Teach Me(et all) Your Religion!

[Mums]

You're right, I should have been more clear there: you're correct, there are alternatives to the Abrahamic religions (shocking!). However, they're not the only ones with problems like this. In many Buddhist traditions, for instance, women can't attain enlightenment. The goal of women in those traditions is to accumulate "good karma" (which is a ridiculous notion, but it works as a layman's understanding) so that one day they can be reborn as men. Buddhist monks, ideally, but specifically male Buddhist monks.

My point was mostly, why put yourself in any of the groups, none of them are directly progressive and helpful towards different genders and identities. Can't the person be satisfied with saying "I believe in a god" and not bind yourself to any specifik religion?

As for the question of why someone would participate in a group that's been historically hostile to them, usually it isn't a question of choice. The majority of people who are Christian (e.g.) are that way because they were raised that way - at least nowadays. Back in the Middle Ages conversion was often more... forceful. But in either case, it starts out as an external pressure, then eventually transitions into being a part of your life and your identity.


But that's not really an answer. Why would a gay person be Christian? I think it's a question of labeling. If you believe in the doctrine of many Christian groups, "gay" is not a thing that you are, it's a thing that you do. It's not that you are a gay person who chooses to be Christian, it's that you are a Christian who struggles with temptation to do gay things. The logic goes that the hatred is of the act, not of the person, much like alcoholism or adultery.

Fair point. Though my discussion was mostly aimed towards people in Sweden where the country is quite secular, we have quite a lot of atheists and the equality is high in comparison to a lot of other countries. The LGBT movement is one of the strongest in the world and I see a lot of proud and open gay people who adhere to christianity.

[AlexanderDitto]

I do not believe that the concept of slavery is unethical. I do feel that most, if not all, implementations of slavery that have been done over the millennia have been very flawed.

I just want to reiterate, I didn't "force your hand." I asked you a pointed question that you were avoiding. You didn't have to answer it if you didn't want to.

I'm glad we got this out of the way, though, because really, there's no point in discussing things as far down the road as homosexuality if we're coming from such different starting points.

I think your viewpoint is wrong and, frankly, the implications are a bit frightening to me. It would be something worth discussing...

So there it is. Ban me, and make me a pariah. Cut off all human interaction with me so I can just go off and die alone. I probably deserve it, anyway. I'm probably the second-worst person since Hitler.

Here, though, you're being melodramatic. There's not much place for us to go from here.

[Metcarfre]

I hesitate to wade in to this discussion, but I'd just like to add my perspective.

From my point of view, a key difference is that - at least in the modern interpretation of such things - Christian morality is far more concerned with personal actions and beliefs than the theoretical and thought experiments.

I mean, Alex, lets say you're against slavery (I'm not sure you stated it explicitly, but I think it's fair to assume). How would you say that belief affects your day-to-day thoughts, words, and actions? It's a social structure that could neither be enacted should you wish it to be so, nor one you would be able to remove from those places it is still active.

I mean, I know a lot of people who abstractly believe all the *right* things - human rights, socialist-ish government structures, moderating political and economic inequalities, etc - but are still niggardly with their money, jealous with their time, boastful and slanderous with their words, hateful in their thoughts. What's the point in being behind such lofty ideals (ones that, if we're honest, we will have very, very little to do with) if one they have no affect on one's actual actions? (This isn't to cast aspersions on Alex or anyone else, merely to illustrate a point).

Perhaps it's just that such things are fun to debate on the Internet!

[AlexanderDitto]

Of course I have virtually no ability to end slavery where it exists in the modern world, as abhorrent as I believe it to be. I never claimed otherwise! It seems you too have missed the point of my bringing it up. Perhaps it is a poor example, if so many people do not understand the cut of my jib!

I was discussing slavery only insofar as it is an example of a number of things (rape, stoning adulterous women, cutting someone off from their people because they touched menstrual blood) endorsed in the Bible that most people would not find particularly moral. People judge those things immoral, despite claiming that the Bible is the ultimate source of their morality, which is a contradiction.

