Perceptions based soley on religion

[Rhabbi]

I'm sure nobody would admit to it. I mean, if we admit that we would judge people differently based on our religion, that must mean that we have accepted a religion even though we don't share it's values. That would make us a hypocrite if true. I'm sure nobody sees themselves as being hypocrites.

OK Tom, I admit it.

We all judge people based on our thoughts and upbringing, and my judgement is based on my religion. I am not a hypocrite though, because I do not say one thing and do something else.

My faith leads me to certain inexcapable judgements about people, but because I do not believe in hell I can believe that even those of us who are wrong will have a chance to get it right later.

You judge people based on your atheism, and even believe that we who have faith are, in some way, ignorant. I do not hold this against you because I know that you do truly understand the nature of the universe. I could actually quote you scripture that describes your attitude and outlook on life.

But regardless of this, I know that when I condemn someone I am overstepping my bounds. Even Jesus did not come to condemn people, but to deliver them. Those who refuse to accept this are not condemned by me, or by him, but by themselves.

[_ID_]

OK Tom, I admit it.

We all judge people based on our thoughts and upbringing, and my judgement is based on my religion. I am not a hypocrite though, because I do not say one thing and do something else.

My faith leads me to certain inexcapable judgements about people, but because I do not believe in hell I can believe that even those of us who are wrong will have a chance to get it right later.

You judge people based on your atheism, and even believe that we who have faith are, in some way, ignorant. I do not hold this against you because I know that you do truly understand the nature of the universe. I could actually quote you scripture that describes your attitude and outlook on life.

But regardless of this, I know that when I condemn someone I am overstepping my bounds. Even Jesus did not come to condemn people, but to deliver them. Those who refuse to accept this are not condemned by me, or by him, but by themselves.

I think that last line is hypocritical. You say you don't condemn people, yet in the same post, you say people are condemned if they do not believe in god, or Christ or whatever. I'm not trying to flame you, don't get me wrong. Just please see it from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in the same scripture you do.

To me it sounds quite judgmental to say "If you don't take Christ as your savior you will be dammed Simply because that is what it says in the book I read". It's also quite judgmental to say "If a person believes in religion they are delusional".

The point I was trying to make when I started this post, is we have values, based on our beliefs. Well, what if those beliefs are wrong. Are able to be proven wrong with simple science. By refusing to accept what is provable in a scientific setting, you could be refusing to have faith in one of your Gods divine designs.

As in the case of the XXY chromosome. That is a scientificly provable item. They are neither male or female as genitics go. So what gives us the right to dam them for choosing science to help them into whatever gender they choose to have?

The proverb - Walk a thousand miles in my shoes before judging me. Rings quite true in that regard.

[Rhabbi]

I think that last line is hypocritical. You say you don't condemn people, yet in the same post, you say people are condemned if they do not believe in god, or Christ or whatever. I'm not trying to flame you, don't get me wrong. Just please see it from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in the same scripture you do.

Actually, that is the problem with trying to expalin religion to someone who does not live it.

I am not saying you are condemned because you do not believe. I am saying that the Scripture I follow says that. It may seem like a subtle difference, or even that I am splitting semantic hairs, but it is a very real one.

Try to understand this from your own perspective. You know that your cultural conditioning and religious background influence your reaction to those outside the norm, and want to reject that conditioning.

On the other hand, I can accept these people as who and what they are. I might urge them to accept that they were cheated by chance and genetics, but I would never feel uncomfortable around them. I know this because I have met them, spoke to them, and continue to do so.

If they subsequently choose to alter their condition through surgery, that is there choice, just as it is mine to believe they are wrong to do so.

Where is my hypocrisy? Is it because I tell them that there is hope for a better life? Or is it because I accept them as they are, before and after?

My faith gives me hope for the future of all of us, and an understanding that the only real answers lie with God, not man.

[_ID_]

Actually, that is the problem with trying to expalin religion to someone who does not live it.

I am not saying you are condemned because you do not believe. I am saying that the Scripture I follow says that. It may seem like a subtle difference, or even that I am splitting semantic hairs, but it is a very real one.

