Splits in a belief

[Menotu]

Religions tend to split over time. Society evolves and people tend to take sides, using their belief to justify their side is right and the other side is wrong.
Some examples:
Some of the same faith believe being gay is a sin, others don't.
Not too long ago, some used the bible to say inter-racial marriage is wrong while others did the exact opposite.
Currently, there's still a battle about when life is created; some in a belief system say one thing while others say another thing.

Even modern denominations have different beliefs after branching off from the same core set of values.

So who is right and who is wrong; how do we determine this?

I'd think it's unlikely many here would tell someone to join Scientology, but may not hesitate to tell them to check out Mormonism. Or Methodists. Or Judaism.

For consideration: which do you tell someone who is looking for a religion to join? Which group do you tell them is correct and which isn't? And why are you right and those that disagree with you are wrong?
Or does it not matter that much?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Menotu in post #1]

Some of the same faith believe being gay is a sin, others don't.

If this is the case, then one would need to go to the root of the source, and determine what the religion actually teaches. With Christianity, one would have to turn to what is said in the contents of the Bible, and they would be able to clearly determine that Christianity deems homosexuality to be a sin, along with many other things. With this being the case, you can easily determine the Christian who deems homosexuality to be a sin, would be correct, while the other Christian can be easily demonstrated to be in error.

Not too long ago, some used the bible to say inter-racial marriage is wrong while others did the exact opposite.

The same would apply here as well. What, if anything does the Bible have to say about, "inter-racial marriage"? As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible one way or the other. Therefore, if there ae those who are arguing that, "inter-racial marriage" is a sin, then they are not getting this idea from the Bible.

Even modern denominations have different beliefs after branching off from the same core set of values.

Correct! Because, they understand that both cannot possibly be correct. In other words, if the Bible was simply left open to anyone's interpretation, then it would not matter, and they could simply remain together. However, since the Bible is not left open to interpretation, these folks understand that it matters, which is why they cannot remain together.

So who is right and who is wrong; how do we determine this?

We would determine this in the exact same way as demonstrated above. In other words, we easily determined who would be correct, and who would be in error, within Christianity concerning homosexuality, and "inter-racial marriage".

I'd think it's unlikely many here would tell someone to join Scientology, but may not hesitate to tell them to check out Mormonism. Or Methodists. Or Judaism.

As for me, I would not tell anyone to "check out" any of these things. In fact, I would no tell someone to "check out" Christianity.

For consideration: which do you tell someone who is looking for a religion to join? Which group do you tell them is correct and which isn't?

I would not tell them to join any religion, nor would I attempt to tell them which would be "correct and which isn't". Rather, if they were to ask, I would tell them to investigate the facts, and evidence before making any sort of decision, no matter which religion it would be, or if they decided against any religion at all. I certainly would not recommend that they simply choose one and join.

And why are you right and those that disagree with you are wrong?

I believe I would be correct, because I do not believe it wise for one to simply take the word of others, but to rather think for themselves. Therefore, I would not advise them to simply join any religion.

Or does it not matter that much?

Of course it matters! If there were more folks who actually thought for themselves, instead of simply taking the word of others, we would not have so many here on this site, who admit they were once convinced Christians, simply because they took the word of others.

[Mithrae]

Religions tend to split over time. Society evolves and people tend to take sides, using their belief to justify their side is right and the other side is wrong. . . .


For consideration: which do you tell someone who is looking for a religion to join? Which group do you tell them is correct and which isn't? And why are you right and those that disagree with you are wrong?
Or does it not matter that much?

Most of us are probably accustomed to and in many cases are still limited by a very Western - more specifically Christian, and to some extent even more specifically Protestant or evangelical - way of thinking about 'religion.' The bible says somewhere that "whoever believes in him will have eternal life"; most Christians throughout history have decided that this must not mean believing in Jesus' teaching and example (no-one wants to sell all their possessions and spend their time proclaiming the kingdom of God!) but rather a more abstract mental or spiritual form of belief or 'faith.' Later on down the road, in breaking free from a Roman Catholic church structure purporting to be the sole vehicle of God's grace, the Protestant doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide (scripture alone and faith alone) had implications for somewhat increasing independence of thought and conscience, but also laid the foundations for even further exaggeration of the view that religion is all about being correct according to scripture in one's faith and beliefs... most exemplified by modern fundamentalism and evangelicalism.

But as far as I can tell, even for evangelical Protestants abstract metaphysical claims are really only a tiny aspect of what their religion entails; and as far as we can tell in pragmatic terms, the most inconsequential part! If they weren't largely inconsequential, we'd see significant pragmatic differences in behaviour and outcomes between sects promoting different metaphysical claims: For example if there were significant differences in the efficacy of God's grace between variables such as adult vs. infant baptism, or the 'works' of sacramental rituals vs. pure 'faith' and merely commemorative rituals, then we would expect to see significant differences in psychological wellbeing between Baptists and Episcopalians or between Catholics and Pentecostals.