The fact that Memo does not have an objection to well "implemented" slavery (whatever that means), while rather shocking to me and deserving of a separate discussion (see below), does not do much to refute my claim; it just means I picked an example that doesn't apply to him. Even if the Admiral himself ascribed to every word of the Bible as being representative of the purest, most sensible morality (I would doubt this very much, re: poly-cotton blends), I would be very surprised if that were the case for all Christians who ascribe their fundamental morality to the Bible. (Given the number of African Americans who are Christian, for example, who I doubt would be so charitable toward slavery having experienced a particularly "flawed implementation" of slavery, to use Memo's rather severe understatement.)

In regards to your tangential point:

First, you're conflating morality (what we think is right vs wrong) with how we act. Obviously, people commit immoral acts. Believing something is immoral doesn't magically make you immune from doing it. I don't think that should change whether we view something as immoral or not, and I think you'd probably agree. (Murderers exist; that doesn't make murder moral.)

Second, I reject the notion that there's some grand wall that divides off "theoretical" morality from one's judgement of the morality of day-to-day thoughts, words, and actions. One informs the other, or rather, it's more like a gradient from theoretical concepts to day-to-day actions. The point in being behind "such lofty ideals" is that they SHOULD form the foundation for how we try to live our lives.

(This is also not to say it's even possible to live a life of perfect morality, or that in every case in life there will exist a moral choice.)

Slavery is an ultimate denial of freedom, and of personhood, a denial of what many consider a fundamental human right. It's worth considering what the implications of such a belief are. Even if we're lucky enough that the most obvious forms of slavery seem distant and abstract from our lives, that doesn't mean it's not worth considering. If one considers slavery moral: can you purchase a human life? Could you, say, kill someone if they owed you a great enough debt? Remove their limbs or organs? If that is too extreme: could you instead cause them to starve?

But yes, if you're going to tell me that you don't think people have a fundamental right to be treated as humans, or to have ownership over their own bodies, I could see how it could be within the realm of possibility for one to think homosexuals should be killed, or shunned, or looked down on for sleeping together (not to say Memo or you think these things, obviously! I'm talking about proposed Biblical interpretations of Leviticus). Personhood is a more fundamental issue, which is why discussing details down the road doesn't make sense if we're not starting at the same point.

If most people live lives of unexamined morality, or don't adhere to their principals, I don't think that's a reason to throw the concept of examined morality out the window, and ascribe unthinkingly to the contents of a book. It's a reason to get people to think about these things MORE, not less.

[Metcarfre]

Sorry, I, too, was using your example of slavery as an illustration - in fact to demonstrate my belief that this statement;

First, you're conflating morality (what we think is right vs wrong) with how we act.

- is pretty much my exact view; our morality is defined demonstrated by our actions (to which I include thoughts and, to an extent, feelings).

Certainly, I agree that the discussion of fundamental issues can and should inform ones morality, actions, etc. I guess my point is that, at least in the Christian tradition to which I am a part, those discussions (internal or otherwise) are only really relevant in how they inform ones actions.

[Duckay]

Isn't it also a matter of, for want of a better term, scale, though?

It might be better if I explain through an example.

Compare three people. All three say that they abide by "Christian morals". One is a jealous, judgemental person and makes no effort to change. One is a genuinely upstanding, selfless person. One is prone to fits of jealousy but is self-aware that this is not something they ought to do and makes an effort to fix it.

I would give the third person credit for trying and making an effort, even though they stumble from time to time. Perhaps you would not.

[Metcarfre]

No, I absolutely would - certainly there's a gap between the ideal and the reality. But if one claims to try to be like your second example and acts like the first, is it not possible their true internal morality is different from what they claim it to be?

[AlexanderDitto]

No, I absolutely would - certainly there's a gap between the ideal and the reality. But if one claims to try to be like your second example and acts like the first, is it not possible their true internal morality is different from what they claim it to be?

