Response to a Friend on Discourse and Disrespect

Believing isn't the point. Being able to explain your beliefs in a way that makes sense is the point. All of us can be swayed by argument (in the philosophical sense) that is well reasoned and clearly presented. My pointing out the discrepancies in some religious statements is a way of presenting a chance for believers to articulate their beliefs. For example, you are clearly not a Muslim, but probably have challenged the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion when all you ever see is violence and death coming from Islamic countries.  For you not to challenge Muslim friends to explain/support the contention that theirs is a peaceful religion would be ignoring a festering reality. The same with Christianity. Challenging beliefs is the best way to strengthen them. Discourse is the best way to clarify your own thoughts as well as persuade others of the value of your opinion. So rather than disrespect, which is never intended in a rational discussion, you should see opportunity to educate. The example I cited from the Old Testament is a good one to start some discussion of the way religious thought has changed over the time since the “good books” were first written. No one with a rational brain would think that a wife should be stoned to death at her father’s door for not being a virgin is acceptable. But they did just that in the old days, and in many fundamentalist countries where Mosaic Law is practiced they still do. And they use the Bible to justify it. So if one asserts that the Ten Commandments are truly the word of God, and should be followed without any thought, then how can one deny the word of God as articulated in Deuteronomy? See? Here is where the discourse comes in. And you know that many Christians claim that with the coming of Christ, the rules of the Old Testament were no longer valid. The question is “which rules?” In an earlier posting I said that I agreed with Scott, not because I thought he was right, but because his argument was well reasoned and based on a premise he held deeply. No disrespect at all. And I have none for you. To answer the other two points in your posting, I think you do not know what my religious beliefs are. They are certainly not Christian or any other named religion, but even I don’t call myself an atheist. I have had a personally fulfilling relationship with an entity you call Jesus for many years, yet think the mysteries and rules attributed to him are mostly man-made and wrong minded. So I take exception to the people who use “him” to support an agenda that is clearly not at all what “he” is about. Your other point is also worth a mention: Christians do impose their religious beliefs on everybody, or at least try to. Many of the laws we have in this Nation, while supposedly secular are Bible based. Look at all the fuss about stem cell research and abortion and teaching creationism in schools. Behind every one of these is the Biblical argument about what “God” said and wants. Well, many people don’t believe in God, and thus should not have to follow those teachings. For example, if a woman believes that life begins at conception, she shouldn’t use an IUD for birth control. Nor should she make another woman become pregnant by making IUDs illegal to use. That is imposing a religious belief on someone else. Same with abortion. Same with stem cell research. Same with creationism. You probably don’t agree. So explain how outlawing abortion is a secular thing and not a religious thing. In other words what is the basis for outlawing abortion that is not based on a religious belief? If you can’t think of a good and rational reason, then you are in favor of imposing a religious belief on a non-believer.

Whew. See what happens when I get up early?  


Image: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx6qXC26ZzmFviyMhE9lyJ7hn2ExVCDGxoizzIZBLC84cFcsHggkSF80rv675P7H_dPhpVvFhRR9gRsAeQDk1EMAFdcXmWttMmP0BY2xFzW4qjtJyLTk-AnxYq_biTj9ihtsX7SQ5g9unMnZ6Q/s1600/discourse-into-the-night.jpg