Try to understand this from your own perspective. You know that your cultural conditioning and religious background influence your reaction to those outside the norm, and want to reject that conditioning.

On the other hand, I can accept these people as who and what they are. I might urge them to accept that they were cheated by chance and genetics, but I would never feel uncomfortable around them. I know this because I have met them, spoke to them, and continue to do so.

If they subsequently choose to alter their condition through surgery, that is there choice, just as it is mine to believe they are wrong to do so.

Where is my hypocrisy? Is it because I tell them that there is hope for a better life? Or is it because I accept them as they are, before and after?

My faith gives me hope for the future of all of us, and an understanding that the only real answers lie with God, not man.

I understand your position quite well actually. I grew up very religious. It has been through study of both religion and science, and how those two relate to the other that I have come to the conclusion that in order for me to accept them for who they are, they must first accept themselves for who they are. If they need to make a change, then I support them.

I believe science to be a tool of God. Given to man to better our position in life, to advance our minds, to grow as a people. Living in strict adherence to antiquated scripture, I think leads to a person refusing to accept the advancements of mankind. Thus those persons would be refusing to accept that God could bless people with talents to create, to invent, to alter his existence for his own betterment.

I believe your hypocrisies comes in the areas I highlighted. If you could accept a person for who they were, then you wouldn't condemn them for making the choices they make. I also believe you have such faith in your beliefs that you will not be able to see why I see your views to be contradictory.

I would like to pose a question to you though. Do you believe in all areas of the Bible, and what version? Because if I recall correctly one of the ten commandments was to not lust after they neighbors wife. Which would translate into, don't lust after porn. I think there is also a part in there that says something about if you think a sin, it is the same as committing the sin, but I could be wrong about the second one... I did get taught by some fanatical leaders at one point..

[tessa]

Ok, here I go adding my less than a half-penny worth of thoughts to this.

ID's first question was, "Do we make judgments about people based on our faith?"

A person more wise than I helped me clarify this idea for myself. I think we all make judgements about others based on our beliefs, our personally perceived values, our likes and dislikes, the culture we are exposed to and sometimes just because it's a certain day of the week. These judgements can be positive or negative. And since these judgements can be as fallible as the humans making them, the real problem comes into play when we use those judgements to condemn or commend.

That brings me to the part of ID's post where he mentions intersex individuals and how there sexual orientation may be viewed by persons in the religious community. My first thought was, "why the crap does it make any difference to any others but the people involved??" But knowing the power a group of religious people can have on the life of others, the question on how they would view the sexual orientation of a person with gender issues, be it from genetic hiccups or personal preferences, is a valid one to ask.

Due to the sexual nature of the entire concept, I sadly think many faith-based organizations (not all, but many more than should) would be quick to condemn no matter what choice was made. A man who is genetically a male, but has female attributes, choosing a woman to partner up with would be questioned. The same man choosing a male partner would definitely be considered a no-no for many. Or that person born hermaphroditic...no real options that wouldn't be condemned on either side. As ID said, "neither here nor there" and damned either way.

But I hasten to add that we are speaking of the opinions and judgements of people, mere mortals who have decided that their interpretation of the Bible is the so right one. I can only pray that I will never be so foolish as to apply the tiny thoughts of man to the awesomeness of Almighty God.

Again, ID, thanks for posting this. A good think is always a pleasure.

[fantassy]

Those who refuse to accept this are not condemned by me, or by him, but by themselves.

If there is a God, I'd like to think He will examine my life and see I try to live a good life helping others simply because it is the right thing to do, and will welcome me into heaven as a result. If that's not enough, I don't think I would want to spend eternity with a God who is so vain one's belief (or lack thereof) in him outweighs the deeds done in life. At least that's the way I'm looking at it. It promotes a live and let live attitude which judges people on their treatment of others, not their sexuality. I don't think we can stop ourselves from judging other (at least I can't) but we can control the criteria on which we do the judging.

fantassy

[rce]

One of the wisest things I have heard on this subject matter is this:

"The worst prejudice of all is to think that you have no prejudices."