Certainly. I know morality's not tangible; only its outputs (actions) can be measured. I still have a strong hunch that people's internal decisions about what is moral or not impacts how they think and act. Unless people are, you know, winging it all the time. Maybe people don't think "I wonder how this action reflects on my underlying value for freedom/equality," but it must have an impact.)

It also impacts the way we govern ourselves, because laws are usually used in an effort to enforce some approximation of the morality that society agrees on (see: anti-sodomy laws).

[Metcarfre]

Absolutely; and that which I earlier called theoretical obviously has a central role in the formulation of governmental laws. But the particular instance of Christian morality to which I subscribe isn't particularly concerned about laws.

[Duckay]

No, I absolutely would - certainly there's a gap between the ideal and the reality. But if one claims to try to be like your second example and acts like the first, is it not possible their true internal morality is different from what they claim it to be?

I certainly don't disagree with you there. I just wanted to make the point clear that my belief on the subject of morality allows for a certain middle-ground; if you try to follow your moral code but sometimes fall short, I still consider that to be a sincere application of the moral code. (Especially as it comes to thoughts and feelings; I think few of us can sincerely say that we've never faulted there.) A lack of an attempt to live up to the stated moral code is a different issue, I agree.

ETA: if I had thought of it at the time, perhaps I would have proposed a fourth person, who lives up to their moral code in X, Y and Z fashions but fails in another way (let's continue to use the example of jealousy) and who doesn't seem self-aware. Maybe this person is a hypocrite who doesn't really believe in their stated moral code, or maybe they're just oblivious and don't see that they're failing, but would with some help. How would you regard that person?

And in my opinion, this is true regardless of the "source" of the morality (that is, whether it is religious or secular).

[Metcarfre]

ETA: if I had thought of it at the time, perhaps I would have proposed a fourth person, who lives up to their moral code in X, Y and Z fashions but fails in another way (let's continue to use the example of jealousy) and who doesn't seem self-aware. Maybe this person is a hypocrite who doesn't really believe in their stated moral code, or maybe they're just oblivious and don't see that they're failing, but would with some help. How would you regard that person?

Well, I hate to be one to judge another, but I could lump that in to your third example to an extent. We're all limited in one way or another; After meeting a slew of new people and a bundle of long-haul flights over the past weeks, I continue to be amazed at people complete obliviousness to the way their actions affect others. I know I, too, am guilty of that.

Perhaps I painted my perspective in a way that was much more black-and-white than I anticipated; if so, I apologize.

[AlexanderDitto]

Absolutely; and that which I earlier called theoretical obviously has a central role in the formulation of governmental laws. But the particular instance of Christian morality to which I subscribe isn't particularly concerned about laws.

Genuinely interested: what makes your personal morality "Christian" morality?

[Metcarfre]

I don't define my morality as the be-all, end-all Christian morality at all. Sorry if that was unclear. It's more that it tends to fall under that umbrella, instead. That it is particularly informed and formed by my beliefs through my system of faith. Which, is broadly understood to fall under the label of "Christianity".

[AlexanderDitto]

I don't define my morality as the be-all, end-all Christian morality at all. Sorry if that was unclear. It's more that it tends to fall under that umbrella, instead. That it is particularly informed and formed by my beliefs through my system of faith. Which, is broadly understood to fall under the label of "Christianity".

Oh no, I figured that was the case. I was just more interested in what way you'd say Christianity has informed your morality.

[Tycherin]

It's too easy for me to find examples of laws that are stupid regardless of morality for me to take laws seriously as moral guidelines.

Isn't it also a matter of, for want of a better term, scale, though?

It might be better if I explain through an example.

Compare three people. All three say that they abide by "Christian morals". One is a jealous, judgemental person and makes no effort to change. One is a genuinely upstanding, selfless person. One is prone to fits of jealousy but is self-aware that this is not something they ought to do and makes an effort to fix it.

I would give the third person credit for trying and making an effort, even though they stumble from time to time. Perhaps you would not.

