Religion
Related: About this forumStupid Religion
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2014/08/stupid-stupid-religion/August 7, 2014
by John Shore
I just had another one of those conversations. The conversation I seem to have a lot these days with my Christian friends, gay and straight, about what it means to be a Christian.
Am I still a “good Christian” if I don’t go to church? Am I a good Christian if I cuss, if I have sex with my girlfriend or boyfriend? And of course, that one question that seems to preoccupy the evangelical world right now: Can I be a good Christian if I’m gay?
Franklin Graham, the hostile son of that epitome of Christian kindness Billy Graham, thinks not. And he’s spouting his morality-driven view of Christianity in all the media. For him, and for many in the church world, Christianity is defined in terms of do’s and don’ts. Rules. Outward behavior.
And ya know, to some extent, I would agree with that. But only to the extent that “behavior” is defined as how we treat other people.
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)many religions.
People just need to be reminded.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...the "presence" of an invisible deity isn't a pre-requisite for treating people fairly...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Welcome to the religion group, PF.
gordianot
(15,229 posts)Unfortunately later Christian literature trying to attribute divinity focused on rules contrary to that central message. What has transpired in Christianity it descends into a hate group much like other fundamentalist sects in Islam, Hindu, Judaism etc. All of this just wrecks any value in organized religion to the point it makes organized religion dangerous.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)differences be recognized.
It is important that we, as liberals and progressives, support the groups that are pursuing the central message of the golden rule, and shine bright lights upon those that use their religion to promote hate and discrimination.
Fundamentalist sects can be and are sometimes dangerous but that doesn't wreck any value of organized religion. If anything, it makes it even more important that the liberal/progressive sects receive recognition and support.
gordianot
(15,229 posts)Thankfully that has slowed down some but the old desires are just as strong in America fundamentalist as they are in the Middle East. Wars and bigotry in the name of religion seems to have made a resurgence. The good Christian's of Central Europe who gave us great philosophers, music and science were silent during industrial level religious genocide. I feel we are at the point our good wishes and approval may mean little
cbayer
(146,218 posts)saved by religious groups.
There is no doubt that religion can be and has been a force of both good and evil in this world.
That is why it is so important to be able to differentiate and avoid making broad, baseless statements about all of religion.
I think you are wrong. There is clear evidence that liberal/progressive religious people and groups are taking it back and they deserve all the good wishes and approval we can give them.
To do otherwise is just conceding to the right wing fundamentalists.
bvf
(6,604 posts)at the same time. Being a good person without having to rely on the guidance of some imagined being strikes me as being a step ahead, morality-wise.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to hold that position, go for it.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Nobody's saying anything about superiority here. I'm just making the point that it's ridiculous, even tragic sometimes, to invoke belief in some imaginary being as justification for our perceptions.
Religion = War.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Your mistake is in assuming that people who believe in god only derive their morals from their religious beliefs. And your assumption that what they believe in is "imaginary" has no basis in fact. How rational is that?
Religion does play a part in many wars, but lots of other factors do as well. Religion also plays a part in peace.
Any more dogma you want to toss?
bvf
(6,604 posts)And kind of scary.
Show me what facts counter what you refer to as my assumptions. If anyone's spouting dogma here, it's certainly not me.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Now you have to judge me without the shield of calling me a true believer.
bvf
(6,604 posts)is another big part of the problem. Do you live your life that way? You could probably use some religion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You wrote a very judgmental post based on an incorrect assumption about me.
I'm not going to make this personal and tell you what I think you need, but thanks for the advice.
bvf
(6,604 posts)And you're welcome.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)tend to be paranoid about being judged themselves. Not saying that applies to anyone in particular here, of course.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)One group thinking it is in some way better than another is the basis for fascism, and the driving force behind hatred and mistrust of the other, leading to ethnic/religious cleansing. Religion is not a necessary ingredient.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I don't think I was saying that.
By "a step ahead," I simply meant to imply that one doesn't need a deity to dictate one's attitude towards other human beings.
The minute you invoke your god to justify your actions is the minute the problem arises. Everyone thinks his/her god is good. That's the problem, IMO.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I pointed out how it came across. Otherwise, I agree with you.
eomer
(3,845 posts)That's what the OP article says about a group that he disagrees with. So will you apply your principle also to him and say, since he clearly thinks he is a step ahead, that he is a problem, a driving force behind hatred and mistrust of the other, a basis for fascism, leading to ethnic/religious cleansing?
cbayer seems to think that the OP article "shines a bright light".