Everyone has prejudices, whether they come from their religious beliefs, upbringing, other experiences, or anything else. The human brain cannot contain so much information that we can put ourselves in the mindset of everybody else. Prejudices are a negative form of the simplifications of the world that we need to make in order to sort our thoughts and experiences.

I am a Christian and believe in an almighty God, but I believe one of the great good things He gave us was our free will. We can thus choose which paths to take in life. I also believe that God created the Universe in such a fashion that there are chances and probabilities, nothing can be foretold with certainty. (If God would create a universe that was completely foreseeable, how much fun would He have observing it?) Among the chances and probabilities are the mutations driving the evolution forward. The chances and probabilities are also the foundation for the free will, because we would not have a free will if everything was predetermined. The chances and probabilities are thus, in my mind, a blessing but often also a curse.

There are some people, mainly extreme feminists, who claim that the differences between the sexes is entirely based on society and the upbringing. I do not believe that. The fact that there are people who feel that they are born in a body of the wrong sex disproves this feminist theory.

[TomOfSweden]

You judge people based on your atheism, and even believe that we who have faith are, in some way, ignorant. I do not hold this against you because I know that you do truly understand the nature of the universe. I could actually quote you scripture that describes your attitude and outlook on life.

Atheism has no tenents so it's hard to use it as a basis to judge anybody or anything. I wouldn't call the religious ignorant since we all have access to the same information. We've all heard the arguments laid forward by all the major religions. All we know about the religious is that either, somewhere along the line logic failed or that the faith has been updated so much as to make it atheist, (Albert Einsteins religiousity being a prime example). I can imagine a variety of different reasons for this. But we've discussed this so much here that I won't dwell on it.

edit: here's an article in the NY times about research in trying to understand why so many people are religious in spite of the evidence. His theory is that our brains have evolved to believe in the supernatural in spite of overwhelming evidence. It's like, we will be religious in some way no matter what. No matter what your stance is, it's an interesting read.

[Rhabbi]

here's an article in the NY times about research in trying to understand why so many people are religious in spite of the evidence. His theory is that our brains have evolved to believe in the supernatural in spite of overwhelming evidence. It's like, we will be religious in some way no matter what. No matter what your stance is, it's an interesting read.

You are right, it is an interesting read. I find it interesting how few people have actually read Darwin and what he proposed in his works.

As for us evolving a need for religion, why?

Evolution supposedly selects for survival traits, what survival trait is there that supports a need to believe in religion? Perhaps it is the actual existance of God?

As for the evidence that proves there is no G/god, perhaps you ought to examine it, you might be surprised at the acarcity of it in light of current scientific knowledge.

[TomOfSweden]

You are right, it is an interesting read. I find it interesting how few people have actually read Darwin and what he proposed in his works.

As for us evolving a need for religion, why?

Evolution supposedly selects for survival traits, what survival trait is there that supports a need to believe in religion?

Veru fascinating.

Perhaps it is the actual existance of God?

But since this trait aparently doesn't defrinciate between religions, the important thing is not which religion, but a religion, any. Which means that if you believe this theory and still believe in christianity, you are wrong. Or at least extremly likely to be wrong, (1 chance in an infinate to be correct). I hope the logic wasn't hard to follow?

As for the evidence that proves there is no G/god, perhaps you ought to examine it, you might be surprised at the acarcity of it in light of current scientific knowledge.

We've got another thread for this where I clean the floor with the religious theories in so many ways, ("lest we forget") I'll just refer to that one. I don't want to become guilty of thread jacking.

[rce]

...
As for us evolving a need for religion, why?

Evolution supposedly selects for survival traits, what survival trait is there that supports a need to believe in religion? Perhaps it is the actual existance of God?

As for the evidence that proves there is no G/god, perhaps you ought to examine it, you might be surprised at the acarcity of it in light of current scientific knowledge.

Well, one interesting answer to the survival value of religion (except for the common moral values of religions which are good for a society with a common religion), is that one of the greatest advantages of the human brain is our quest for knowledge and answer to questions like, "what?", "where?", and above all "why?" This is the basis of science and thus civilisation, but it is also the basis of religious belief. If we cannot say why the world exist, we try to figure out answers anyway. Those answers become a religion.