Constructive gadfly
Published on August 29, 2004 By stevendedalus In Religion

If religion is so ingrained in millions why is so much time devoted to justify it? Do people of faith really need “evidence” that a fishing boat discovered in the Sea of Galilee is the one which Jesus was on board? Nor should those with faith care that crucifixions victims’ feet were nailed by straddling the feet to the back side of the cross, contrary to artist’s imagination of one foot over the other. Perhaps it is simply to render material artifacts to a jaded faith or to justify vindictiveness.

Why should we care where King David was buried? Faith needs no proof that he once existed. So what if there is no evidence of a mass exodus of enslaved Jews from Egypt? Is not the long standing belief that it did happen sufficient for those of faith? Or is to justify their hatred for another group?

The abysmal history of inhumanity toward humans does not justify worshiping Satan, but the prevalence of evil does necessitate the need to counter this trend with a God who champions the wholesome spirit of peace and good will, rather than leave it to fraudulent divisions that perpetrate precisely the opposite, in which case, it is justified to question not the faith itself but its objectives that cross the grain of common sense that humanity, if for no other reason than the preservation of the species, survive and band together to live well.

All the bellicose of a sanctimonious Jerry Falwell does not express the intent of Christian religion that endorses peace, nor should the horrid actions and aims of an Osama bin Laden be allowed to usurp Islam. Nevertheless, these detestable figures preach to their respective sects with complete immunity, and even worse, are implicitly supported by millions who are reluctant or intimidated to answer back.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: August 29, 2004.


Comments
on Aug 31, 2004
Being a Christian I feel no desire to justify any of it to you or anyone else. For me, the proof is all around. Most of the time I think people are wasting their time trying to convince those you do not want to believe. Christian's should remember that it is not their job to "save" anyone, there are those called, those yet to be called and those called who have rejected. Answering questions or presenting the gospel is one thing, feeling compelled to attempt to prove something to an atheist or agnostic is simply a waste of time. The same can be said for anyone trying to disprove Christianity to me. So, I do not consider my faith fragile in the least.

I do agree however, that many people (both those with a faith and those without) use religion as a justification for hatred, murder, war, etc.
Thanks
on Sep 01, 2004

Good point on exploiting religion, for or against, to justify the ills of the world.

The same can be said for anyone trying to disprove Christianity to me. So, I do not consider my faith fragile in the least.
  Good for you--keep the faith.

on Sep 01, 2004
Good for you--keep the faith.

Oh I will...
on Sep 01, 2004
Good for you--keep the faith.

Oh I will...
on Sep 01, 2004
steven....excellent post.

I have always steered away from apologetics for this reason. The faithful don't NEED rationalizations for their faith, and the nonbeliver won't buy them anyway.
on Sep 07, 2004
Good points. I doubt that many slamming Islam - and I see lots on this site - have an actual functional copy of the Koran in their house. When I've read through mine, it oddly reads alot like my bible. But shhh, don't tell some Christians that, they'll (without having read the "offending" document) assure me that it's alot different.

JW

on Sep 08, 2004
JW - you are making assumptions that no one has read the Koran. Regardless, what was your point?
on Sep 08, 2004
Good points. I doubt that many slamming Islam - and I see lots on this site - have an actual functional copy of the Koran in their house. When I've read through mine, it oddly reads alot like my bible. But shhh, don't tell some Christians that, they'll (without having read the "offending" document) assure me that it's alot different.


Actually, every devout Muslim I have ever met has been quite offended by the use of "KORAN", which I would think that people sensitive to the Muslim faith should know. They FAR prefer the English spelling to be "Qu'ran", and it's not a small issue with them in the least (although I don't understand the difference, I nonetheless respect their preferences).

As to the Qu'ran "reading a lot like the bible", there's a reason for that. The Qu'ran actually reads much like the OLD Testament (as opposed to the New Testament), which is substantial for reasons to follow. The Qu'ran is originally written in Arabic; the Old Testament (the Torah) in Hebrew and Chaldean; linguistically similar languages that do not translate directly to English. As a consequence, readers of English versions of either fail to get a full and complete understanding of the context of certain passages, as the style of Middle Eastern poetry differs from western poetry, and the word pictures are painted in such a way as to have someone indigenous to the area have the capacity to fully understand them without needing to be highly educated.

Because of the complications of translation, many who use English as their primary language must rely on the bias of the interpreter to explain certain concepts to us (a wonderful example of this: the word "jihad". It holds different meanings in practical faith for different Muslims, as a result, an interpreter who relies on radical factions as their source will see jihad as being a violent call to arms, while one who relies on more moderate clerics as their source will see jihad as being a spiritual struggle. Both will be right, and both will be wrong).

For the record, I HAVE read the Qu'ran, and I have seen the passages that anti-Muslims use against the Muslim faith. I cannot rightly say whether it is a situation of translator's bias, but I CAN say it's premature for someone to assume that everyone besides themself is poorly educated to the matter.
on Sep 09, 2004

Both will be right, and both will be wrong).
Ah, the ambivalence of interpretations!

Very illuminating comment, Gideon.