Beyond metaphysical claims, some of the other things which even evangelical Protestant religion entails include
- community and social support networks;
- historical roots and a sense of place and belonging;
- a deep culture expressed in music, art and literature;
- moral principles, in outline or (for many evangelicals) in the detailed letter of the written scripture;
- personal or narrative inspiration from the stories of folk who've done right against adversity, overcome hardship or been saved from crisis;
- and existential hope from the possibility (or adamant belief) that there's a deity who cares and perhaps a life to come in which all wrongs will be righted.

These aren't always entirely positive aspects of religion - particularly the 'letter of the law' view in which moral judgements are deferred to iron age polemicists rather than taking personal responsibility as educated moral agents - but every single one of them is more pragmatically consequential than abstract metaphysical claims whose purported truth will likely never be established in this life. So then isn't it a little strange when we (especially those of us who are atheists, sceptics or critics) instead fixate on the metaphysical claims as if they were the most important aspect of religion? Isn't that in itself buying into a rather narrow, Western/Christian view of religion to begin with?

That's not to deny the relevance of the metaphysical claims, as hopeful possibilities if nothing else on the positive side, or as sources of prejudice and existential angst at other times: But if someone asked me what I thought would be a good overall approach to religion, I'd probably advise them to first and foremost weigh up the social, cultural and personal aspects of the community they're in or the one they are thinking about joining. If those are a net positive (which I imagine they generally are for most people in free societies who still choose to maintain their religious ties as adults) then that is a good reason for belonging to that religion, and the only reason they really need.

Focusing first and foremost on the pragmatic benefits of religion where applicable might then help mitigate biases when thinking about the metaphysical or doctrinal claims. I feel like many people do this backwards, aided and abetted by the counterproductive rhetoric of many critics and atheists: Rational people who don't want to leave all the social and cultural benefits of their faith community behind can feel trapped into convincing themselves to believe the doctrines and dogma as their purported justification for remaining. Instead, people who knowingly and openly choose to belong to a religion or faith community primarily because their parents or friends or the like belong to it might not feel so encumbered and so limited when asking themselves "Is Paul an absolute authority over my moral judgements? Should unknown bronze age Jewish writers dictate my opinions on history and science?" If you know you're in it for the community and culture, you're free to evaluate the doctrines with relative objectivity as either true or false or uncertain; whereas if you think or pretend that it's all about Truth with a capital Tee those benefits (or negatives, or even abuses) of a religious community have every likelihood of skewing your thinking.



To summarize, truth and correctness, or at least minimizing obvious errors, are surely important objectives: But ironically I suspect that when people (both religious and sceptics) evaluate, promote or criticize religion primarily in terms of truth and error, it can instead burden their thinking about truth and error with biases from the far more consequential aspects of this very broad area.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to Menotu in post #1]

Some of the same faith believe being gay is a sin, others don't.

If this is the case, then one would need to go to the root of the source, and determine what the religion actually teaches. With Christianity, one would have to turn to what is said in the contents of the Bible, and they would be able to clearly determine that Christianity deems homosexuality to be a sin, along with many other things. With this being the case, you can easily determine the Christian who deems homosexuality to be a sin, would be correct, while the other Christian can be easily demonstrated to be in error.

Even assuming that understanding of the bible were correct (a contrary and I think more coherent biblical argument could be made), your comments about 'Christianity' would only be correct if your definition of Christianity includes abdicating moral agency and deferring judgement to sometimes anonymous bronze and iron age polemicists. Asserting the bible to be a sole and infallible source of moral judgement is not found anywhere in the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed, as far as I can see... and it's certainly not found in the bible itself! I'm sure some ancient and medieval Christians held a similar approach, but from what I gather it only really became a formalized widespread attitude in the past couple of centuries and has obviously been far from universal even then. As suggested above it seems to have been an eventual development of the Protestant sola scriptura doctrine; many other Protestants, more in the vein of sola fide and with an awareness of possible abuses from authoritarian appeals to Tradition or Scripture, came to emphasize individual or local community conscience, intellect and belief even above scripture... though obviously most folk fall somewhere between the extremes and might not explicitly affirm one or the other, or might affirm the authority of scripture when pressed even while quietly ignoring most of it.

Granted that many critics and sceptics seem to struggle with this fact too, but the bible does not define Christianity, and never has. There doesn't exist a universally-accepted canon, and even the most ardent fundamentalists must pick and choose which passages to emphasize, which to downplay and which to 'reinterpret' entirely.