So I want to make a distinction here that might sound pedantic, but that I think is important. First, I think you're right that intent counts. However, I would add that intent counts not because it matters in and of itself, but because it translates into a tangible effect on the world - in this case, on the person him/herself. The person who is trying to change has a fundamentally different thought process and internal dialogue than the person who makes no effort, and that difference will be translated into the rest of the world via words and actions. Well, that plus the difference it will make to the individual independent of anyone else. So I guess I'm arguing for a conception of morality that is defined entirely by real-world impact, moderated by considering that the person in question is part of the world he or she is impacting.

[AlexanderDitto]

It's too easy for me to find examples of laws that are stupid regardless of morality for me to take laws seriously as moral guidelines.

I think you misunderstood me: other way around. Laws don't serve as moral guidelines. Our collective morality serves (or is supposed to, anyway) as guidelines for the laws we create.

[Duckay]

So I want to make a distinction here that might sound pedantic, but that I think is important. First, I think you're right that intent counts. However, I would add that intent counts not because it matters in and of itself, but because it translates into a tangible effect on the world - in this case, on the person him/herself. The person who is trying to change has a fundamentally different thought process and internal dialogue than the person who makes no effort, and that difference will be translated into the rest of the world via words and actions. Well, that plus the difference it will make to the individual independent of anyone else. So I guess I'm arguing for a conception of morality that is defined entirely by real-world impact, moderated by considering that the person in question is part of the world he or she is impacting.

I agree with you. What I was trying to say was not that intent to do better absolves a person of responsibility or anything like that. I suppose a better way of phrasing it is like this: an expression of "immoral" behaviour (like jealousy, rudeness, judgement, to name some examples) does not necessarily mean that the person is ignoring their stated moral code, provided that there are also genuine actions taken to improve themselves. Or, I suppose, a backslide or a fall short of their intent is often not as important in assessing a person's general approach to their moral code as their awareness and attempts to do better.

[Metcarfre]

I don't define my morality as the be-all, end-all Christian morality at all. Sorry if that was unclear. It's more that it tends to fall under that umbrella, instead. That it is particularly informed and formed by my beliefs through my system of faith. Which, is broadly understood to fall under the label of "Christianity".

Oh no, I figured that was the case. I was just more interested in what way you'd say Christianity has informed your morality.

Ah, I see. Well, in terms of the subconscious or engrained, I was raised in a (believing) Christian family and in the church, which means I had early instruction directly informed from the Church and Bible about morality, as well as my parent's personal interpretation. The Church (membership/people, sermons, teachings, articles, etc) and Bible both continue to inform it - I study the latter personally and as part of a group. Although my parent's direct instruction has for the most part ended, I still learn much from how they engage themselves in certain situations and earnestly believe I'll be seeking their counsel regularly once I have children.

Of course, my wife informs my morality as well now. She's particularly good at noting my weak points and encouraging me to change them. She's a Christian as well.

Then we get to the parts that for the most part you would dismiss. My personal belief in the influence of the Spirit in my own actions and wisdom; being given discernment in thoughts and deeds; having people, writings, songs, art, or news that affect my viewpoint presented to me.

Since I consider myself a man of God first and foremost, it could be argued that nothing affects me external to that lens; all are translated or affected by my previous beliefs and feelings. But I have been influenced from works external to Christian sources; I think particularly of a few courses in Philosophy and Ethics I attended at uni, as well as (of course) discussions on the Internet and with non-Christian friends and acquiantances regarding such matters.

On the whole, I believe my personal morality to be entirely consistent with Christian teachings and instruction (if not tradition). Others can, and would, disagree, to a greater or lesser extent.

[AlexanderDitto]

That's interesting, thanks for replying. I'm not going to dismiss your personal beliefs, they are what they are. I firmly adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

You say the Church and the Bible inform your personal morality, and your personal morality is consistent with Christian teachings, but that there are others who would disagree that your morality is consistent with those teachings, so I'm curious: are there any things the Church or the Bible teach that you flat out don't agree with? You, of course, do not have to answer if you don't want to.