I think this thing you've done here, and cbayer has done as well, is the underlying cause of much of the anger that manifests in this group. You have a drastically different standard for criticism of things that you sanction from that for criticism of things that you don't sanction. You apparently think it is fine to call people "dumbasses", "stupid", "fake", and "garbage", to laugh at their sacred texts on road trips, and all manner of ways in which you imply you're a step ahead of them when those people and their ideas are on your not-sanctioned list. But if someone else applies similar conduct to something that is on your sanctioned, protected list then you come down on them with extremely heavy accusations.
What I would call on the two of you, plus perhaps a few others, to do is to stop haranguing people for calling things stupid that they think are stupid. Stop calling them fascists, bigots, and the driving force behind hatred for calling things stupid that they think are stupid. That seems to me only decency and mutuality since that's exactly the freedom that you give yourselves.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)She is more than capable of defending her own posts, as I am of defending mine. So, you might do us both the favor of treating us as individuals. I defend her only when it comes to personal attacks, not when it comes to her ideas or her posts.
We are participating here on a liberal Democratic website. If you have a question to ask me, then go ahead.
In terms of "sanctioning", let me say that I sanction all and any criticism of any institution or belief system. I also sanction criticism of any individuals who stand for principles contrary to the liberal Democratic standards of DU.
You can attack my thoughts and beliefs all day long. That's fine. But when you insult me by calling me delusional or psychotic for supporting the rights of others to believe whatever they choose, then we are going to have problems.
Don't tell me what to call people. If you don't like the terms I use, then feel free to ignore me or alert on my posts.
I do not insult you, or other DU members and their families.
We have a huge problem of sectarian violence in this world right now. This violence is driven by small numbers of fanatical religious fundamentalists. When I see those same tactics of disruption, be it on a much smaller scale and in a more benign setting, used to spread intolerance, I stand against it.
Being an atheist doesn't mean I have to support the same kind of intolerance that comes from extreme religious fundamentalists, just because this time it emanates from those who share my lack of belief in a deity.
eomer
(3,845 posts)Clearly it was believers who were called that. You're not a believer so you weren't called delusional or psychotic.
And calling believers delusional does not seem any worse to me than saying that you laughed all day at the Book of Mormon on a road trip. Is there a difference to you?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and those non-believers who disagree with his "diagnosis" are deemed to be apologists. I find that pretty fucking insulting. I don't know about you. Maybe you can take it up with him when he returns from his sabbatical.
Did I say I laughed all day at the Book of Mormon? Really? I remember reading parts of it which were pretty amusing. Is there some kind of problem with that? Have you never read anything so funny it made you laugh? I often have a good chuckle when listening to radio in the Bible Belt. It's funny stuff. Sorry if my sense of humor offends you.
Is there a difference between personal attacks on fellow DUers and laughing at a book or the radio? Yes, my friend, there is a huge fucking difference.
Is there a difference between calling a bunch of RW legislators in Oklahoma dumbasses and calling members of this group psychotic and delusional? You bet your ass there is.
Is there a difference between lighthearted humor and outright bigotry? Damn right there is.
This is what your buddy posted.
eomer
(3,845 posts)And how valid you judge their beliefs to be also has nothing to do with whether it's bigotry.
If saying that you laughed all day at the sacred texts of some group of believers (Mormons) is not bigotry then saying that believers in general are delusional is also not bigotry. And to be clear my personal opinion is that neither is bigotry, although I would say that the laughing all day thing is getting close to it. A general statement that believers are delusional doesn't seem even close to me. I'd prefer saying that they're deluded because that seems like a more accurate characterization but delusional seems like a fairly reasonable statement too.
Calling believers psychotic is a bit different, in my opinion. It's a statement of fact that is false. I would call it hyperbole more than bigotry (I think - perhaps I could be convinced on this one).
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I was laughing at a book. You may think it is sacred, I think it is a book. And not even a very old book, just a funny book, that some folk had made a religion out of. How is that bigotry. We did not laugh at the people, but treated them with respect. Their beliefs are their business. I may ridicule the beliefs, but I would never ridicule the believer. There lies the difference between the bigot and the respectful other.
