Actually, you would be suprised to know that it hasn't.
| Quote: |
|
Stories of the Underground Church (taken from briomag.com) by Trevor Persaud Linh was a 15-year-old girl living in Southeast Asia. She loved Jesus and her family. She went to church, where she led a youth Bible group. She attended high school, played the keyboard and dealt with other “normal” things in life. But she also had bigger worries. Once, the police took Linh out of school for several days. For hours each day, they kept her in a room at the police station and asked her questions. She wasn’t given any food. They wanted to know about her friends in the youth group, about her church and about her Christian faith. “Why do you waste this time?” Linh asked. “You know what we do. We do good things. We train youth not to be alcoholics and commit crimes.” After a while, they gave up interrogating her and sent her back to school. But Linh didn’t relax. She’d been questioned before and knew that she could be again at any time. This story is true — and it’s not unique. In many countries around the world, faith — especially Christian faith — is considered a crime. Christians have to meet secretly in homes and forests — and yes, sometimes underground. They rarely are able to worship in a large building with a cross and steeple. If you were a believer in Linh’s country, you’d always have to be ready to talk to the police. And if you talked about Jesus in school, you wouldn’t make many friends. It’s scary. It’s real. It’s the Underground Church. Faith Under Fire In southern Sudan, believers are often under fire — literally. Islamic armies from the north bomb churches and pastors’ homes. Some radical Muslims believe that their god wants them to kill infidels — their name for non-Muslims — in a holy war. In Malaysia, a young Malay girl caused a national uproar when she announced she was marrying a Christian boy. Her shocked family kept her confined for more than a month, forcing her to listen to Islamic teachers who warned her about infidels. Muslim leaders all over the country condemned her. The Malaysian government proposed a bill recommending harsh punishment for converts to Christianity — all of this over one girl’s decision! How many Bibles do you have in your house? In the Underground Church, a single page of God’s Word might be all you ever have. In prisons around the world, Scriptures, sermons and hymns have to be written secretly on slips of cigarette paper and smuggled between cells. Outside of prison, Bibles and other Christian literature are printed by underground printing presses and distributed to the house churches. If the printers are caught, they could be imprisoned, but that doesn’t stop these Christians. The Word Is Out! In the U.S. and other free countries, word has gotten out about the Underground Church. The Voice of the Martyrs, a ministry that helps Christians under fire, publishes two newsletters about the persecution of believers. The music group dc Talk tells many of the stories they’ve heard from the Underground Church in their popular book Jesus Freaks. “For some, standing up for Jesus actually means dying for Him,” dc Talk member Toby McKeehan says. “These are the people who are changing our world by refusing to lay aside their relationship with Jesus for the mere sake of being accepted.” In Atlanta, 20 girls from a Bible study group held an all-night lock-in at their church, where they learned about and prayed for the Underground Church. Workers from The Voice of the Martyrs were there, telling stories about the persecution they’d seen. The girls collected blankets and prayed for the Christians in southern Sudan. The lock-in was a life-changer for many of the girls. One said, “We’ve been worried about things like how our hair looks and if we’re going to get a boyfriend. That’s not how it is in other countries. When they go to church, they may never come home.” A Fellowship of Suffering If it sounds like life in the Underground Church is all gloom and doom, there’s another side to know about. These believers have nothing left to depend on except Jesus, and they’ve learned that Jesus is all they need. The apostle Paul said, “Now I have given up everything else — I have found it to be the only way to really know Christ and experience the mighty power that brought Him back to life again, and to find out what it means to suffer and die with Him” (Philippians 3:10, The Living Bible). In this special fellowship, Christians who are under persecution aren’t just suffering for Jesus; they actually suffer with Him. Because of this, there can be a joy in those tiny prison cells that you might not find too often even in “free” countries. Most persecuted Christians aren’t really any stronger than the rest of us, though. Every Christian has something that he or she has to overcome. In Jesus Freaks, the men of dc Talk said, “While we may not be called to martyr our lives, we must martyr our way of life. We must put our selfish deeds to death and march to a different beat. Then the world will see Jesus.” Want more info? The Voice of the Martyrs posts news from the Persecuted Church online at linkingup.com. They also have two free newsletters with in-depth coverage: The Voice of the Martyrs for adults and LINK International for students. Call (800) 747-0085 for details. |
http://chinaaid.org/persecution/the-underground-church/
http://chinaaid.org/2008/07/07/sichuan-believers-endure-increasing-persecution/
Above;
If you copy text from somewhere you should place it in quote tags.
If you copy text from somewhere you should place it in quote tags.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Actually, you would be suprised to know that it hasn't.
|
a) Use quote tags when copy-pasting large chunks from other sites. I've done it for you this time - next time I will issue an official AWIT warning.
b) The source is a Christian propagandist site called China-Aid. I question the impartiality of the stories on such sites. The specific articles quoted are from a group called 'The Voice of the Martyrs'. I DEFINITELY question the impartiality of any group with that title.
c) The stories you cited do not mention China at all. There is mention of Sudan, a South East Asian country (un-named) & Malaysia.
| Quote: |
| particularly people who think their particular god wants them to die for him or kill other people in his name. |
This is exactly anti-religion. Actually people that do this kind of stuff in name of God are no more than criminals. It's not the religion's fault.
| Da Rossa wrote: | ||
This is exactly anti-religion. Actually people that do this kind of stuff in name of God are no more than criminals. It's not the religion's fault. |
A motive is a motive.
Related topics
 |