Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
Otherwise, how do you expect people to come to rational conclusions on new moral challenges that are not explicitly covered in their choice of god handbook?
|
This is the facet of religion with which I currently struggle. So many of the "instructions" were clearly (from our modern perspective) designed to address social issues of the time. And we have no trouble, as a (western) society, dismissing the rules about stoning and selling daughters and whatnot. But the other rules society swears are the unerring Word of God and must be obeyed blindly.
It's not like Leviticus, to use the previously mentioned example, has some sort of list where rules from column A must be obeyed until the advent of the internal combustion engine and rules from column B must be obeyed in perpetuity. I see them as rules with a purpose - and when the purpose is no longer relevant, the rules need no longer required blind adherence.
Major religious figures themselves are often philsophers of a sort, exploring the meaning of truth and faith and societal compact - reorganizing (sometimes to radical effect) the everyday practices supporting one religious sect or another. How can you be a philosopher and not question? How can you follow a philosopher and not emulate their questioning?
And yet, the modern questioner finds themselves frequently on the outsides of both camps - devout believers and devout nonbelievers. The believers expect the blind obedience to bearded, be-robed imagry they've been trained to worship -- all else is heresy. And the nonbelievers likewise point to the questioning as proof that the belief system is complete poppycock with nary a shred of truth nor utility.
How am I supposed to find truth if I don't look for it?