Listen to Erathoniel ranting on and on in good ol' conservative Christian fashion.
Published on August 5, 2008 By erathoniel In Religion

I've heard the "It's against my religion" excuse so many times. It's not a good reason. I'm gonna put a Christian slant on it, but this is probably universally true. If the reason you don't like something is because "it's against my religion", you need to reevaluate your life. Sure there are things that your religion may prevent you from doing, but, to tell you the truth, you should find them objectionable, or wrong, rather than just "against my religion". You should follow the rules, but if you can't accept them, there needs to be a self-inspection.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 06, 2008

I need specifics.  If someone offers you a ham sandwich and it's against your religion, what's wrong with saying it's against my religion?  I don't get it. 

on Aug 06, 2008

I think his point is that if something is against your reglion then you should automatically find it so repusive that doing it isn't an option.  He appears to be aguring against the fact that people use their good book as a guide for life and mearly use their internal though processes.

on Aug 06, 2008

That was a very short article, so I am quoting it here basically in full:

 

I've heard the "It's against my religion" excuse so many times. It's not a good reason.

Why not? Religion gives us guidelines for moral behaviour. Why is it not a good reason to follow a certain system of morality?

 

 

I'm gonna put a Christian slant on it, but this is probably universally true. If the reason you don't like something is because "it's against my religion", you need to reevaluate your life.

Why? And what does it have to do with "like"? I _like_ ham (I have nothing against it). But if it is against my religion, I don't eat it. Religion doesn't tell me not to like ham. It just tells me not to eat it. You can eat it, I don't mind.

 

Sure there are things that your religion may prevent you from doing, but, to tell you the truth, you should find them objectionable, or wrong, rather than just "against my religion".

There is nothing wrong with eating ham sandwiches. There is also nothing wrong with having your kid baptised or naming it after the patron saint of Ireland (Patrick). None of these things are wrong. But some religions forbid them.

I don't see why a Jew should find eating ham sandwiches "wrong". What is the moral value of eating ham? Assuming that eating beef is OK, eating ham certainly doesn't have a different moral value. Dead animal is dead animal.

Judaism forbids (Jews) the eating of ham. But it doesn't make any statements about the morality of eating ham per se.

So why should I find eating ham objectionable?

Come here and eat a ham sandwich and see if I care.

 

You should follow the rules, but if you can't accept them, there needs to be a self-inspection.


What does that mean?

on Aug 06, 2008

Why not? Religion gives us guidelines for moral behaviour. Why is it not a good reason to follow a certain system of morality?

Follow, yes, but you should avoid it with a knowledge that it's wrong, not merely preached as "wrong".

Why? And what does it have to do with "like"? I _like_ ham (I have nothing against it). But if it is against my religion, I don't eat it. Religion doesn't tell me not to like ham. It just tells me not to eat it. You can eat it, I don't mind.

Again, yes, but you should not avoid it just "for your religion", you should see the consequences.

on Aug 06, 2008
So we should only follow the laws of our religion when we can see the full consequences of our actions? For how long? If I can plot out what happens for the next 50 year after following god's rule of letting those who work on Sunday live is against his will should I then follow it?
Or are you just referring to the thought that god will dislike you?
on Aug 06, 2008

So we should only follow the laws of our religion when we can see the full consequences of our actions?

No, we should consider potential consequences of those actions, so we can know why to avoid said actions.

For how long?

Do you really have to ask?

If I can plot out what happens for the next 50 year after following god's rule of letting those who work on Sunday live is against his will should I then follow it?

Why work when you can claim an excuse not to, and because God says it, it's not sluggishness? It's one of those self-rewarding rules.

Or are you just referring to the thought that god will dislike you?

God loves everyone.

on Aug 06, 2008
I think I'm hearing you on this, Erathoniel. Like, you shouldn't say murder is against your religion - you should be against murder for it's own sake, too.

Then, when they ask you, "Why is it against your religion?" you have a solid answer. "Because doing that hurts myself and others."

It's not against my religion to give advice, but that doesn't mean that my advice won't lead to harm anyway. But it is against my religion to murder, because no matter what it will lead to harm. (God will still make it work out for good, but a lot of pain could have been avoided)
on Aug 06, 2008

Thank you, Jythier.

on Aug 07, 2008

Again, yes, but you should not avoid it just "for your religion", you should see the consequences.


Eating ham doesn't have any consequences that eating beef doesn't have.



I think I'm hearing you on this, Erathoniel. Like, you shouldn't say murder is against your religion - you should be against murder for it's own sake, too.


Without moral guidelines, murder doesn't have a moral value and their is no "own sake".

Lions murder each other in the wild. It's nature.

I'm not saying that these moral guidelines must be a religion. They can be based on any humanist philosophy as well, even nationalism and certainly utilitarianism. But without such guidelines, murder doesn't have a moral value and is just an action typical for nature.
on Aug 07, 2008

Leauki
Eating ham doesn't have any consequences that eating beef doesn't have.

That depends on how you cook it. You can cook a blood rare beef steak, but its not a good idea to do the same with pork.

 

on Aug 07, 2008

Yep, see, one of the points of Kosher law. The Israelites did not have cooking directions.

on Aug 08, 2008

That depends on how you cook it. You can cook a blood rare beef steak, but its not a good idea to do the same with pork.


Hardly a moral consequence.
on Aug 08, 2008

Hardly a moral consequence.

Yes, but it's included in laws so the Israelites don't have to learn everything the hard way.

on Aug 08, 2008

Yes, but it's included in laws so the Israelites don't have to learn everything the hard way.


True.
on Aug 13, 2008

If I might chime in here:  When people reply, "Its against my religion" I think that are saying that they want to abide by their faith's precepts.  Most religions have precept ceremonies in one form or another.  When we take these precepts, it means we are making them our own and promising not to violate them.  So, in effect, its a shorthand answer.

Be well.

2 Pages1 2