Do you enter another's house and piss on his crucifix or his menorah or his prayer rug? I don't. I respect his customs, his traditions and his beliefs, as long as they offend nobody outside of his home. If he brings those things into the marketplace and tries to sell them to me, then he is fair game and subject to my scorn, if that is what I feel.
In the privacy of my home or my car I am free to laugh and ridicule whatever strikes my fancy. Call me a hypocrite, if you like. We are all hypocrites to a degree, but how we treat others is what counts.
Thinking certain believers are delusional, it is quite different to saying believers are delusional. We are all prejudiced by our own beliefs and opinions. Expressing that prejudice in public is bigotry. I think the current word is "filtering". Apparently some of our DU brethren have a very poor filtering system. This is fine if you want to live in a cave and howl at the world. But here, we are part of a group, which in turn is part of a community. Hence, there are rules which establish a certain decorum. That means we don't call each other delusional and psychotic and we don't make shit up about each other and insult each others' families.
Now you are saying that "psychotic" may not be an appropriate term for believers. I guess we agree, though I would hardly describe it as "hyperbole".
eomer
(3,845 posts)is not disrespectful but saying in public that believers are delusional is not only disrespectful, it is bigotry? I'm sorry but there isn't any real difference between saying you laugh all day at someone's ideas and saying that they are delusional.
I should clarify, though, that I checked and it was actually cbayer who said publicly that the two of you spent all day on a road trip through Utah laughing at passages in the Book of Mormon. So I should have directed my complaint to her rather than to you. Perhaps she would like to jump into the conversation and either retract or defend what she said. In case she would, below is another post of hers I found while looking for the one we were talking about. I guess when she talks below about being respectful of local beliefs and customs when she travels to other places she means that she will laugh at and mock them in the privacy of her car but will put on a respectful façade when she steps out and can be seen and heard. But the thing is that bigotry is still bigotry even when you do it in private. I personally don't think that what you and cbayer do is bigotry; my point is that neither is what SS did - there's no real difference.
Also, I'm pretty sure that either you or cbayer said publicly that you recently got lots of laughs by reading the posts of one of the regulars of this group. I can't find that post now so maybe it was in the Forum Hosts forum before it was given more restrictive access rules.
So, yes, this does all seem very hypocritical. You and cbayer both constantly call people out for the exact things that you yourselves do. You often do it in public here on DU (where it will also be read by people who are not DU members) and apparently find it amusing to do it when it's just the two of you in private.
80. Religious discrimination remains a problem to this day and is aimed at
non-believers and certain groups of believers. Mocking them or their private rituals does nothing to combat that.
There will always be differences, and that's ok by me. People should be allowed to affiliate with whatever group they want. That's the basis of the first amendment. To have everyone on the same page begins to sound like state sponsored religion, and, as you point out, that's a very slippery slope indeed.
I have attended catholic masses for a variety of reasons. I don't take communion and I also don't kneel, cross myself or dip into the holy water.
No one seems to mind.
But it would never occur to me to mock or laugh or show any sign of derision. I approach it like I do when I travel to different countries.
I am a guest. While I may not understand or agree with the cultural practices, it would be wrong for me to not respect them. If a country (say Pakistan) has practices that I just can not accept under any circumstances, I'm not going to go there. Period.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We did spend a day driving through Utah once and I remember reading aloud some funny things from The Book of Mormon. None of what I read was sacred. I tried reading some of that but my head started spinning. The funny part was about the origins of the book.
I suggest you address your other questions to cbayer. I neither speak nor answer for her, nor are we in any sort of league here. As I have said before, we are individuals with different thoughts and ideas. Please treat us as such and you will garner more respect.
I call people out for making personal insults against fellow DUers. I also call people out for broad brushed bigoted remarks like saying all believers are delusional and psychotic.
If you are unable to see the difference between the way either of us behaves on DU compared to SS, then I can't help you. Maybe a visit to his Transparency Page will give you a hint.
eomer
(3,845 posts)At least that's my understanding - that all of the Book of Mormon is sacred to people of the LDS church.
