Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pantophobia
i understand that logic, i mean the most strict are the most faithful to the gospel, but many of their leaders be it pastors or government officials break any commandment they want when it suits them, especially adultery which seems to be the most popular broken commandment of the religious right
it's interesting to look at my parents are proclaimed catholics, but they very lapsed catholics who never go to church unless it's for a wedding or a funeral (which for my dad is becoming common place considering many firefighters don't have long life spans), and also while they don't like abortion, they do believe in the right for a woman to choose, and they respect my own personal views on religion but still have a strong faith, and doesn't seem to waiver.
it's a very unique outlook, but but while their is a certain honesty in sticking to the word of the gospel, i have much more respect to those who are able to see past many of the tenants of something that written some two millennium ago and look to morality based on human rights which more often then not that people who preach to the book have certainly ignored when it suited their needs
|
I agree with that re: fundamentalists, which is why I personally can't take a very consistent stance on the issue. But, and no offense to your parents intended, while I may respect their morality and principles, I simply don't see the point in labeling oneself as a member of a religious faction if he/she observes its rituals in an "obligatory" fashion.
The most generic thing I can say is, the human factor will make any facet of "religion" inconsistent and contradictory. I'm not sure if I find someone who retains logical moral tenets of a religion while discarding more extreme and less sensible aspects respectable, or deluded. I'm genuinely curious as to how someone benefits by adopting the label, without following its rules.
I apologize for going off-topic in this thread.