Comments on: Sunday Schism http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/12/09/sunday-schism/ Mike Harding's Blog Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:32:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: mike http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/12/09/sunday-schism/#comment-33212 mike Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:39:15 +0000 http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/12/09/sunday-schism/#comment-33212 I see your point. However, in this instance, I don't think I can agree given the "special purpose" of the subject matter. Where humans are concerned, I agree. I see your point.

However, in this instance, I don’t think I can agree given the “special purpose” of the subject matter. Where humans are concerned, I agree.

]]> By: Lloyd http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/12/09/sunday-schism/#comment-33187 Lloyd Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:34:18 +0000 http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/12/09/sunday-schism/#comment-33187 I'm not about to try to argue for religion (that wasn't me point), but I still think the schisms in religion are not surprising and that religion isn't a special case. Staying in the role of devils advocate (all arguments expressed below are not necessarily my own) the following are valid reasons for people to bicker ... - If humans did write down the words or a deity there is potential for flaws to be introduced in the transcribing. - The translation between languages and shifting of the meaning of words over time (often 1000s of year) could cause more confusion - The use of metaphor and parable on top of these are going to be intentionally (and maybe purposefully) misconstrued These gaps (as well as posturing, hipocrisy, personal bias) all give people room to argue, and people don't need that much room. I guess my point is that the source of the information, alegedly a god (or gods) doesn't really influence humans ability to disagree with each other. We can also have schisms on subject such as science, politic and economics that have a more reality based dataset supporting them. I think people arguing about sports teams is the thing that most reminds me of intra-religious arguments though. I’m not about to try to argue for religion (that wasn’t me point), but I still think the schisms in religion are not surprising and that religion isn’t a special case.

Staying in the role of devils advocate (all arguments expressed below are not necessarily my own) the following are valid reasons for people to bicker …
- If humans did write down the words or a deity there is potential for flaws to be introduced in the transcribing.
- The translation between languages and shifting of the meaning of words over time (often 1000s of year) could cause more confusion
- The use of metaphor and parable on top of these are going to be intentionally (and maybe purposefully) misconstrued

These gaps (as well as posturing, hipocrisy, personal bias) all give people room to argue, and people don’t need that much room.

I guess my point is that the source of the information, alegedly a god (or gods) doesn’t really influence humans ability to disagree with each other. We can also have schisms on subject such as science, politic and economics that have a more reality based dataset supporting them. I think people arguing about sports teams is the thing that most reminds me of intra-religious arguments though.

]]> By: Mike http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/12/09/sunday-schism/#comment-33136 Mike Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:50:28 +0000 http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/12/09/sunday-schism/#comment-33136 Alas Lloyd, your last sentence makes my point: "people are involved, we like an argument" Allegedly a deity passed instructions to humans which were duly recorded in book form for people to follow without question (if you're truly faithful.) That doesn't leave much room to argue, you believe or you don't. When people get involved, it's no longer the word of the deity but the words of other people that are being followed. Nevermind the fact that the instructions left in the book are contradictory and often times irrelevant today. Nevermind that there are tens of thousand of religions each with their own special features showing one how to either a) get some nebulous reward in the future and/or b) avoid eternity of pain (that's my favorite from the the Christian realm...) The price? Subjugate yourself now, give up your free will, and pay for the right to do so. If religion is a social club with rules made by humans, fine. Treat it that way. If it is this mystical mumbo jumbo - then extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Alas Lloyd, your last sentence makes my point:

“people are involved, we like an argument”

Allegedly a deity passed instructions to humans which were duly recorded in book form for people to follow without question (if you’re truly faithful.) That doesn’t leave much room to argue, you believe or you don’t.

When people get involved, it’s no longer the word of the deity but the words of other people that are being followed. Nevermind the fact that the instructions left in the book are contradictory and often times irrelevant today. Nevermind that there are tens of thousand of religions each with their own special features showing one how to either a) get some nebulous reward in the future and/or b) avoid eternity of pain (that’s my favorite from the the Christian realm…) The price? Subjugate yourself now, give up your free will, and pay for the right to do so.

If religion is a social club with rules made by humans, fine. Treat it that way. If it is this mystical mumbo jumbo - then extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

]]> By: Lloyd http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/12/09/sunday-schism/#comment-33131 Lloyd Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:59:51 +0000 http://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/12/09/sunday-schism/#comment-33131 I'm not sure I agree with "the religion was the “one true faith” founded on words from a super-being, there wouldn’t be this petty squabbling over what the deity meant". People can find something to disagree about on any subject (this comment being an example!) whether there is empirical evidence or it is entirely a subjective matter. I can't think of a reason religion would be any different, people are involved, we like an argument. I’m not sure I agree with “the religion was the “one true faith” founded on words from a super-being, there wouldn’t be this petty squabbling over what the deity meant”.
People can find something to disagree about on any subject (this comment being an example!) whether there is empirical evidence or it is entirely a subjective matter. I can’t think of a reason religion would be any different, people are involved, we like an argument.

]]>