Why are some people so reluctant to follow religious legislation?

[Draka]

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

No, The chain of command need not be followed down, only up. Ok, if the Command Master Chief of my squadron wanted to, if he picked me for a specific task, he could come down from his office to my shop and give it to me directly. The only thing need be said to my direct superior is that I am doing something for the CMC and that's that. If, however, I have an issue with my direct superior, my step is to go to his direct superior, not straight to the CMC (unless he actually happened to be that).

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?

I'd most likely question both of them. I'd take both orders to the next highest superior available to me to sort out what was what. If the orders were in the immediate I'd have to use my own judgment on the spot to determine which one was the most likely justified order in following.

 

[connermt]

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?

One reason is because religion has no facts to back up its claim.
Add to that is the fact that the same people claim to worship the same god, can't agree on many vital aspects of said religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think a good question would be, why shouldn't I be reluctant to follow religious legislature.

 

[averageJOE]

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.

Wrong. Every soldier is empowered not to carry out orders that they feel is either unethical or illegal. There is in fact a system in place on how to do this.

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

Which religion and which god?

 

[Photonic]

Wrong. Every soldier is empowered not to carry out orders that they feel is either unethical or illegal. There is in fact a system in place on how to do this.

Which religion and which god?

I wonder what countries soldiers he is talking about. The US Military certainly doesn't work on the basis of absolute submission to authority.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wonder what countries soldiers he is talking about. The US Military certainly doesn't work on the basis of absolute submission to authority.

...or on the basis of authority over people who were never enlisted in the first place.

I know I have a simple reason for not following the orders of generals: I'm not in the military. Most (all?) actual generals recognize this fact and don't try to order me around.

The kingdom of God that Debater Slayer suggests seems to be some kind of military dictatorship.

 

[gnostic]

This is a useless thread when the author (debater slayer) doesn't respond to any of responses.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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?

Because we don't live in a theocracy. We live in a republic style democracy (sort of. I mean really we are a plutocracy currently.)

So it wouldn't matter if god was real or not. Though if it was established that god existed and everyone in the world would follow the same religion then would we even need countries?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Holy thread necro.

Man, reading my posts from three years ago, they literally feel like someone else wrote them. That's the beauty of the Internet--you get to see who you were so that you remember not to be too harsh to people for saying foolish things.

 

[Sleeppy]

I think in certain cases, even when the conscious belief says the text is Divine Law, it's the subconscious acknowledging a disconnect with reality.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Holy thread necro.

Man, reading my posts from three years ago, they literally feel like someone else wrote them. That's the beauty of the Internet--you get to see who you were so that you remember not to be too harsh to people for saying foolish things.

You have gone through a profound change my friend.

It has been good to see.

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

Do you mean that there should be no freedom of thought or freedom of opinion? Right

Regards

 

[Debater Slayer]

Do you mean that there should be no freedom of thought or freedom of opinion? Right

Regards

Did*. Check the posting date of the OP; my views have completely changed since then.

 

[paarsurrey]

I did not check the date. It is OK.

Thanks