So mocking anything in there is no better (or worse) than saying that believers are delusional. Clearly your opinion of those beliefs that you mock is similar to SS's opinion of a general belief in God - you each think that the belief in question is ridiculous and that you should be able to say so out loud, publicly.
Saying that all believers are psychotic is, as I said, different in my opinion. So we could maybe have a different conversation about that specifically. But in general what SS is saying is no worse than what ST is saying - you are both mocking a religious belief and saying you think it is ridiculous. Aiming at a more specific religious belief does not excuse it from being bigotry - in fact I think that aiming at a more specific belief is likely to trip the bigotry wire more quickly than aiming at a more general religious belief because it is more likely directed at a group of people that are being othered. Aiming at a more general religious belief is more likely an intellectual thought process that has nothing to do with any group of people.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I do not think believers are delusional. They are believers. Some may be delusional, just as some atheists may be delusional. Religious belief has nothing to do with delusion. And it is incredibly arrogant and narrow minded to make such blanket statements.
I may think a particular belief is ridiculous, but I do not think the believer is necessarily ridiculous. It all depends how the belief is processed and deployed. If it helps an individual when dealing with life's struggles, then the belief may well be beneficial, no matter how ridiculous you or I may consider it. Nothing is going to work for you if you don't believe it, but if nothing else there is a placebo effect, imo, which seems to work for many who pray.
Believers are no more psychotic or delusional than anyone else. Mocking beliefs is not bigotry. Mocking believers for their beliefs is bigotry. Why do you find that so hard to understand?
I have friends of all religious persuasions. I do not mock them or think any are delusional for their beliefs. If they want to discuss a particular belief, I am open to discussion. One of my closest friends, for example, is an observant Jew. We discussed circumcision on one occasion and I told him that I considered it to be child abuse. He remembered the conversation, and one evening we were both at his rabbi's house having some dinner. Rabbi is Hasidic, btw. Anyway, my friend brought up my comment about circumcision over dinner. Tact is not one of his fortes. However, the rabbi responded, saying that I was absolutely correct and that circumcision is child abuse, unless one is Jewish. I can't remember if he mentioned Muslims or not. But he did go on to say that it was part of a tradition and that if one were not part of that tradition, then it could definitely be considered child abuse. I still think it is abuse, regardless of one's Jewishness, but I respect his answer and his beliefs.
Calling others delusional for their beliefs is divisive and cause a lot of strife in this world. We are better when we reach out and try to understand and respect others for their differences, rather than their sameness.
eomer
(3,845 posts)You think you can say, "I find your religious beliefs so ridiculous that they are funny. I read them for entertainment because they make me laugh". But then you can add, "but don't get me wrong - I totally respect you for believing them".
This is itself ridiculous. There is no difference between saying you laugh at someone's beliefs because they are so ridiculous and mocking a person for believing them.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)First let me say that I was not laughing at a belief. I was laughing at a story. I found it humorous. It was the story of Joseph Smith and how he discovered the gold plates, which mysteriously disappeared. Nothing to do with the spiritual beliefs of Mormons or their value system.
My encounters with Mormons has always been good and mutually respectful. I have pointed out, on occasion, my sense of amusement surrounding this amazing story of "discovery". And the response I get is, either you accept it and believe or you don't. Which is basically what all religions are about. You either believe and embrace or you don't. No big deal.
I may find a particular belief ridiculous, yes. Let's take the "virgin birth" for example. But I always thought that was ridiculous, even when I was a believer. To me, it was all allegorical and still is. Most believers I talk to see the Bible as being primarily allegorical. But it doesn't matter to what degree that is. Religion is about faith not facts, and nobody disputes that.
Some beliefs I respect, some I categorically reject, but I respect the individual's right to believe whatever, provided that belief harms nobody. I laugh at lots of people I respect and lots of them laugh at me. I don't insult them though, and I don't lie about them, and I don't distort what they say and I don't accuse them of things they haven't done. And I never twist their words and engage in smear campaigns against the families of those I disagree with.
eomer
(3,845 posts)Don't think I have anything to add. See my previous posts.
okasha
(11,573 posts)"I think eomer is mistaken" and "Eomer is delusional." And I'll bet you can see that difference--quite, quite clearly.
Though I do think that your belief that they're the same when applied to other people is ridiculous. Not laughable, just ridiculous.
eomer
(3,845 posts)There is obviously a softer, more diplomatic way that neither party chose to use.