In the case of Christianity I would say there's three possible defining characteristics, which are not mutually exclusive but not necessarily overlapping either:
> Identifying with and belonging to a Christian community/congregation
> Accepting common Christian beliefs and practices
> Being a 'follower of Christ,' obeying Jesus' teachings

The fundamentalist approach of course is a very specific iteration of the second one - claiming that to be a Christian one must believe in the bible, for example - with just the slight problem that we need to know who the Christians are first, before we can identify common Christian beliefs. Hardly anyone obeys Jesus' teachings, so I include that mostly for the sake of completeness; that's presumably the most important defining characteristic, even if it only covers a few hundred or few thousand folk who actually do so! But for the billion-odd Christians of the various churches and denominations around the world, obviously the primary defining characteristic is identifying with and belonging to Christian communities. In most cases 'Christian beliefs' are a consequence of belonging to a Christian community - most obviously in the case of those raised in a Christian family - and while sometimes adult entrances to the community are predicated on reciting a formula of beliefs, often even that is not the case.

Odds are that even today, most Christians have never read through the bible: Many Christians in poorer countries may not have access to a full bible in their own language, or perhaps may not be able to read at all for that matter, which obviously would have been even more true in previous centuries. So the obsession with that anthology of ancient books among fundamentalists - both Christians and critics - really seems quite irrational, and is largely a modern phenomenon.

That said, I suppose it would be fair to say that believing the bible to be the Word of God or suchlike is a common enough Christian belief that it could be considered a sufficient identifying characteristic, even though it's obviously not a necessary one.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Mithrae in post #4]

To my understanding, which I believe I can demonstrate, Christianity has nothing to do with attempting to teach us how to be moral people. Rather, Christianity tells us to let go of our efforts towards morality, that we could never obtain in the first place, and grab ahold of what God has done for us. With this being the case, whatever good deeds we may preform, would not be out of any obligation to fulfill some sort of moral code, but rather out of gratitude for what has been done for us.

Of course there are many who identify themselves as Christian, who do not adhere to the teachings in the Bible, and anyone it seems, is allowed to identify themselves as Christians, but in order to narrow down what we are defining as Christians, allow us just to say, those who claim to be Christians, while claiming to adhere to the teachings of the Bible, can easily be demonstrated to be incorrect, if they hold the position that homosexuality is not defined as being a sin, according to the Bible they claim to adhere to.

The point is, sure there can be those who identify as Christians, while defining what that would mean themselves, but for those who allow the outside source of what we call the Bible to define what it would mean to be a Christian, cannot in any way defend the position that homosexuality would not be a sin, according to the source they claim to adhere to.

So then, if we allow anyone, and everyone to identify as Christian, I have no problem with that. However, for those who identify as Christians, while at the same time claiming to adhere to the Bible, they cannot in any way defend the idea that homosexuality would not be identified as a sin, according to the Bible, they claim to adhere to.

[1213]

... which do you tell someone who is looking for a religion to join? Which group do you tell them is correct and which isn't? ...

Correct in what? I personally recommend people to be disciples of Jesus and follow his teachings. Reason for that is that I think his teachings are good and true. And I leave it to people to decide do they agree with Jesus or not.

Correct and good seems to be just subjective opinions. For me it is enough if people know the truth. If they think it is not good or correct, it is their problem.

[unknown soldier]

So who is right and who is wrong; how do we determine this?

There's no way to objectively determine the "right" religion as far as the followers of a particular religion are concerned. The faithful generally do not belong to their respective religions as a result of reason or supporting evidence. They have a powerful emotional attachment to their religions and hang onto their beliefs with great tenacity fearing the consequences of doubt.

If you're a sensible person like I am, then you judge religion like anything else. If you are so inclined, then you try it to see if it works as advertised. If it doesn't meet your expectations, then you drop it.

For consideration: which do you tell someone who is looking for a religion to join?

I'd advise them not to join any religion.

Which group do you tell them is correct and which isn't?

As far as truth claims are concerned, all religions fall short of getting those claims right.

And why are you right and those that disagree with you are wrong?

I'd point to science as one major reason I'm right. My opinions on religion are not in conflict with science while almost all religions are in conflict with science.

Or does it not matter that much?

It is vitally important to expose the errors and lies of religion to safeguard people from the harm that religion can do.

[Mithrae]

So then, if we allow anyone, and everyone to identify as Christian, I have no problem with that. However, for those who identify as Christians, while at the same time claiming to adhere to the Bible, they cannot in any way defend the idea that homosexuality would not be identified as a sin, according to the Bible, they claim to adhere to.

