• 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!

Why are some people so reluctant to follow religious legislation?

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Now the premise I'm going to build this argument upon is that a particular religion is genuinely divine, that is from God Himself.

If that certain religion orders you to do something, whether through the bearer of the message (i.e. a messenger) or through the religion's scripture itself, why should you scrutinize each and every part of it before applying what it tells you to do? If a general in the army orders a lower-ranked officer to carry out a specific task, is the officer allowed to argue against it or dispute it? He just has to carry it out. No questions asked.

Why is the same not applied to religion as a matter of taking orders and directly applying them without too much arguing?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Now the premise I'm going to build this argument upon is that a particular religion is genuinely divine, that is from God Himself.

If that certain religion orders you to do something, whether through the bearer of the message (i.e. a messenger) or through the religion's scripture itself, why should you scrutinize each and every part of it before applying what it tells you to do? If a general in the army orders a lower-ranked officer to carry out a specific task, is the officer allowed to argue against it or dispute it? He just has to carry it out. No questions asked.

Why is the same not applied to religion as a matter of taking orders and directly applying them without too much arguing?
We don't live in the ancient world of either the Platonic or kingship models of top-down hierarchical social order anymore. Our world view is decidedly more along the lines of Locke, wherein authority is ground up rather than top down.

I think that's why Third-World religious radicals get so upset with First World Americans. We refuse to kowtow just because some think we "ought to."
 

beenie

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Now the premise I'm going to build this argument upon is that a particular religion is genuinely divine, that is from God Himself.

If that certain religion orders you to do something, whether through the bearer of the message (i.e. a messenger) or through the religion's scripture itself, why should you scrutinize each and every part of it before applying what it tells you to do? If a general in the army orders a lower-ranked officer to carry out a specific task, is the officer allowed to argue against it or dispute it? He just has to carry it out. No questions asked.

Why is the same not applied to religion as a matter of taking orders and directly applying them without too much arguing?

People would be more likely to follow divine legislation if it adapted and progressed through time. Many religious rules have become outdated.
 

ConfusedKuri

Active Member
Religion in my opinion is more about the spiritual path, the divinity, the closeness you feel with God, through prayer or meditation. Rules come in second and should be developed according to time.
 

lunakilo

Well-Known Member
I am not religious, so I am not sure if I should post... but here goes.

Religious legislation isn't allways clear.
Maybe it isn't clear who it applies to or under which curcumstances it applies, and it may difffer from 'normal practices' making people reluctant to follow it.

Some people may also for example believe in God, but not be convienced that the bible is God's word.
It could be written by people who got it wrong.
It could be writteh by people so full of themselves that they were convienced they knew the truth but really didn't.
It could be written by people who saw religion as a way to make people do what they wanted.

If a person does however accept a religious book as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then I agree they should follow it to the letter.
Nothing else would make sense.
 

beenie

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
** Mod Post **

This thread has been moved to Religious Debates
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Now the premise I'm going to build this argument upon is that a particular religion is genuinely divine, that is from God Himself.
Quite a major premise anyway but you also seem to be assuming a god that wants people to blindly follow his instructions rather than reaching their own conclusions within a general moral structure.

If that certain religion orders you to do something, whether through the bearer of the message (i.e. a messenger) or through the religion's scripture itself, why should you scrutinize each and every part of it before applying what it tells you to do?
Presumably you'd need to assess if the messenger or scripture was legitimately carrying the word of God. There could also be questions of interpretation or intention. In my experience, religious instructions are rarely simple, direct and immediate orders.

If a general in the army orders a lower-ranked officer to carry out a specific task, is the officer allowed to argue against it or dispute it? He just has to carry it out. No questions asked.
Only to a certain point. There is scope for soldiers to refuse an illegal order for example. There is also scope for officers to be relieved of duty by their juniors in extreme circumstances (mental breakdown etc.). They'd have to justify that action to even more senior officers at a later date of course, but the system is there.