If cbayer's post that I cited had instead been:
"We think Mormons are mistaken"
then this entire subthread would never have occurred.
But what she said was:
"We once spent a full day of a road trip laughing while reading the Book of Mormon going through Utah. It was pretty entertaining."
I'm personally more inclined to say things in that softer way. For example, I probably wouldn't have gratuitously added "fucking" to my post like you did and I wouldn't have shouted "HUGE". But the point we were discussing was about "delusional" compared with "laughable", essentially. Neither one of them said "mistaken".
Edit to add: I do think Mormons are mistaken.
Second edit: To be clear, I think that neither "delusional" nor "laughable" rises to a level that is unacceptable here in this group. I'm not trying to police what cbayer said. Rather I am asking her to realize she is using a standard for other people that she doesn't apply to herself. That said, there is some level at which speech becomes hate speech and is unacceptable. This stuff just isn't at that level, in my opinion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You and a few others love to take pretty much everything I say out of context in order to paint an ugly, distorted picture.
About 4 years ago, I called a group of legislators that had proffered a bill to make creationism a science requirement a bunch of dumbasses. This has been repeated over and over again, completely distorted and used to somehow show I am a full blown bigot and hypocrite. Where you get the stupid, fake and garbage ideas from, I do not know. But like your friends, making accusations without any links or evidence seems to be the norm.
Here is my exact posts about reading the Book of Mormon while on the road and another in the same time frame:
"FWIW, the Book of Mormon has provided us with much entertainment when on the road."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=80314
" I recently read the Book of Mormon and also found it rather surprising in parts."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=84121
That doesn't even come close to what you accuse me of posting. Either you knew that and posted this hoping it would not be challenged, or you have picked up this meme from others and swallowed it without question. If you look at my posts about Mormons, they are generally neutral, if not positive. Your accusations are completely unfounded and do not reflect the "reason" that is so often crowed about.
I take issue with anti-theists because I think they are destructive and divisive. I take issue with the religious right for the same reason. I am critical of zealots, extremists and dislike proselytizing of all types. You have painted a picture of me that is not accurate but apparently serves some purpose.
eomer
(3,845 posts)22. We once spent a full day of a road trip laughing while reading
the Book of Mormon going through Utah. It was pretty entertaining.
-snip-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=136850
Contrast that with this that you wrote less than two months ago:
80. Religious discrimination remains a problem to this day and is aimed at
non-believers and certain groups of believers. Mocking them or their private rituals does nothing to combat that.
-snip-
But it would never occur to me to mock or laugh or show any sign of derision. I approach it like I do when I travel to different countries.
I am a guest. While I may not understand or agree with the cultural practices, it would be wrong for me to not respect them. If a country (say Pakistan) has practices that I just can not accept under any circumstances, I'm not going to go there. Period.
I guess I addressed my complaint to Starboard Tack because his post #9 is what ticked me off. You posted something similar in post #8 but didn't take it quite as far, not far enough to trigger me to respond like he did. Here are those two posts:
8. It's not a step ahead morality wise, but if it makes you feel superior
to hold that position, go for it.
9. When individuals or groups think they are "a step ahead, morality-wise", we have a problem
One group thinking it is in some way better than another is the basis for fascism, and the driving force behind hatred and mistrust of the other, leading to ethnic/religious cleansing. Religion is not a necessary ingredient.
And finally compare with this post by bvf that prompted Starboard Tack to make those very heavy accusations:
7. You can be religious and a good person
at the same time. Being a good person without having to rely on the guidance of some imagined being strikes me as being a step ahead, morality-wise.
My point is that the two of you are obviously fine with mocking other religions as long as they are religions that you've decided are ridiculous. But if someone else (bvf in this case) says something mildly mocking of religion in general then you make all sorts of accusations. In this case Starboard Tack accused bvf of being "the basis for fascism, and the driving force behind hatred and mistrust of the other, leading to ethnic/religious cleansing". That's a pretty heavy accusation compared to what bvf posted that triggered it. That's why I felt it necessary to show the two of you that what bvf posted is not worse than things the two of you post from time to time.
And my point about "stupid, fake and garbage" was that these are things that the OP article author called others whose religious beliefs are different than his and yet neither you nor ST criticized him for thinking he is superior. It's a double standard - one for religious ideas that you sanction (like belief in God) and a different one for religious ideas that you don't sanction (like Mormonism).
