What's new
By:

What does religious moderation consist of?

NAOS

NAOS

Well-Known Member
I'm talking about the kinds of religious thought that don't take their religious texts literally. The kinds that, for example, now regard the story of Adam and Eve as some kind of metaphor. Why and how do some parts of the message slip into a looser place, but still remain guarded as holy?

tia.
 
NAOS said:
I'm talking about the kinds of religious thought that don't take their religious texts literally. The kinds that, for example, now regard the story of Adam and Eve as some kind of metaphor. Why and how do some parts of the message slip into a looser place, but still remain guarded as holy?

tia.
Click to expand...

"religious moderation" is the last gasp of an originally magnificent delusion.

The concept arises as a substitute for saying "damn, wrong again."
 
If I'm not mistaken, I think most JFCers would consider themselves religious moderates. So, I'm looking forward to a robust discussion.
 
I enjoy nothing in moderation.

I am certain everyone will have a hissy fit with what I'm about to say, but I just don't give a ****...

I do not consider myself "religious." For me (and I'm not arguing definitions here, but rather how I feel on the matter) I hear "religion" and my skin crawls. Not kidding.

The word conjures up images in my mind of the Pharisees plotting and scheming to get rid of Jesus.
Religion to me is more a set of man-made rules designed with good intentions but in effect become exlusionary and "judgy."

I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe He is my savior.
For all those that want to say "by his fruits" (implying mine are rotten) I would only respond that I'm sorry I don't measure to your standards, but you can't take from me the fact I believe.

I hate the word/thought of religion, but I do consider myself a "believer" or a "spiritual" person.
Measuring up isn't in my DNA.

I'm not sure what a religious moderate is exactly and maybe I qualify under some people's definition... but I don't personally consider myself a moderate by my own definition because, for me, moderate means ho hum and take it or leave it (or wavering, or somewhat still undecided). I am not that. I am steadfast.
I just don't put man's religious hierarchy into my spiritual consciousness.

I've seen way too many people become non-believers because they allow their fellow man.. Christian man.. to tear them down. We are all sinners. Every last one of us.
 
I guess this board is filled with more atheists and fundamentalists than I thought.............
 
NAOS said:
I guess this board is filled with more atheists and fundamentalists than I thought.............
Click to expand...

I was texting my dad while he was at church on Sunday. He counted the roll. 53 High Priests in his ward/congregation. 13 were there.

The world is moving away from religion and for obvious reasons.

We are taught that Jesus said to love thy neighbor as thyself. Then our church tells us to love thy neighbor as thyself...except for those guys. Those guys are sinners and we should stay away from them.

But, the problem is, we KNOW those guys. And guess what? They are the same as us.

It's seems that the heavily religious are those that NEED the religion. They NEED the checklist and the approval. And that's ok as well. Religion serves a purpose for those people.

BUT, I feel strongly that as you grow closer to God, you don't need the checklist as much. You don't need the sermon as much. As you grow closer to God, you become more like him, more in tune to him, and you just become BETTER.

And that's the whole point, right? To be better people?
 
I asked my Muslim cousin, he says moderation is never speaking for God. Society should run through human logic according to what makes sense to human needs. Religion should only govern personal ritual and mores, without trying to transfer them to someone else.

For me, I kind of agree with babe. There is no real religious moderation. There is either irreligion, or reinterprettuning what you considered Truth once society deems you were wrong.
 
Is there truth? A baseline that governs all? Is there order, or all we all just floating around doing what we do?
 
green said:
Is there truth? A baseline that governs all? Is there order, or all we all just floating around doing what we do?
Click to expand...
I guess when it comes down to it nobody really know what the TRUTH really is.. we all believe in our own versions of it.


It doesn't really cause a problem unless until someone tries to project or enforce their beliefs onto others.. causing harm to others either physically or mentally.


Because of this I am a believer in religious and spiritual freedom as long as it doesn't adversely impact others.
 
Siro said:
LOL [MENTION=249]NAOS[/MENTION]. How can we not seek The Good? Plato owes an awful debt to human nature.
Click to expand...

...you mean the inborn, unchanging essence of human nature?? smh. Siro and his circularity, amiright???
 
NAOS said:
...you mean the inborn, unchanging essence of human nature?? smh. Siro and his circularity, amiright???
Click to expand...

Haha. No. But it is instinctual. I really do think about this. What is so wrong with The Good? Plato's absolute and discoverable Good is ********, but I don't see the problem with the contextual and ever-changing Good that evolves with our knowledge and understanding of the world.

How can we avoid it? Aren't you advancing your own version of the Good when you argue for gun control? Or when you mock Jamezz for being racist? How else can it be?
 
Siro said:
Haha. No. But it is instinctual. I really do think about this. What is so wrong with The Good? Plato's absolute and discoverable Good is ********, but I don't see the problem with the contextual and ever-changing Good that evolves with our knowledge and understanding of the world.

How can we avoid it? Aren't you advancing your own version of the Good when you argue for gun control? Or when you mock Jamezz for being racist? How else can it be?
Click to expand...

why are you capitalizing The Good?
 
'The Good' is only one aspect of our awful debt, and you brought that part up. But I'll play along...

One of philosophy's biggest assumptions is iterated and reiterated in its framing of 'thought' as a process that has a natural affinity with correctness. Apparently it's something with an upright posture. Even cynics have capitulated on this point more often than not.

I disagree. And, besides, most of these philosophers have been agents of the State or raised in seminaries.

Thought doesn't have an affinity with correctness or Goodness. Those notions invade thought, and code/format it 'in its likeness'.
 
NAOS said:
'The Good' is only one aspect of our awful debt, and you brought that part up. But I'll play along...

One of philosophy's biggest assumptions is iterated and reiterated in its framing of 'thought' as a process that has a natural affinity with correctness. Apparently it's something with an upright posture. Even cynics have capitulated on this point more often than not.

I disagree. And, besides, most of these philosophers have been agents of the State or raised in seminaries.

Thought doesn't have an affinity with correctness or Goodness. Those notions invade thought, and code/format it 'in its likeness'.
Click to expand...

Plato, Aristotle and Socrates were agents of the state?

Did they have 00 status?
 
Not an answer to the question, but faith-wise I believe in... nothing. Because to even try to make sense of why or how we got here and what comes next is way too daunting of a task. But something I can conceptualize is the golden rule, because it is a simple precursor to harmony. But in daily life it's nice to not have the burden of expectations beyond my own, and I trust in my own judgment of right and wrong.

I love the idea of a good ole raucous southern baptist praise of the Lord though... because sadly I will probably never have that euphoric feeling of coming together to celebrate something so vigorously, because it would involve setting aside my own rationalities.
 
Last edited:
NAOS said:
'The Good' is only one aspect of our awful debt, and you brought that part up. But I'll play along...

One of philosophy's biggest assumptions is iterated and reiterated in its framing of 'thought' as a process that has a natural affinity with correctness. Apparently it's something with an upright posture. Even cynics have capitulated on this point more often than not.

I disagree. And, besides, most of these philosophers have been agents of the State or raised in seminaries.

Thought doesn't have an affinity with correctness or Goodness. Those notions invade thought, and code/format it 'in its likeness'.
Click to expand...

Then how is one thought separated from another if not through some criterion on its validity? How does one arrive at a thought, or forms an opinion? How can one opinion be more valid than another? How can you mock people, as you often do, if you're not commentating on the "correctness" of their thoughts?

I'm having a hard time understanding your perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top