True believers, pick'n'mix believers, and trying to work out where I stand

[Rapscallion]

It's been a long time since I came to realise that many followers of many religions don't follow all the rules of their particular holy texts. This leaves me with a bit of a quandary.

I have a sneaking respect for people who commit wholely to a cause, no matter how whacko. If the holy text says that plaid must be worn every Sunday, then they should wear plaid. If the left ear must be sacrificed, then the left ear must be sacrificed.

For quite some time, the net result is that I've been leery of people who only follow specific aspects of a faith.

However, I also dislike the idea of people accepting what they're told blindly, and I approve of the idea of people thinking for themselves. It only occurred to me over the last couple of days or so that this is in direct contradiction to the above views on religious people.

Thoughts? Trying to rationalise this.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

When people get stressed, we sometimes yearn to have someone or something else make our decisions for us. Religions aim to answer all of your life questions. Should I go to that BBQ on Sunday? Let's see what the Bible says. Should I try to kiss her? Let's consult the Koran. What should I make for dinner? Better see if the Torah offers any advice. It sure would make life easier if I had all the answers to questions big and small. That's how fundamentalists are made. They can't (or don't want to) handle the inevitable shades-of-grey in life.

The problem is that the answers to life's questions in any major religious text are inconsistent, often non-sensical, and sometimes downright immoral. Adhering blindly to one of these faiths requires you to ignore your brain and your gut telling you it's all wrong. Most people can't do that. Most people who call themselves Christian, for example, just haven't thought about it much. They haven't read more than bits and pieces of the Bible, and they haven't tried to apply everything in there to their own lives. If they did, they'd realize that it just wouldn't work.

There's nothing horribly wrong with picking and choosing, in my opinion. People are essentially looking for a code of live by, a sort of go-to guide when things get rough. If one religion in its entirety isn't going to provide that, they cobble one together themselves, based on what makes sense to them. They're probably not right, but who cares? Whatever gets you through, I say.

[Pedersen]

There's nothing horribly wrong with picking and choosing, in my opinion. People are essentially looking for a code of live by, a sort of go-to guide when things get rough. If one religion in its entirety isn't going to provide that, they cobble one together themselves, based on what makes sense to them. They're probably not right, but who cares? Whatever gets you through, I say.

There's nothing inherently wrong, no. The problems only come out when people use these same "pick and mix" to tell other people what they can and cannot do.

If you believe you have found a way that works, and adhere to it, without requiring others to adhere to it, then go for it. As soon as you start restricting the actions of others based on your beliefs (regardless of whether they share those beliefs), people have every right to point out what you are doing.

And that's where the pick-n-mix annoyances come in.

Sorry if this is short or disjoint. I'm not totally awake right now, so I've probably said something wrong.

[Flyndaran]

It just sounds lazy to me. Instead of waiting for your religous people to tell you what you want to hear and believe, why don't you look, learn, and think of what you want to believe on your own?
Can you tell I'm an atheist?

[Slytovhand]

There are 2 types of religion - Natural and Revealed.

Natural religions do not have a set of texts or tenets to follow. Shamans will chat with the inhabitants of the Otherworld for guidance, will consult with their guides and power animals. The Celts will revere Bran, and the Native American Medicineman will give thanks to Grandfather Bear.... but, there's no 'holy book' to follow, to dictate... or to interpret. This is good, and bad... because it allows for individuality, but it means everyone's interpretation can be correct. It means there's no 'right' or 'wrong'. There's not even a 'correct' or 'incorrect'. As an example, I saw a docco on Shamanism, and in Korea, they still have it as an offical religion. A young girl was being brought in to see if she will become a shaman. A spirit (apparently, a 'general') takes her body over, and answers some questions, and demands money as payment. To me, that's not what a shaman does... but who am I to say?? Personal responsibility is HUGE.

Now, revealed religions are those which have been handed down to the people by a particular person as the actual words etc of a particular deity. Because it is the 'offical' word of the deity, and the deity can't be wrong, then the words must be correct.

That leads to the question - are those words meant only for those people, in that time and place? Or, are they meant for all people, in all times and in all places. Also, it leaves the question of whether those words are the be all and end all, or are they only a few of the words that the deity will utter?

Thus, we get the arguments about Leviticus and other Hebraic law... why aren't we stoning people to death for adultery still?? (<sigh> ah, the good old days! ) Were the words of Yahweh meant only for the Jews living at that time and in that place? Or, should they refer to all peoples, and in all times?

