Quote:
|
Originally Posted by truncated
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.
|
Perhaps I can explain a small amount from a Christian point of view.
At its centre, Christianity should be about the teachings and actions of Jesus -
nothing else is as important. If we take that idea as true, then it is essential to say that The New Testament contains, mainly via the writings of Paul, elements that go against the teachings of Jesus. (Paul was described by Thomas Jefferson as the 'first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus', and CG Jung expressed things admirably when he said that 'Paul hardy ever allows the real Jesus of Nazereth to get a word in')
'Christian Fundamentalism' (which I suppose I would class myself a part of) is all about love, tolerance and what I might awkwardly term 'non-aggresive appropriate evangelism'. The people who get labelled as 'Christian fundamentalists' are in fact ususally exactly the opposite - they are often people who abandon the teachings of Jesus at every opportunity.
There is a real split developing within the Christian world, and the cause is that many Christians make a two-fold error; firstly using the teachings of Paul as a rod to beat everyone else, and secondly insisting on the nonsensical (and un-CHristian) idea that the Bible is inerrable.
That's not to say that other writings cannot add to our understanding of Jesus (for example, there is some wondeful stuff to be found in the apocryphal Gospels and Acts, the Nag Hammadi scrolls or in people like Mother Julian of Norwich), but if something appears to alter or modify Jesus' word, then it should be treated with extreme caution.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pantophobia
...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
|
There is much in the New Testament, especially the writings of Paul, that is influencd by personal and cultural experience of the time. It is not only desirable, but
essential that this is realised.
So basically, I was trying to say that the whole teachings of a religion should indeed be followed properly or not at all, but people should be careful that they know what those teachings really are.