... spoken up in the defense of a religion or theistic position that is not your own? If you have, what were your reasons for doing so? If you haven't, why haven't you done so?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Have you ever...
- Thread starter Quintessence
- Start date
Yes and no. I tend to look at any religion as it's positives and negatives, possible truth and lies, etc. I find most commonly these days that I am either arguing that Islam is not evil, or pretty much just arguing against atheists. ISIL may take the gold for being crazy, but I won't be shocked when reddit atheists starts killing everyone religious in fits of anger.
DawudTalut
Peace be upon you.
Peace be on you. Yes occasionally [in the light of Holy Quran].
Because all revealed religions were true in their original forms. Just latter addition or subtraction were done [which one does not defend]....According to Ahmadiyya-Muslim Promised Messiah Mahdi (a.s.) religions which are old and have roots were once the true religions [i.e. teaching of One God with no associates and human rights].
I think I have argued that Judaism is not pro-slavery, and I think I have argued that pagans are not satanists. Also I have defended scientists against the charge of widespread delusion and conspiracy.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
Occassionally, yes. I've done it with a few religions, including Christianity. Now, Christianity is among my least favourite religions, but even I know that not every Christian is a bible-thumping preacher who hates gays. It irks me when Christianity as a whole is generalised in that way. It irks me even more when religion/theism as a whole is generalised that way. It just strikes me as a very lazy approach to take.
I've also defended atheists from time to time. Usually when somebody says something completely moronic like "atheists just hate god" and the like.
Now people are of course free to criticise whichever religion/position they choose. However, when that criticism involves sweeping generalisations and lazy strawmen, angry nerds like me will take issue with it
I've also defended atheists from time to time. Usually when somebody says something completely moronic like "atheists just hate god" and the like.
Now people are of course free to criticise whichever religion/position they choose. However, when that criticism involves sweeping generalisations and lazy strawmen, angry nerds like me will take issue with it
I find myself defending Christianity and various forms of Paganism on occasion. Depends on the social context and situation.
I generally will if it happens to be something I know quite a bunch about, or have had previous experience with. More most people who have non-traditional spiritual paths we've had stages of spiritual evolution (for lack of a better term) and were members for various belief systems for period of time. I think that qualifies you as able to have an opinion in those cases because you can speak from your past experience even if it isn't your current beliefs.
I'm knowledgeable about Catholicism, Atheism, LaVey and Theistic Satanism, and The Left-Hand Path. I have never considered myself totally a Thelemite I'm very researched there as well, being that I've put 20+ years into understanding Crowley's works. At some point I've considered myself all of those things at one time or another, and living in those systems for years as I practiced them. I'd find it pretty silly to provide commentary only from the perspective of the membership of a religion if only because most of those people are unlikely to have found unsolvable issues with the ideas presented (being fully submerged into the reality tunnel, but having less experience the applications) -- more often than not a past member has feedback on why certain spiritual paths have need to be changed. I think that is as valuable as all of the positive commentary because you too might arrive at the same conclusions, and maybe that guy/gal saves you time.
Generally, I find I run into this problem all day in the LHP DIR because you run into two types there -- ego worshipers, and folks with a more eastern-oriented mystical practice. I've gone past that ego and left its limitations lying dead in the sand. Crowley described this as being an Adeptus Exemptus, and from here most people are harder to understand for the common folk. (Not that that is a judgement of superiority or anything...) At this stage of my practice I can no longer be as much of an LHP practitioner as much as being an LHP advocate. I'm beyond the path, but I am supportive of it since it is how I got where I am.
I'm knowledgeable about Catholicism, Atheism, LaVey and Theistic Satanism, and The Left-Hand Path. I have never considered myself totally a Thelemite I'm very researched there as well, being that I've put 20+ years into understanding Crowley's works. At some point I've considered myself all of those things at one time or another, and living in those systems for years as I practiced them. I'd find it pretty silly to provide commentary only from the perspective of the membership of a religion if only because most of those people are unlikely to have found unsolvable issues with the ideas presented (being fully submerged into the reality tunnel, but having less experience the applications) -- more often than not a past member has feedback on why certain spiritual paths have need to be changed. I think that is as valuable as all of the positive commentary because you too might arrive at the same conclusions, and maybe that guy/gal saves you time.
Generally, I find I run into this problem all day in the LHP DIR because you run into two types there -- ego worshipers, and folks with a more eastern-oriented mystical practice. I've gone past that ego and left its limitations lying dead in the sand. Crowley described this as being an Adeptus Exemptus, and from here most people are harder to understand for the common folk. (Not that that is a judgement of superiority or anything...) At this stage of my practice I can no longer be as much of an LHP practitioner as much as being an LHP advocate. I'm beyond the path, but I am supportive of it since it is how I got where I am.
Either to combat bigotry or misinformation.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Frequently. I have been the recipient of malicious rhetoric against my religion so many times that I have lost count. I know how it feels, so I feel compelled to jump and defend other religions when I hear people lying about them or misrepresenting them.
When someone makes a blanket statement rooted in hate/prejudice.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Yes, I've definitely noticed this about you.
Thanks, I was worried my hypocrisy might show. I'm apt to attack Christianity in general(for social and political reason) but quick to defend Islam or subsets of Christianity like Mormonism. Ha I remember I was on my friends radio show, hes a Christian and asked me if agreed that Mormon beliefs were absurd, I was quick to point out that they were no more absurd then his beliefs . That being said I can be rather unfair to Christian America, but I think I have good reason.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, and on many occasions.
First of all, I believe condemning an entire religion is unethical to begin with. I have defended Catholics and Islam recently here at RF, and in the past I also defended Hindusim and Buddhism on different occasions.
Nobody has said "no" yet.
A follow-up question perhaps worth thinking about for those of us who have said "yes" - we can ask whether or not it is our business to be defending religions or theistic positions that aren't our own. In at least some cases, we might not be in a position to speak on the behalf of those who are not of our tribe, so to speak? We may not know it as well as we think that we do, yes? In that case, if our reason for defending is to correct misconceptions, at times we might add to it!
A follow-up question perhaps worth thinking about for those of us who have said "yes" - we can ask whether or not it is our business to be defending religions or theistic positions that aren't our own. In at least some cases, we might not be in a position to speak on the behalf of those who are not of our tribe, so to speak? We may not know it as well as we think that we do, yes? In that case, if our reason for defending is to correct misconceptions, at times we might add to it!
A whole bunch of false premises. Don't agree to the validity of the questions. At least for the most part there are some context where there is some issues.Nobody has said "no" yet.
A follow-up question perhaps worth thinking about for those of us who have said "yes" - we can ask whether or not it is our business to be defending religions or theistic positions that aren't our own. In at least some cases, we might not be in a position to speak on the behalf of those who are not of our tribe, so to speak? We may not know it as well as we think that we do, yes? In that case, if our reason for defending is to correct misconceptions, at times we might add to it!
I am not a Christian but I am constantly on RF supporting Christianity from what I consider unfair attacks especially when I see atheists jumping on things in the Bible that don't accord with modern thinking and then seeming to enjoy making the faith of others sound stupid.
You... think it's a false premise or invalid to observe that not all people are equally qualified to speak about a topic?