[Southtown]

In this case Pyro, the thread is over a year old. =P

Buffy, damnit. Where have you been young lady? And why aren't your posts inc'ing?

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

No. Goekker wasn't being sarcastic. Since his God is the only and true, then you have to be a blasphemer.
It has been this way since the dawn of Christianity (at least). The "church fathers" of the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries, such as Origen, Celsus, Irenaeus, Marcion, Tertullian, Clement, Martyr, Eusebius, and others -- and St. Paul, of course -- spoke exactly the same way. If you don't believe what I believe then you are a blasphemer and a heretic. They dealt with theological differences by calling each other names.

Many of the "church fathers" eventually were branded as heretics.

Theological differences between the Catholics and newly formed Protestants of the 16th century settled their differences with massive bloody warfare lasting for 80 years, and the Inquisition.

Given this nobel tradition, I feel it is our spiritual duty to carry it on. So, carry on, Goekker!! I believe another broadside to his midships is in order!!

But I owe you a response, of course. This is called a strawman argument: constructing your own ideal opposition and then tearing it down. I don't have to defend your interpretation of religion.

[catholiboy]

To Buffy's original question:

The varying beliefs generally have to reconcile their existence by themselves, not with eachother but with the natural world and if they are unable to do so, they probably have something wrong.
This, of course, being the problem with strict doctrine: an inability to shift beliefs without some Crusade or vast revolution.

Of course, it is only if their own religion provides unsatisfactory answers to everything that they begin to see other religions in an open-minded fashion.
This does not, however, necessarilt

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Southtown

In this case Pyro, the thread is over a year old. =P...

Great wisdom -- and great stupidity -- is timeless.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Southtown

But I owe you a response, of course. This is called a strawman argument: constructing your own ideal opposition and then tearing it down. I don't have to defend your interpretation of religion.

Ahhh. But *I* didn't construct it. It's "history", Southtown. You don't have to defend history, but you should deal with it.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by catholiboy

The varying beliefs generally have to reconcile their existence by themselves, not with eachother but with the natural world and if they are unable to do so, they probably have something wrong.

Well they try to do it by themselves, but as religions have become less geographically driven (that is, the western concept of "freedom of religion" has spread) they have to compete in the marketplace of beliefs. As a hold over from the us-versus-them attacks of heresy that mainly were a *political* tool of statecraft, this mechanism has been pulled into duty to threaten the faithful (and the potentially faithful, cf. the "Left Behind" series) if they stray from the faith.

The interesting thing about "blasphemy" is that in America at least, it has been used to create a common front of the Religious-Versus-The-Irreligious, thus going back to its original role. Oddly of course, those who lean on this technique to create "big tents" that are tolerant of multiple faiths seem to be those with the strongest desire to "put faith back in government" and when picking that "faith" its usually a very particular brand of Christianity (note this is *not* the fault of Christians, but rather the fault of those who would cynically manipulate them for political power).

This is of course a very interesting issue, one where faiths are trying to find a common ground in order to gain power in religiously heterogeneous societies, but can run into severe problems with the details of policy development due to differing priorities. Many of these priorities are not "core" beliefs, but modern additions to doctrine (e.g. its pretty hard to find references to abortion or Satan being a Democrat in the Bible), but they still create great friction.

Obviously of course if the latter part of what you say here is the case (that they are not able to reconcile their faith with the natural world), it becomes problematic, as we have seen with faiths who have strong dependence on prophecy, and what happens to them if their leaders predict specific dates that come and go ("Whoops! Forget all that stuff I said about the Second Coming being next week!"). But this does get to the core of the role of religious belief as a sociological phenomenon, which is as a source of understanding of the unexplainable occurences in the world. But we're getting off topic here.

Side note: Be careful about trying to pigeonhole South: he doesn't believe in "traditional" religious organizations and I give him kudos for thinking critically about them and his own faith.

Nice to see that people do want to talk about this topic though! It was dormant for 14 months before Pyro picked it up! I think its a really important issue....

Not yet time for Mayonaisse then,
Buffy

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Side note: Be careful about trying to pigeonhole South: he doesn't believe in "traditional" religious organizations and I give him kudos for thinking critically about them and his own faith.

That means a lot Buffy thanks.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Ahhh. But *I* didn't construct it. It's "history", Southtown. You don't have to defend history, but you should deal with it.

I still owe Buffy a break down of my beliefs for scrutiny in this thread. It's not enough to simply disown the more well-known beliefs and escape their scrutiny.

I have actually come very far in this last year, though. And a treatise is in sight. I just gotta dig up some historical references.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Southtown

...I have actually come very far in this last year, though. And a treatise is in sight. I just gotta dig up some historical references.

I look forward to reading it.

[catholiboy]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Well they try to do it by themselves, but as religions have become less geographically driven (that is, the western concept of "freedom of religion" has spread) they have to compete in the marketplace of beliefs. As a hold over from the us-versus-them attacks of heresy that mainly were a *political* tool of statecraft, this mechanism has been pulled into duty to threaten the faithful (and the potentially faithful, cf. the "Left Behind" series) if they stray from the faith.

But what I'm trying to say here is that they should do this, and if they don't, they don't even get into the "marketplace of beliefs". So basically, beneath all the competition there is a basic need to reconcile their existence. either that, or they are so fanatical that it doesn't really matter.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by catholiboy

...either that, or they are so fanatical that it doesn't really matter.

And there you have it. Who's to say what is "so fanatical?" Who judges? If its before it gets to the marketplace of ideas, then its only the individual, and the individual's circumstances drive them to decide whether a belief is reconciled with their view of the natural world. There need be little logic involved any many "objective aspects" of the natural world can easily be ignored based on those circumstances.

The beliefs of the *majority* influence the judgement of this consistency once in the marketplace of beliefs, which causes some to be seen as "fanatical" or "cults" but its rarely widely agreed upon.

I know it when I see it,
Buffy