That's probably a key point with religion (in the form being described here). There is generally no oversight, certainly of gods and often of those claiming to speak directly on behalf of gods. The soldier has a level of confidence in the officers orders because of the structures within and beyond the military. There is chain of command, structures by which the officers reached his position of authority and wider organisations working to monitor and regulate their actions. There is none of this if someone simply turns up saying God has spoken to them and has orders for you.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Now the premise I'm going to build this argument upon is that a particular religion is genuinely divine, that is from God Himself.

If that certain religion orders you to do something, whether through the bearer of the message (i.e. a messenger) or through the religion's scripture itself, why should you scrutinize each and every part of it before applying what it tells you to do? If a general in the army orders a lower-ranked officer to carry out a specific task, is the officer allowed to argue against it or dispute it? He just has to carry it out. No questions asked.

Why is the same not applied to religion as a matter of taking orders and directly applying them without too much arguing?
If it is my boss or the president or God himself I want to know the reasoning behind legislation and it better not be retarded reasons. Just cause someone says so isn't a reason. Like god wanting to kill my son, or a general wanting me to massacre a village of women and children, I think there is always room for scrutinizing.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
There is no reason for anyone to be forced by law to abide by superstitious nonsense. Laws needs to be based on rational, real world cause and effect.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
Now the premise I'm going to build this argument upon is that a particular religion is genuinely divine, that is from God Himself.

If that certain religion orders you to do something, whether through the bearer of the message (i.e. a messenger) or through the religion's scripture itself, why should you scrutinize each and every part of it before applying what it tells you to do? If a general in the army orders a lower-ranked officer to carry out a specific task, is the officer allowed to argue against it or dispute it? He just has to carry it out. No questions asked.

Why is the same not applied to religion as a matter of taking orders and directly applying them without too much arguing?

Thing is, without scrutinizing, how is one to determine that the religion in question is really the most probable religion which is "genuinely divine"? Not to mention, speaking as a veteran, an officer is allowed to question a superior officer's order if the officer feels that the order goes against certain principles or might be illegal. Just because an authority figure gives an order does not automatically make the order just or legal. Likewise, just because a particular religion instructs its followers to behave a certain way or do certain things, it does not mean that those things are actually what is right and just and fair. A system of checks and balances must be afforded to make sure that certain rights and liberties are upheld. Religious legislation, which is very cut and dry and one-sided, does not afford this system of checks and balances.

Religious legislation becomes very much a "do it because the god a particular group believes in says so as per these particular people who says the god says so". It leaves no room for analyzing what truly is a fair and just way to do things for all people.
 

Onkara

Well-Known Member
Now the premise I'm going to build this argument upon is that a particular religion is genuinely divine, that is from God Himself.

If that certain religion orders you to do something, whether through the bearer of the message (i.e. a messenger) or through the religion's scripture itself, why should you scrutinize each and every part of it before applying what it tells you to do? If a general in the army orders a lower-ranked officer to carry out a specific task, is the officer allowed to argue against it or dispute it? He just has to carry it out. No questions asked.

Why is the same not applied to religion as a matter of taking orders and directly applying them without too much arguing?

It is curious that a solider will follow orders instantly but when asked to consider the fate of his soul, he may ask for "proof or physical evidence". Could it be that the fate of his soul is held higher than the fate of his body or lives of others?

Man is created with a will, should a man's will be left unchallenged it may go against the will of Allah.
 

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
Now the premise I'm going to build this argument upon is that a particular religion is genuinely divine, that is from God Himself.

If that certain religion orders you to do something, whether through the bearer of the message (i.e. a messenger) or through the religion's scripture itself, why should you scrutinize each and every part of it before applying what it tells you to do? If a general in the army orders a lower-ranked officer to carry out a specific task, is the officer allowed to argue against it or dispute it? He just has to carry it out. No questions asked.

Depends if you don't mind the punishment

Why is the same not applied to religion as a matter of taking orders and directly applying them without too much arguing?

Religion first need to prove it's god is real and correct.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Some churches insist their member do obey the beliefs and rules of their order... on pain of being excommunicated from even their families.
Other churches see such things as a matter of conscience.
 

lunakilo

Well-Known Member
Not to mention, speaking as a veteran, an officer is allowed to question a superior officer's order if the officer feels that the order goes against certain principles or might be illegal. Just because an authority figure gives an order does not automatically make the order just or legal.
Right you are.
Likewise, just because a particular religion instructs its followers to behave a certain way or do certain things, it does not mean that those things are actually what is right and just and fair. A system of checks and balances must be afforded to make sure that certain rights and liberties are upheld. Religious legislation, which is very cut and dry and one-sided, does not afford this system of checks and balances.
I think you are confusing the law and the messanger here.