You can find bible verses saying that homosexuality (or more precisely, same-sex relations) is bad, sure, just as you can find verses saying it's bad for men to have long hair, women to speak in church, or slaves to seek freedom from those who own and sell them. That's the problem with the 'letter of the law' approach; there's so many letters there to pick and choose from. I would argue that a coherent biblical Christian perspective would start from one of two points, either the two great commands of love God and love others outlined by Jesus or (more comprehensively) with the question "What is sin?" and following the chain of reasoning through "What is the 'new covenant'?", "What purpose had 'old covenant' rules like exclusion of those with damaged genitals and prohibition of gay relations?" and "What is 'liberty in Christ'?"... which I think should ultimately lead back to those two commandments as the root of all moral values, the guiding principles for God's law written in his people's hearts and minds. The purpose of Israelite prohibition of gay relations no longer applies, and perpetuating that ancient regulation if anything tends towards real or perceived unloving attitudes and behaviour. So Paul's prejudices notwithstanding, I think a more coherent biblical Christian perspective would not treat loving monogamous homosexual relations as 'sinful.'

[Realworldjack]

So then, if we allow anyone, and everyone to identify as Christian, I have no problem with that. However, for those who identify as Christians, while at the same time claiming to adhere to the Bible, they cannot in any way defend the idea that homosexuality would not be identified as a sin, according to the Bible, they claim to adhere to.

You can find bible verses saying that homosexuality (or more precisely, same-sex relations) is bad, sure, just as you can find verses saying it's bad for men to have long hair, women to speak in church, or slaves to seek freedom from those who own and sell them. That's the problem with the 'letter of the law' approach; there's so many letters there to pick and choose from. I would argue that a coherent biblical Christian perspective would start from one of two points, either the two great commands of love God and love others outlined by Jesus or (more comprehensively) with the question "What is sin?" and following the chain of reasoning through "What is the 'new covenant'?", "What purpose had 'old covenant' rules like exclusion of those with damaged genitals and prohibition of gay relations?" and "What is 'liberty in Christ'?"... which I think should ultimately lead back to those two commandments as the root of all moral values, the guiding principles for God's law written in his people's hearts and minds. The purpose of Israelite prohibition of gay relations no longer applies, and perpetuating that ancient regulation if anything tends towards real or perceived unloving attitudes and behaviour. So Paul's prejudices notwithstanding, I think a more coherent biblical Christian perspective would not treat loving monogamous homosexual relations as 'sinful.'

Oh okay? So let's go with what you have to say, and completely ignore what Paul had to say when he said to the Corinthians,

Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

So then, with your logic, we should allow not only the homosexual to identify as Christians, but also the "idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunks, verbal abusers, and swindlers" as well?

"What is the 'new covenant'?"

The "new covenant" is a unilateral covenant which depends on God's ability to keep his promise, while the old covenant was a bi-lateral covenant which depended upon the people to be able to keep their promises. The old covenant failed, because the people could not keep up their end of the bargain, because of sin. Therefore, God eliminates our end of the bargain, and takes on full responsibility himself, not in order for us to continue in sin, but that we could now struggle against sin, which is what Paul describes when he talks about the old Adam, and the new Adam.

My whole point here is, I am not a homosexual, which means I do not in any way have to struggle against that particular temptation. However, there a number of other sins I must struggle against. So then, it is not as though we condemn the homosexual, but that we come together, and help each other in our different struggles against these temptations we have. It is when I give up on my struggle against sin, and begin to live in this sin openly, and willfully, that Church discipline should take place.

As a real life example of this, there was a Christian man who was a member of a particular Church who fell into the sin of adultery, and was having an affair with another woman. Eventually, this man packed his belongings, and moved in with this other woman. The pastor of the Church simply picked up the phone and called this man, and told him what the consequences of his sin would be, which would include excommunication from the Church if he continued. The man then moved back in with his wife.

As you can see, it has nothing to do with being unloving, unkind, hateful, and or condemning. "Liberty in Christ" is being set free from our chase after morality, in order to struggle against our sin, knowing that our failures do not condemn us. However, there is a tremendous difference between struggling against sin, as opposed to willfully, and openly living in it.

I have no problem with homosexuals, and have a number of friends and family who identify as such. However, none of these folks are interested in joining the Church, and I cannot imagine why they would?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Menotu in post #1]


I don't tell them anything. I let my actions speak for themselves (if they're looking). Actions speak louder than words as they say.
People are responsible for their own actions. It's not my job to tell them one thing or the other. Mind my own business. I wish Christians would do the same. But that's not what they're indoctrinated to do. Which frightens me to no end.
"Go forth and blah blah blah" as the bible tells them. Why? If you're so right, there's no need to 'go forth' and make disciples. I guess it's not all it's cracked up to be?