[Metcarfre]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "the Church" in this context. When Christians generally talk about "the Church", they mean "the universal body of believers". As you can imagine, that's a broad group with little agreement on certain points - and little agreement on which points, exactly, matter. (Myself, I hold that those who broadly hold the essence of the beliefs expressed in the Nicene or Apostles' Creeds to be members).

However, the impression I get sometimes from non-believers (to lump people into a non-specific group) is that they believe all denominations hold a similar set of values re: morality, which isn't strictly true.

I personally agree with the vast majority of the teachings of my church, the Christian and Missionary Alliance of Canada. However, for example, Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, also belongs to that denomination, and I couldn't be more opposed to the majority of his government's policies.

I do disagree with some things, however. When asked to sign an affirmation of church values somewhat recently in order to lead a study group, it took some work and negotiation in order to remove a statement of heterosexual marriage as the only valid form of sexual relations. I also think our denomination, like most, has a lot of work to do to elevate the status of women in ministry (despite being a denomination started by women).

*****

An interesting thing about the New Testament portion of the Bible is that, when you read it, a surprising amount is primarily concerned with discussion over what portions of the Mosaic law still holds sway over followers of God, post-resurrection. Heck, the amount of hand-wringing over circumcision alone defies belief. Overall, the consensus is that the events of the Gospels supersede the need for previous rigid laws in lieu of a simplified set that focuses on the relationship between believer and God - sometimes called the New Covenant.

Of course, there's portions of the New Testament as well that have been read to various conclusions; Paul's treatment of women is a particular sore spot - a recent article I read claiming it's likely his statements were likely meant to be read sarcastically.

In the end, though, the logic of a believer is that since we believe in God, and then, eternity post-death, we should be much, much more concerned with the health of our souls and relationship with God than any particular rigid interpretation of legalistic tradition.

Of course, that's my interpretation, and I have the luxury of never having had a policy or belief of the Church negatively affect me personally being a white straight male in Canada.

The reality is we're human - we make mistakes, both honest and not-so-honest. These include interpretations of old texts and how they apply to modern life. For the most part, I side with those who advocate preaching love and forgiveness no matter what the real or perceived sin of another party is, and that there's room for all in the Church.

[Tycherin]

The reality is we're human - we make mistakes, both honest and not-so-honest. These include interpretations of old texts and how they apply to modern life. For the most part, I side with those who advocate preaching love and forgiveness no matter what the real or perceived sin of another party is, and that there's room for all in the Church.

Well, as long as you have a good stance on foreign policy, you have my vote.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I kinda am interested to know why when I pray with my eyes closed for more than 30 seconds why they start to water.

Is the holy spirit moving me to an extent?
Do I have emotional baggage that can only vent when I basically meditate?
Or is it my contact lenses restricting oxygen to my eyes and my body starts to panic and flood them.

I don't mind the watering. It just sort of inhibits what I think when praying in a communal setting. I don't want to open my eyes with my face drench and some over-caring person asking "Are you OK?" and then I having to repeatedly reassure "I am OK. My eyes just do this. This is not sadness. This is my eyes getting wet. Leave me alone. Stop caring to this extent."

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

Yeah, I tend to mention the 'it's physically impossible for a man to lay with a man as he does a woman' thing whenever that line gets brought up.

I've been reading through passages that are "homosexuality is a sin".

I came across that line.

Oddly, it comes in a block of Unlawful Sexual Relations. Where Sexual Relations is mentioned with every instance BUT the "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman". No "sexual relations" mentioned there. I find the wording interesting. It's not clear or concise. So I assume it's "Don't have sex with another man by penetrating his non-existent vagina".

[Mums]

Wouldn't it be quite redundant for the bible to state that you shouldn't do that if it's just to say that it's physically impossible? Why not state everything that isn't possible then? The text must have some other meaning than "don't have sex in a mans vagina because a man doesn't have a vagina". When I say must I don't mean to dictate what can or cannot be put in there, just to say that it would be quite stupid.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

Perhaps it's that two men should never sleep in the same bed. But there's nothing stopping them from enjoying each other in a mutual happy agreement, if no one in the world will be validly hurt by their actions.