Just like you should question an order from superior officer if it goes against the law you should also question any orders given by religious leaders if it goes against the religious legislation.

But IF you accept a certain religioun and its scripture as true, you can't start questioning the letter of the religious legislation (assuming it is part of the scripture) just because you don't like it.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
I think you are confusing the law and the messanger here.

Just like you should question an order from superior officer if it goes against the law you should also question any orders given by religious leaders if it goes against the religious legislation.

But IF you accept a certain religioun and its scripture as true, you can't start questioning the letter of the religious legislation (assuming it is part of the scripture) just because you don't like it.

Now perhaps this isn't the way it was meant to be taken, but when I hear "legislation" put with "religious" I'm actually hearing "theocracy". Legislation, to me, implies government. Therefore that would make any government official a supposed "religious leader". Since they are basing their law on a religion/scripture it is they who are interpreting. Why does no one else have the ability to interpret differently? There are always different ways to interpret scripture, which is why there are always so many different denominations and followings even among the same basic religion. So, yes, you CAN question the letter of the "religious legislation" if you don't like the way it was come about because you disagree with the interpretation used to devise the law. Now this, of course, is not even considering the fact that there are always people who don't even believe in the particular religion used to make the laws in the first place.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Now perhaps this isn't the way it was meant to be taken, but when I hear "legislation" put with "religious" I'm actually hearing "theocracy". Legislation, to me, implies government. Therefore that would make any government official a supposed "religious leader". Since they are basing their law on a religion/scripture it is they who are interpreting. Why does no one else have the ability to interpret differently? There are always different ways to interpret scripture, which is why there are always so many different denominations and followings even among the same basic religion. So, yes, you CAN question the letter of the "religious legislation" if you don't like the way it was come about because you disagree with the interpretation used to devise the law. Now this, of course, is not even considering the fact that there are always people who don't even believe in the particular religion used to make the laws in the first place.

Law and religion should be kept absolutely separate. They do each other no good to get involved.
 

lunakilo

Well-Known Member
Now perhaps this isn't the way it was meant to be taken, but when I hear "legislation" put with "religious" I'm actually hearing "theocracy". Legislation, to me, implies government. Therefore that would make any government official a supposed "religious leader". Since they are basing their law on a religion/scripture it is they who are interpreting. Why does no one else have the ability to interpret differently? There are always different ways to interpret scripture, which is why there are always so many different denominations and followings even among the same basic religion. So, yes, you CAN question the letter of the "religious legislation" if you don't like the way it was come about because you disagree with the interpretation used to devise the law. Now this, of course, is not even considering the fact that there are always people who don't even believe in the particular religion used to make the laws in the first place.
I think we agree then. If the religious legislation is some peoples interpretation of scripture, then you should of course question it.

But if you are convienced that God wrote the scripture, you have no business questioning scripture.

Since I personally am not religious I agree with Photonic by the way :)
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I think we agree then. If the religious legislation is some peoples interpretation of scripture, then you should of course question it.

But if you are convienced that God wrote the scripture, you have no business questioning scripture.

Since I personally am not religious I agree with Photonic by the way :)
This is the whole problem with the gay rights issue. Just like it is a problem for women rights, like women being priests for example. Most traditional catholics would probably die before allowing women to be a priest but at least gays can be priests. Though catholics have a hidden agenda with allowing gays as priests only because they would rather them all try and stay celibate.
 

lunakilo

Well-Known Member
What tells you the word of God can't be/shouldn't be questioned though - scripture? :areyoucra
Well if God was nice enough to write down the truth for you and you then start questioning if what written is correct then you are implying that you know better than God. That doesn't sound right to me.

You can argue about interpretation, you can argue about whether or not what is written is really the word of God, but IF you accept that it is the word of God then not sticking to what is written is going against God.
 
Top