Why are some people so reluctant to follow religious legislation?

[HonestJoe]

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.

Maybe God wrote it a metaphor to be interpreted. Maybe he doesn't want blinkered robots rigidly following a fixed text but people who use their (God-given) intelligence and imagination to come to their own conclusion. Maybe he's been desperately waiting for someone to go to him and say "Wait a moment, that doesn't make sense!" and so take the next step towards true enlightenment.

The point is that nobody knows. Even taking a religious text at face value, there is a leap of faith, a presumption about not only the nature of the author (that it is written or inspired by God rather than some bloke who cooked up the wrong kind of mushroom) but also their intent in writing it.

 

[lunakilo]

Maybe God wrote it a metaphor to be interpreted. Maybe he doesn't want blinkered robots rigidly following a fixed text but people who use their (God-given) intelligence and imagination to come to their own conclusion. Maybe he's been desperately waiting for someone to go to him and say "Wait a moment, that doesn't make sense!" and so take the next step towards true enlightenment.

The point is that nobody knows. Even taking a religious text at face value, there is a leap of faith, a presumption about not only the nature of the author (that it is written or inspired by God rather than some bloke who cooked up the wrong kind of mushroom) but also their intent in writing it.

I am not actually disagreeing with you.

It's all about what your basic asumptions are.

If your basic assumption is that your brain is there to be used to figure things out for your self then questioning the validity of religious texts is part the deal.

If your basic assumption is that God gave you a set of rules to obey, then obeying them is part of the deal.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

First of all, because even assuming the scenario proposed to be true and accepted, it is still true that the same God supposedly saw fit to give us the capability to make judgements, so one must assume it is not wrong to use it. In fact, a very good argument can be made that God _must_ favor those who question his decrees, for only questioning may bring true understanding and heartful adherence.

A good soldier is NOT a mindless enforcer, and a good citizen or good religious person certainly shouldn't aim to be mindless either.

On a more practical level, we should be aware of the grave misdeeds that are carried with claim of divine support and do our best to not engage in them.

There is also the matter that the premise is effectively impossible to attain in reality. Even if everyone agreed that a single specific religion is divine in origin, interpretations would still diverge.

 

[HonestJoe]

It's all about what your basic asumptions are.

I don't see why we should have any at all. A religion with an assumption at it's base doesn't strike me as very stable.

 

[lunakilo]

I don't see why we should have any at all. A religion with an assumption at it's base doesn't strike me as very stable.

Do you know of any religion which it NOT based on any assumptions?

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Please define religious legislation.

 

[lunakilo]

Please define religious legislation.

I second that.

There is a big difference between on one hand legislation known to be made by people based on the teachings of one religion or other, and on the other hand legislation assumed to come directly from God.

So which kind of religious legislation are we talking about?

 

[HonestJoe]

Do you know of any religion which it NOT based on any assumptions?

Nope. It's a fairly significant factor in me not following any.

 

[chinu]

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?

Arguing -- Because that person has not shown any miracle.

_/\_
Chinu

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Military members feel free to correct me, but AFAIK, that's not how it works. A general doesn't give orders to a private directly; he has to follow the chain of command. The private's orders normally come from his direct superior, not anyone else, even if they outrank him.

But that aside, say you received written orders and you weren't sure whether they actually came from your commanding officer or were forged. Would you be obliged to follow them blindly? Probably not. You'd have to do your best to figure out whether they were legitimate or not.

 

[Photonic]

Military members feel free to correct me, but AFAIK, that's not how it works. A general doesn't give orders to a private directly; he has to follow the chain of command. The private's orders normally come from his direct superior, not anyone else, even if they outrank him.

But that aside, say you received written orders and you weren't sure whether they actually came from your commanding officer or were forged. Would you be obliged to follow them blindly? Probably not. You'd have to do your best to figure out whether they were legitimate or not.

It's proper to allow the person in the chain of command to relay the order, but a general can and does order lower ranking sometimes.

It doesn't happen that often. Depends on if they are there in person or not.

 

[Draka]

Military members feel free to correct me, but AFAIK, that's not how it works. A general doesn't give orders to a private directly; he has to follow the chain of command. The private's orders normally come from his direct superior, not anyone else, even if they outrank him.

To be fair, he did just say "lower ranking officer", which would imply anyone below the rank of General. If we want to get technical, he said "officer" and since a Private is an enlisted member they are not included in the scenario.

