Religious accountability

[nightwolf]

The other day I was having a discussion. It was made clear the person I was talking to was a Christian. In the conversation we talked about war and the death war causes.

I was in the position of hating war and thinking it is pointless while the Christian was telling me he was for it. I pointed out that his religion says he shouldn't kill. Then all the sudden I was judging him and that was a no no.

I am under the impression that if you claim to follow a religion you are a representative of that religion. You are indeed accountable for what you might say that might contradict what your religion teaches.

I took my problem to a forum and the forum told me I was holding him to a higher standard then I hold myself, this made sense. This got me exploring the Christian faith. People kept responding to my post and finally got me to the point where I realized it was something I could never be.

The mantra was "we all sin". So basically, we can say and do what we want because we all sin anyways and it really doesn't matter. I can't be any part of that and I walked away.

What is the problem with living by what your religion teaches and being accountable when you don't? I heard a lot of "you should not judge" and "how dare you" but really, why is holding you to a standard a wrong thing when you claim to follow a religion and don't even hold yourself to the same standard?

Just curious.

 

[Bunyip]

I think that is an interesting question.

It is indeed strange that those who claim to believe in a given deity and his/her dictates tend not to feel obliged to observe said dictates - or at least feel free to choose which divine commands to obey and which to ignore.

If a person really did believe in Christianity for example, and that the morals in the bible were the dictates of an omnipotent God - surely we would be reluctant to disobey them?

 

[sandandfoam]

I don't think it is black and white.
Religions are open to many interpretations and one is not responsible for interpretations that one does not hold to.
The issue is also broader than religion. I do not believe, for example, that one is necessarily responsible for the actions of ones countrymen or of ones government.

 

[nightwolf]

Breaking a moral code seems like it falls in the same line. I hold myself to a said code and probably even a higher code. So holding a religion that should even have a higher code then my own to a standard seems right.

Would we all agree it is wrong to kill? Even without biblical insight? Would the world be a better place if we all didn't kill? I believe so.

Picking and choosing is just a way of saying I follow no code.

 

[Desert Snake]

It doesn't sound like you were discussing a black and white issue.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is the problem with living by what your religion teaches and being accountable when you don't?

One problem is that people join religions for various reasons and some of them oppose such a reasonable stance. For instance, a major reason is to "become part of something greater", and that means avoiding significant questioning.

Another problem is that in some circumstances it is considered rude to question what religion is. Many people are actually at odds with each other even inside the same church, but for some reason would rather not admit it. It can be very unhealthy.

I heard a lot of "you should not judge" and "how dare you" but really, why is holding you to a standard a wrong thing when you claim to follow a religion and don't even hold yourself to the same standard?

Just curious.

It isn't wrong. But it can be difficult to reconcile with the goals of various people who claim religious affiliation.

When the tire meets the tarmac, there is quite a lot of unquestioned functional insanity passing itself off as "religion" these days.

 

[LuisDantas]

Breaking a moral code seems like it falls in the same line. I hold myself to a said code and probably even a higher code. So holding a religion that should even have a higher code then my own to a standard seems right.

Would we all agree it is wrong to kill? Even without biblical insight? Would the world be a better place if we all didn't kill? I believe so.

Picking and choosing is just a way of saying I follow no code.

Indeed. And while we should not generalize, it is patently obvious that such people exist. Some people claim religion as, in effect, a shield against criticism. A license to be privileged bullies, protected from criticism.

We may find both specific individuals falling prey to that trap, as well as whole churches.

Ultimately, there is no substitute to the sanitary effects of questioning.

 

[nightwolf]

One problem is that people join religions for various reasons and some of them oppose such a reasonable stance. For instance, a major reason is to "become part of something greater", and that means avoiding significant questioning.

Another problem is that in some circumstances it is considered rude to question what religion is. Many people are actually at odds with each other even inside the same church, but for some reason would rather not admit it. It can be very unhealthy.




It isn't wrong. But it can be difficult to reconcile with the goals of various people who claim religious affiliation.

When the tire meets the tarmac, there is quite a lot of unquestioned functional insanity passing itself off as "religion" these days.

I completely agree with your assessment.

It is almost like religion has become something of convenience instead of something of the moral standard it represents.

Almost as if one belongs simply for the sake of belonging. Standards are a thing of the past because belonging is the top priority.

Thanks for this, it makes much sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

For many people, religious environments are quite unrelated to actual moral standards. They are simply a place where the accepted rules demand people to "play nice", which largely involves avoiding difficult questions.

Conforting in a way, because if nothing else they give a fair idea of what to expect from others. But somewhat at odds with the supposed goals of religion proper. In fact, those environment end up being fertile ground for inner corruption of religious institutions.

