A very common counterpoint I see to many anti-Christianity debates is the you cant pick your flavor of religion, which is not only inaccurate, but commonly missing the point of the actual argument. I first pose the question of why cant people have religion tailored to fit their needs? Religion is a functionalist institution at the macro level in certain respects, so its fair to extrapolate that something similar would happen at the micro level. At the macro, it serves to act as a rough moral guideline and attempt to provide answers to the great unknowns (universal origins, the experience of death, human sentience, etc.). At the micro level, people use religion for a number of things. Ill use two Christians as examples: my mother and a personal friend named James. My mother uses Christianity for the friendly community it offers (in my area, the Christians are genuinely kinder than atheists), as a consistency in life for the sole purpose of its consistency, and to help her cope with whatever may happen when she dies. She believes in the omniscient, human-focused God and believes that Jesus is the son of man. It works for her and she keeps a complete open mind to other opinions, especially with an agnostic son who loves comparative religion. Now for James. James doesnt believe in Jesus or his stories and posits that the Christian God does exist, but hes not human-focused... hes universally focused. Hes read the Bible numerous times and uses it for life contexts in the form of philosophy and a moral backbone. When I asked him whats appealing about Christianity he said that he likes a religion where the driving theme is selflessness. Now, these are both very different takes on Christianity, but both would never say they are anything but. Are they wrong and delusional, or can religion mean different things to different people?
Posted on: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:57:12 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015