Is it better to strictly interpret your religion, or is it better to take it
loosley and only stick to the key points?
There are pros and cons to both. Strictly interpreting your religion can provide
your with a guideline for your life, a set of priniciples to model your behavior
after. On the other hand, strict interpretation of the Old Testament lables gay
marraige as an abomination, every person living who is not pure-bred Hebrew
since creation a Gentile, and hence "unclean", and has shackled
scientific process for generations.
On the other hand, loosely interpreting your religion can allow you to omit some
of the more troublesome clauses, like that which lables black people as
abominations in the Mormon religion. It can also spawn sects of Islam that
shelter terrorists and glorify suicide bombers.
Which is better, if either? Or is religion itself to blame? This is a debate
thread, so please respect everyone's beliefs and refrain from flaming or
insulting each other.
Well to me, it really depends on your religion and how strong you believe or
have 'faith' in your religion. Maybe there is a religion that allows for the
changing times and allows you to only follow the 'key' points. Other, which is
probably the majority insist that you follow everything to the dot of that
belief.
i myself am Christian so I believe in that the 'holy spirit' guides me and gives
me the interpretation of the Bible and the teachings of Chrisitianity. I know
that there are pretty strict 'rules' and punishments stated in the Bible, but
certain parts I believe to be presented in a more analytical sense than actual
literal application.
For example, in the Bible it states that if your hand causes you to sin, then
you must chop it off I take this as a way to show that you must be aware of what
you are doing and that a sin is a sin (no sin is more 'worse' than another).
Because humans aren't perfect and I think God knows that,(which is why there is
Jesus) so I don't take it to its literal meaning. This may sound like a bunch of
crap to some people, but I believe it to be true.
On the other hand, which traditions are not worth keeping? After all, Christians
and Jews are supposed to practice animal sacrifice, and do it quite often. So,
you could say we are all sinners for not following God's law to offer sacrifice.
However, millions worldwide are starving to death. Are we still sinners for not
sacrificing? And who are we to judge whether or not a tradition is outdated or
bad? (just playing devil's advocate)
I thought christians weren't supposed to sacrifice animals because of Jesus, who
was the ultimate sacrifice for all man.
Traditions is not the right word, I didn't mean that so much. Tradition is more
like silly practices like the Catholic Church has. What I meant was more like
ideals. Whether or not the bible is true or there is a god they are still good
rules to follow and make you a better person I think.
Quote by SolidSnake2017I thought
christians weren't supposed to sacrifice animals because of Jesus, who was the
ultimate sacrifice for all man.
There are still sects of Christianity and Judiaism which practice animal
sacrifice, and I have never seen a Bible passage which tells us not to sacrifice. However, that's beside the
point. Which traditions should we consider traditions within our faith, and
which should we follow as commandments? How can we judge between them without
divine intervention?
On the other hand, how can you trust that someone has experienced divine
intervention, without witnessing it? How can you distinguish between a vision
from God and a religious leader with a hidden agenda?
EDIT: Point well made. However, some of those ideals have been followed so
strictly that they have hurt or predujiced against people in our past, and
today. Does that mean we our justified in following them, if they hurt our
fellow man?
Is it better to strictly interpret your religion, or is it better to take it loosley and only stick to the key points?
There are pros and cons to both. Strictly interpreting your religion can provide your with a guideline for your life, a set of priniciples to model your behavior after. On the other hand, strict interpretation of the Old Testament lables gay marraige as an abomination, every person living who is not pure-bred Hebrew since creation a Gentile, and hence "unclean", and has shackled scientific process for generations.
On the other hand, loosely interpreting your religion can allow you to omit some of the more troublesome clauses, like that which lables black people as abominations in the Mormon religion. It can also spawn sects of Islam that shelter terrorists and glorify suicide bombers.
Which is better, if either? Or is religion itself to blame? This is a debate thread, so please respect everyone's beliefs and refrain from flaming or insulting each other.
Well to me, it really depends on your religion and how strong you believe or have 'faith' in your religion. Maybe there is a religion that allows for the changing times and allows you to only follow the 'key' points. Other, which is probably the majority insist that you follow everything to the dot of that belief.
i myself am Christian so I believe in that the 'holy spirit' guides me and gives me the interpretation of the Bible and the teachings of Chrisitianity. I know that there are pretty strict 'rules' and punishments stated in the Bible, but certain parts I believe to be presented in a more analytical sense than actual literal application.
For example, in the Bible it states that if your hand causes you to sin, then you must chop it off I take this as a way to show that you must be aware of what you are doing and that a sin is a sin (no sin is more 'worse' than another). Because humans aren't perfect and I think God knows that,(which is why there is Jesus) so I don't take it to its literal meaning. This may sound like a bunch of crap to some people, but I believe it to be true.
Thats a good way to think about it as long as you don't go all the way and throw all traditions out the window.
On the other hand, which traditions are not worth keeping? After all, Christians and Jews are supposed to practice animal sacrifice, and do it quite often. So, you could say we are all sinners for not following God's law to offer sacrifice. However, millions worldwide are starving to death. Are we still sinners for not sacrificing? And who are we to judge whether or not a tradition is outdated or bad? (just playing devil's advocate)
I thought christians weren't supposed to sacrifice animals because of Jesus, who was the ultimate sacrifice for all man.
Traditions is not the right word, I didn't mean that so much. Tradition is more like silly practices like the Catholic Church has. What I meant was more like ideals. Whether or not the bible is true or there is a god they are still good rules to follow and make you a better person I think.
There are still sects of Christianity and Judiaism which practice animal sacrifice, and I have never seen a Bible passage which tells us not to sacrifice. However, that's beside the point. Which traditions should we consider traditions within our faith, and which should we follow as commandments? How can we judge between them without divine intervention?
On the other hand, how can you trust that someone has experienced divine intervention, without witnessing it? How can you distinguish between a vision from God and a religious leader with a hidden agenda?
EDIT: Point well made. However, some of those ideals have been followed so strictly that they have hurt or predujiced against people in our past, and today. Does that mean we our justified in following them, if they hurt our fellow man?
Once again, I'm playing devil's advocate.
im not realy into the whole religion thing........but from my point of veiw nothing matters as long as you try to follow the a few main rules.....
Man religions took a huge hit in the 20th century at least for the Western Hemisphere.