 

[nightwolf]

For many people, religious environments are quite unrelated to actual moral standards. They are simply a place where the accepted rules demand people to "play nice", which largely involves avoiding difficult questions.

Conforting in a way, because if nothing else they give a fair idea of what to expect from others. But somewhat at odds with the supposed goals of religion proper. In fact, those environment end up being fertile ground for inner corruption of religious institutions.

I get what you are saying.

More along the lines of a safety net?

Don't get me wrong. I have met people who live 100% by the bible. Those people however seem to be a dwindling bunch. I feel this leaves a sort of mob of you are either with us, or against us. Living in the "bible belt" there is a lot of that.

 

[LuisDantas]

I get what you are saying.

More along the lines of a safety net?

Yes, and we can see it being abused. There is a reason why some churches are so scandal-prone.

It is sad. The needs for predictability and safety are genuine, but people owe it to themselves to be honest about them, about what they are truly seeking.

They often fail to, and end up poisoning their own religious lives and even their whole Faiths.

Don't get me wrong. I have met people who live 100% by the bible. Those people however seem to be a dwindling bunch. I feel this leaves a sort of mob of you are either with us, or against us. Living in the "bible belt" there is a lot of that.

Yes, there is. There is a lot of honest, sincere confusion around. It often manifests in a sort of paranoid belief.

 

[sojourner]

The other day I was having a discussion. It was made clear the person I was talking to was a Christian. In the conversation we talked about war and the death war causes.

I was in the position of hating war and thinking it is pointless while the Christian was telling me he was for it. I pointed out that his religion says he shouldn't kill. Then all the sudden I was judging him and that was a no no.

I am under the impression that if you claim to follow a religion you are a representative of that religion. You are indeed accountable for what you might say that might contradict what your religion teaches.

I took my problem to a forum and the forum told me I was holding him to a higher standard then I hold myself, this made sense. This got me exploring the Christian faith. People kept responding to my post and finally got me to the point where I realized it was something I could never be.

The mantra was "we all sin". So basically, we can say and do what we want because we all sin anyways and it really doesn't matter. I can't be any part of that and I walked away.

What is the problem with living by what your religion teaches and being accountable when you don't? I heard a lot of "you should not judge" and "how dare you" but really, why is holding you to a standard a wrong thing when you claim to follow a religion and don't even hold yourself to the same standard?

Just curious.

1) What are "Christian standards?" Do you know? (BTW: the commandment isn't "Don't kill.")

2) By what authority do you judge whether a Christian has any "business" being a Christian?

3) What was your attitude? Inquisitive? Accusative?

4) What does Xy say about grace/forbearance for those who sin?

5) Did you show that grace/forbearance?

I have an inkling that you were subject to a very Christian teaching: don't judge others, for the judgment with which you judge others will be used to judge you.

 

[sojourner]

Breaking a moral code seems like it falls in the same line. I hold myself to a said code and probably even a higher code. So holding a religion that should even have a higher code then my own to a standard seems right.

Would we all agree it is wrong to kill? Even without biblical insight? Would the world be a better place if we all didn't kill? I believe so.

Picking and choosing is just a way of saying I follow no code.

Why should a particular religion's "code" be intrinsically higher than your own?

I disagree that, for the Christian, "it's wrong to kill." For the Christian, it's wrong to murder. Not all Christians are pacifists.

 

[nightwolf]

1) What are "Christian standards?" Do you know? (BTW: the commandment isn't "Don't kill.")

The command is Thou shalt not kill.

2) By what authority do you judge whether a Christian has any "business" being a Christian?

Well, if I claim to be a cook and burn your food, you will hold me accountable for that. What is the difference?

3) What was your attitude? Inquisitive? Accusative?

My attitude was very passive. I said simply that I don't agree with all this killing. Then he opened himself up for what he got. Don't claim to be a cook and burn the food.

4) What does Xy say about grace/forbearance for those who sin?

Why sin? If you claim to be a Christian then you should not just say "we all sin oh well". That is the problem

5) Did you show that grace/forbearance?

I don't have to. I don't claim to be something I'm not.

I have an inkling that you were subject to a very Christian teaching: don't judge others, for the judgment with which you judge others will be used to judge you.

Nope!

I got a Christian teaching that told me I have no right to judge, but the Christians can. That was the lesson I got.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The other day I was having a discussion. It was made clear the person I was talking to was a Christian. In the conversation we talked about war and the death war causes.

I was in the position of hating war and thinking it is pointless while the Christian was telling me he was for it. I pointed out that his religion says he shouldn't kill. Then all the sudden I was judging him and that was a no no.