But that aside, say you received written orders and you weren't sure whether they actually came from your commanding officer or were forged. Would you be obliged to follow them blindly? Probably not. You'd have to do your best to figure out whether they were legitimate or not.

Written orders usually have a particular format. Now if I received a handwritten scrawl of a note ordering me to do something...yeah...I'd question it. Depending on what it said of course. I'd get handwritten messages from a particular Chief and Lieutenant I worked for on a frequent basis. I was usually the one responsible for turning their chicken scratch into intelligible orders for others Though, it might be noted, turning LT's words into something intelligible was a lot more difficult than Chief's He may have been an LT, but he wasn't quite the sharpest crayon in the box.

 

[Alceste]

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?

Whenever an instruction comes to me directly from God, I follow it without question. When it comes from other humans, I question it or ignore it. I don't subscribe to a human heirarchy. Imams, priests, rabbis and such like are men, not gods, and men make mistakes. Scripture is also written by men, so suffers from the same problem.

Given that I get no direct instructions from God, that pretty much leaves me to do what I feel is best.

 

[Photonic]

To be fair, he did just say "lower ranking officer", which would imply anyone below the rank of General. If we want to get technical, he said "officer" and since a Private is an enlisted member they are not included in the scenario.



Written orders usually have a particular format. Now if I received a handwritten scrawl of a note ordering me to do something...yeah...I'd question it. Depending on what it said of course. I'd get handwritten messages from a particular Chief and Lieutenant I worked for on a frequent basis. I was usually the one responsible for turning their chicken scratch into intelligible orders for others Though, it might be noted, turning LT's words into something intelligible was a lot more difficult than Chief's He may have been an LT, but he wasn't quite the sharpest crayon in the box.

Didn't notice he said private in the same category of Officer. Private is the base rank of an Army enlisted person.

 

[beenie]

Whenever an instruction comes to me directly from God, I follow it without question. When it comes from other humans, I question it or ignore it. I don't subscribe to a human heirarchy. Imams, priests, rabbis and such like are men, not gods, and men make mistakes. Scripture is also written by men, so suffers from the same problem.

Given that I get no direct instructions from God, that pretty much leaves me to do what I feel is best.

This I agree with.

 

[839311]

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

So what that it is genuinly divine? Should we do whatever God tells us just because he is bigger?

Shouldn't our decision to give him our support or to oppose him be based on the merits of his system and whether or not he is a good being or evil? If he is bad and his system is evil, he should be opposed. If he is good and his system is a good one, I would happily give him my support.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To be fair, he did just say "lower ranking officer", which would imply anyone below the rank of General. If we want to get technical, he said "officer" and since a Private is an enlisted member they are not included in the scenario.

My mistake... but it would still hold true if we were talking about some sort of junior officer, right?

Written orders usually have a particular format. Now if I received a handwritten scrawl of a note ordering me to do something...yeah...I'd question it. Depending on what it said of course. I'd get handwritten messages from a particular Chief and Lieutenant I worked for on a frequent basis. I was usually the one responsible for turning their chicken scratch into intelligible orders for others Though, it might be noted, turning LT's words into something intelligible was a lot more difficult than Chief's He may have been an LT, but he wasn't quite the sharpest crayon in the box.

And I assume that even if they were in the right format, if you got two orders that seemed to conflict with each other, you'd question at least one of them, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because just because it is an order from god or a religious institute doesn't mean it's just. As for religious legislature in gener people should not be expected to adhere to religious laws that are of a religion they don't follow. Such as dietary restrictions, clothing restrictions, procedures and rituals, and other things should not be forced onto a person if they do not follow the path they belong to. And of course there are some of us whose very essense puts us at odds with certain religious laws.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because just because it is an order from god or a religious institute doesn't mean it's just.

That turned a light bulb on in my head: does simply being God necessarily make God a legitimate authority? Or does God's authority have to be earned in some way?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That turned a light bulb on in my head: does simply being God necessarily make God a legitimate authority? Or does God's authority have to be earned in some way?

Well, that would depend on one's view of god and authority. Some may view god as an authoritative figure as many view their parents as an authoritative figure. But some view god as an entity that jump started the universe, and nothing more. But if a god in this hypothetical question gave an order, it would just come down to how one views authority, and the willingness to carry out this order and the type of order. If the order was something like feeding lunch to a homeless person you see every day on your way to work, not too many people would question it and they would probably do it anyways because it's a noble act. However if it's an act of violence, many would probably at least question it, but their willingness to defy and verbally question authority would determine if they do it or not.