2231, RE: I'll also point out...|
Posted by Moligant on Wed 31-Dec-69 06:00 PM
Interestingly enough this is one of the reasons I have a problem with religion. In my view when you put forth the existence of an all-knowing all-seeing moral spiritual being then you are advancing a specific view of 'right' and 'wrong'. And this view which we call 'morality' underpins a plethora of social customs and traditions which are also encapsulated in our laws.
Then someone like yourself comes along and says its ok to have religion as something we take as a 'time to relax and reflect' and 'a philosophical standpoint'.
Why do you need to put forth the existence of a God in order to have those things? I understand the whole 'nice package' deal but the problem is that the package you are advancing is a regifting. The original packaging included many things that in today's society are looked down upon for either being sexist, homophobic, child abuse, etc.
Its fine to belong to a church that openly accepts gays as pastors in my opinion because thats 'politically' correct but if hypothetically God does exist and he sent down the bible as His word - is that His will...or the will of some politically correct parishioners who still wish to claim Christianity as their banner?
I'd say the latter. The bible isn't very hard to intepret and most of it is repated again and again just to insure those folks who are in their pews half-asleep understand it.
I do believe in the supportive model you describe however I simply don't see why you need the backing of a church and its belief system when its pretty obvious that you don't agree with the actual fundamental (political) views held traditionally by that organization which are based on a pretty accurate intepretation of God's will as laid down in His bible. In other words, you can't be both politically correct and religiously correct in my opinion.