I am under the impression that if you claim to follow a religion you are a representative of that religion. You are indeed accountable for what you might say that might contradict what your religion teaches.

I took my problem to a forum and the forum told me I was holding him to a higher standard then I hold myself, this made sense. This got me exploring the Christian faith. People kept responding to my post and finally got me to the point where I realized it was something I could never be.

The mantra was "we all sin". So basically, we can say and do what we want because we all sin anyways and it really doesn't matter. I can't be any part of that and I walked away.

What is the problem with living by what your religion teaches and being accountable when you don't? I heard a lot of "you should not judge" and "how dare you" but really, why is holding you to a standard a wrong thing when you claim to follow a religion and don't even hold yourself to the same standard?

Just curious.

But of course! Christianity is entirely based on the mantra that one cannot be judged for any sin or crime, other than you are one of us or you are not. Either you're covered in our blood, or you are not.

EDIT: Of course I hold myself to higher standard than that!

 

[LuisDantas]

I have an inkling that you were subject to a very Christian teaching: don't judge others, for the judgment with which you judge others will be used to judge you.

As a relevant aside, that teaching is odd at the very least, and probably wildly misemployed.

Judging and being judged are not at all inherently bad things, much to the contrary.

The letter of the teaching is accurate; we should of course expect reciprocity when we judge. But the idea that it is necessarily some sort of failing when we do is absurd, and ends up being encouragement to hypocrisy and unnecessary feelings of guilt among Christians.

 

[nightwolf]

Why should a particular religion's "code" be intrinsically higher than your own?

I disagree that, for the Christian, "it's wrong to kill." For the Christian, it's wrong to murder. Not all Christians are pacifists.

My code is that there should no killing without a book saying so. Christians walk around and cast me to hell for not being a Christian. So them casting me to hell using their word of God is no different then me holding them accountable for their word of God. It works a bit both ways.

They don't even live up to my code. Sad really.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Apart from Believing in God and the Teachings of Jesus. Christians do not follow a single set of beliefs, nor can it be shown to have ever been the case.

Few Denominations require their followers to follow a standard dogma on pain of banishment, but acknowledge personal belief.

There are extreme differences between the totally undogmatic non subscribing presbyterians in Ireland, and the Quakers. to the extreme plymouth brethren and Jehovah witnesses who extend their restrictions to include contact with family members who are not believers.

A middle of the road denomination like the Anglican Church of England accepts people with widely different points of view, which may include the ordination of women and the meaning of the Eucharist.

Christians Primarily worship God in the manner taught by Jesus. They accept that there are differences in belief between them, that they like every one are sinners. And that never the less God forgives and loves us all.

Man kind has a vast number of religions. All purporting to serve and worship God.
God will hod them to the same standard of sin. he will judge us on those sins not what we believe. Christians would believe that to be based on us Loving God, his creation and our fellow men, no matter what they believe. Christians believe that path is more easily followed with the help of the holy spirit and by following Jesus.

Few Christians would deny that non-Christians are also the children of God and that they to can be saved, however difficult they might think that to be.

Christians can believe in the necessity of the Just war to the pacifist notions of continuous objectors.

It is hard to demonstrate that war has ever achieved anything but death, but it often determines who dies. It never reduces Power but only redistributes it.

The winning side is always right.

 

[sojourner]

The command is Thou shalt not kill.

Not quite an accurate translation. A better on is "you shall do no murder."

Well, if I claim to be a cook and burn your food, you will hold me accountable for that. What is the difference?

The difference is that a Christian killing isn't breaking a commandment during war time.

Don't claim to be a cook and burn the food.

Don't claim to be a food critic without credentials.

Why sin? If you claim to be a Christian then you should not just say "we all sin oh well". That is the problem

the only problem here is that you don't understand either the commandment, or the issue of sin/forgiveness.

I don't have to. I don't claim to be something I'm not.

So, just because you're not Christian means you don't have to show forgiveness, but yet "expect" it from others? My, my! Aren't we special?!
Since the Christian didn't sin, I'd have to assume that you're due nothing of the sort.

I got a Christian teaching that told me I have no right to judge, but the Christians can. That was the lesson I got.

It was wrong of you to expect something of him that you're unwilling to give, yourself. Learning that lesson is how we get along in the world.

 

[sojourner]

But of course! Christianity is entirely based on the mantra that one cannot be judged for any sin or crime, other than you are one of us or you are not. Either you're covered in our blood, or you are not.

EDIT: Of course I hold myself to higher standard than that!

Not quite. Christianity is entirely based on the reconciliation of humanity with God. But that was a nice try.