The discussion on euthanasia raised an interesting point. Compare these responses to some controversial activity X (replace Christian by whatever religion you believe, if you believe in one):
1. As a Christian, I believe that X is wrong, therefore I will do my utmost to avoid doing it.
2. As a Christian, I believe that X is wrong, therefore I will do my utmost to avoid doing it, and I will strongly encourage others not to do it.
3. As a Christian, I believe that X is wrong, therefore I will campaign for a law banning it.
Ok, the question is this: for what kinds of things would you follow 1., for which 2., and for which 3.?
Originally posted by royalchickenOk, the question was really aimed at those who have religious beliefs. I'm not religious either, but there are still big differences between, say, a secular Christian, an evangelical Christian and a fundamentalist Christian (though obviously most people fall somewhere between these extremes). In my view, roughly speaking, 1. corresponds to secular, 2. to evangelical, and 3. to fundamentalist.
I have ideas, not beliefs. I try not to meddle in other's affairs as they don't concern me. But I don't encourage what I stated in the last sentence. I suppose not meddling fits into category 1. But it precludes the placement of anything in 2 or 3.
Similary states can behave in these ways if there is a national religion (1. => the principal religious group doesn't get 'special treatment' from the government, etc.) Although England has an established church, I would still consider myself to live in a secular state; similarly, although Turkey is overwhelmingly Muslim, it is largely secular (despite the recent electoral success of an Islamist party.) On the other hand, the current US administration shows definite evangelical leanings, despite the US being secular by constitution. Secular countries don't go on "crusades", or cut funding to charities just because they are pro-abortion.
Originally posted by AcolyteGood point. As an outsider who has spent a short amount of time in the US I think the fundamentalist Christians do have a lot of political power, especially in the south. Isn't George Bush from texas ?
Ok, the question was really aimed at those who have religious beliefs. I'm not religious either, but there are still big differences between, say, a secular Christian, an evangelical Christian and a fundamentalist Christian (though obviously most people fall somewhere between these extremes). In my view, roughly speaking, 1. corresponds to secular, 2. to ...[text shortened]... tries don't go on "crusades", or cut funding to charities just because they are pro-abortion.
-mike
Originally posted by trekkieYes, but they worship guns in Texas as well as the Lord Jesus Christ. 😕 Kirk
Good point. As an outsider who has spent a short amount of time in the US I think the fundamentalist Christians do have a lot of political power, especially in the south. Isn't George Bush from texas ?
-mike
Originally posted by Acolytei was religious, that is before i suffered a crisis of faith and saw that religion, though not as much today, is a way to control people.
The discussion on euthanasia raised an interesting point. Compare these responses to some controversial activity X (replace Christian by whatever religion you believe, if you believe in one):
1. As a Christian, I believe that X is wrong, therefore I will do my utmost to avoid doing it.
2. As a Christian, I believe that X is wrong, therefore I will do ...[text shortened]... question is this: for what kinds of things would you follow 1., for which 2., and for which 3.?
Euthanasia is morally wrong and can create many problems in society namely the elderly fearing to go to the doctor when they are ill for fear of being bumped off.
having said that though i don't want to become old and senile, lose my independance and ultimately suffer the indignity of not being able to make it to the toilet in time! so every out there- if i become a physical wreak and a pain to society you have the permission to end my life by the quickest means possible
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by bezIt does not quite work like that, it is not state murder, its personal choice.
Euthanasia is morally wrong and can create many problems in society namely the elderly fearing to go to the doctor when they are ill for fear of being bumped off.
The point is that if you have a right to live you have a right to die, this is a concept that in no way encroaches upon the basic rules of our society.
If you have a terminal illness, you are going to die anyway, so why be put through pain. Let people die with dignity. The only real reason to not allow this is the power of religious groups and their views of morality.
I would say it is immoral to force someone to suffer needlessly in pain just so you can force your own belief structure upon them.
Andrew
To answer the original question, I myself am a Christian and I do:
1 - always
2 - consistently, but only once per individual per instance.
3 - never. I believe an "enforced" morality is wrong.
As you said, most people fall in between including myself. I don't really like classifications. Not so much as an analysis by another individual, but rather the indiviuals adherance to a set policy written "in stone". While I would say "never" to the fundamentalist, my beliefs DO affect my vote and other indirect actions. Likewise in two, I may repeat a statement on morality to an individual if I feel it would be welcome. As for one, I try but I do fail (also consistently). 😉