The other big problem with a revealed religion is: who says that's what deity actually said, or meant? After all, humans have been charged with copying and codifying... deity didn't actually drop a big book down that can never be altered or hidden or changed (sheesh! Wouldn't that have saved a lot of hassle!) Humans make mistakes...

So, given the choice between trying to follow what has been written (and changed by humans for centuries), and following what appears to be the main message, some people opt for only following the implied message. Especially when we know there are issues with accuracy in translation, undue influence from less than pious sources, blackmail, wholesale changes to suit personality etc.

So, I think it's fair for a person to call themselves a Christian while not following the 10 commandments or anything else outlined in the Bible, but who chooses to follow the example of JC, and to believe that by doing so will get them into Heaven.

AS for the 'interpretation' side of things, what if 'the law' as laid down was only meant for that time and place? Thus, 'no eating pork' is cos deity is smart enough to realise saying 'because it contains harmful bacteria that can do nasty things to you, so until you have the technology it's out, but once someone has discovered bacteria, and you have refrigeration and adequate sanitation, then it will be ok'... is not the sort of thing that most humans of the time will get. (of course, I do wonder why deity would suggest killing people, but that's just me...).

Personally, I've said that I don't think gays, lesbians, drug-users, murderers, rapists, etc, should be trying to change the Catholic religion into how they want it to be. No, the Catholic church has a particular set of rules to follow, you don't get to change what is, in effect, deity's word just to suit you! If you don't fit their mould, then go find your own mould where you do fit!

Raps, I suspect your issue isn't that people 'mix and match', but it's what they choose to mix and match just happens to coincide with convenience. All the things that are just a little annoying, or take effort, or their uncomfortable with. At least, on an individual level. I do note that there have been some rather big changes on a grander scale (such as the stonings - at least in some countries and with some religions... <looking at you, Islam!>)

[guywithashovel]

Personally, I'm glad that most people don't follow all of the rules and guidlelines in their religions and holy books. For example, the Bible says that if an unmarried virgin gets raped, then she has to marry her rapist, and that the rapist is never allowed to divorce her. I honestly don't want to live in a world where this is practiced.

And to back up what I'm saying, here is the passage I'm talking about.

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

[Flyndaran]

I stil say that religion is used as an excuse to do what they were already going to do.

[Boozy]

I stil say that religion is used as an excuse to do what they were already going to do.

I agree. Which is why picking-and-choosing is so prevalent. People who want to believe in something will cobble together a belief system that feels morally right to them. If they're good people, the beliefs they choose will justify their good deeds. Angry people will choose beliefs that justify their violent deeds.

There's nothing inherently wrong, no. The problems only come out when people use these same "pick and mix" to tell other people what they can and cannot do.

Of course that's annoying. But it's no less annoying when a fundamentalist with a literal interpretation of the Bible/Koran/whatever does that.

[AFPheonix]

As social mores change over time and with influence from other cultures and creeds, people have to make a decision about their holy books: do they adhere to every small detail and end up being on the wrong side of history, losing out on converts that they are commanded to get, or do they change their beliefs slightly to be more in line with their lifestyles and society?
Religion has to evolve to stay relevant. If it doesn't stay relevant, then it dies with it's last adherent.

I don't mind too much if people choose to ignore certain parts of their religion that are outdated and have no bearing on current times, but it would be really nice if they were at least consistent across the board with that application.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The only way to remain with the times in any religion so far as I can see is to scale back to the basic tenets. Which more often than not are 'be nice to people' 'don't steal stuff' ' don't kill things' etc.

The real atrocity is the way people use religion as an excuse to foist themselves on others. I for one am in support of a complete ban of religious based arguments used to effect legislation except where the legislation addresses freedom of religion.

Another problem is that some people take freedom of religion as freedom for their religion to take over the country if they can vote enough times, another thing I'd take up a Kalashnikov over, but that's another story.

In shorter words, don't hide behind religion, don't bully people with it.

[Flyndaran]

...I for one am in support of a complete ban of religious based arguments used to effect legislation except where the legislation addresses freedom of religion.
....

I don't think anyone should use religion to argue for religious freedom. I dislike the very concept of religion. But I am for everyone's freedom to believe as they do. Because I'm of the opinion that for most, religion isn't any more of a choice than sexuality.
I know that I was born an atheist and am incapable of religion. I imagine that there are many that are my opposites, incapable of not believing.