> > Since Grishny's views are based on his religious beliefs, however, I'm not going to go into this further.
>
> This happens an awful lot, and I'm really starting to wonder why. Why is it that any opinion is acceptable if it's based on religion while if someone had the same opinion for completely non-religious reasons everyone would be all over them for it? Is this religious equality running rampant? Or do you think that this is the way it should be, with people not needing to explain their opinions other than to say it's a religious thing?

Wes sort of beat me to the punch on this one, but I agree with him. There seems to be a tendency among the non-religious politically-correct crowd (and I do not mean to lump BG in with these scallywags) to sort of give religious beliefs a pass from logical examination. In my opinion, this cheapens religion because it makes the assumption that religion is inherently untrue (or at least incapable of being discussed logically). In reality, if a religious belief is true, then it is as true as anything else. In other words, if the belief "God exists" is true, then we should be able to talk about it in the same sense that we'd say, "this rock exists."

The problem we run into is that the belief "God exists" generally seems to come down to a matter of faith. But that's okay, because most religions have other beliefs, which are more verifiable. The current discussion provides a good example: gender roles in marriage. If Grishny believes the way he does because The Bible says it to be so, that's okay. But it doesn't mean we have to stop talking about it. Surely there is other evidence, besides "God wants it this way," to discuss?

I'm not saying this very clearly, so let me muddy it up more with an analogy. If I'm taking a physics class and the professor tells me, "Gravity exists and this is how it functions," I'm inclined to believe him. I don't, however, have to accept this on blind faith. I can look and see if gravity functions the way he says through my own observations and experimentation. Likewise, if God says marriage should be a certain way because it's the best way, then we can look at the way spouses interact and come up with evidence to help verify it.

What I'm really trying to say is that if we assume God exists, is perfect and wants the best for us, then we can conclude that anything He tells us to do is the best way to function. As such, we can examine what he tells us to do and decide whether or not it's true, based upon evidence that doesn't require a belief in God.

Did that make any sense?

Stephen