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Have you read the Book of Mormon, by the way? Have you seen the play by any chance.
Both are very entertaining.
What you quote me as saying pales in comparison to what is said about the bible around here.
I'm not going to get into a conversation about your interaction with another member. That's between you and him. I have only responded to you here because you saw a reason to bring me into it.
I do think you make some valid points about how I mocking some things and am less than tolerant of those that mock others. I guess we all have our areas where we do that. On DU, mocking republicans is not only acceptable but encouraged. I think certain things are cults and don't qualify as religions. I think the religious right is an anathema and have no issue with mocking them at certain times.
But I see that as different than those who mock, belittle or denigrate all religious people and groups and seem unable to see that some of these people are very much on our side politically.
So when a member makes a broad brush statement about all of religion and all believers, I am highly likely to object to that.
I see it as different than mocking or attacking specific groups based on their specific beliefs and agendas. Attacking or mocking people simply based on their having a general religious belief is prejudice and sometimes bigotry. The same would be true of mocking and attacking people based solely on their lack of belief.
I would appreciate you directing your comments about me to me in the future. ST and I are different people and we don't hold the same POV about a lot of things.
eomer
(3,845 posts)I think it's reasonable to say you think it's not a good idea to mock people who are political allies but is a good idea to mock people who are political opponents. But that's different than the question of what is prejudice and bigotry. There isn't any such rule that says that mocking the specific beliefs of some group is not prejudice and bigotry while mocking more general beliefs is. In fact I think it's arguable that mocking specific beliefs is more a sign of prejudice than mocking religion in general. The former is likely due to one being conditioned to think of beliefs that are "closer to home" as normal while beliefs that you haven't grown up with or around as being foreign. So one mocks the foreign beliefs (Mormonism) but feels uncomfortable mocking the beliefs of your own community (liberal Christianity, say). A person who grew up in a different part of the world might mock what you're comfortable with and be comfortable with what you mock. That seems like prejudice to me.
But a person who mocks belief in God in general is likely doing so out of a thought process that has nothing to do with their local prejudices. It's likely more a conclusion from studying and thinking about philosophy and a conclusion that people anywhere in the world can reach regardless of the specific religions they grew up with. It's often, in my opinion, a result of throwing off the prejudices from your upbringing and thinking about it just for yourself.
The bottom line is I think you should stop calling people bigots for mocking religious ideas that seem reasonable to you. They seem ridiculous to someone else and that person mocking them is no more bigotry than you mocking the things that you find ridiculous. If mocking religious ideas that one finds ridiculous is not bigotry for you then it's not bigotry for everyone else.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)about religion, religious people or religious groups in general, not when they mock specific ideas.
It is bigotry to paint huge swaths of people with the same brush merely because their ideas are different than yours. This is particularly true when there are profound differences within that group. That is the definition of bigotry.
If I have used it in the way you describe, then I have been wrong. I will try to be more thoughtful about that.
Taking a position that there is no god is perfectly fine and often the result of the process you outline. It does not require attacking those who have followed a different path and found a different position. It is only those whose position is weak that have to bully and demean others just because they are different.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 12, 2014, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)
Calling people "bigots" is simple name-calling.
For more, see also my remarks on Plato, and faith, post 85 in the OP on Authentic religion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=145978
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that none of the good that has ever been done was impossible without religion. But only religion could have put the alleged dictates of its unproven god above the welfare of millions of people. Only the psychotic and deluded could believe that using condoms is a grave sin that outweighs the suffering and starvation caused by overpopulation, starvation and the spread of AIDS.
And only a certain kind of person would be an apologist for that kind of insanity.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)They'll never be able to make good or consistent arguments. It requires a certain level of intellectual dishonesty to ignore the putrid ideology the Bible does promote and take only the "good parts". Always has, always will.
pinto
(106,886 posts)I think you missed the point of this article.
rug
(82,333 posts)He did miss the point.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)without any contribution from religion whatsoever.
If you're claiming otherwise or dodging that simple truth, then the one missing the point is you.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Simply stating the article's last line - the wrap up, so to speak. That seems the writer's point, as convoluted as it may have been in the process. I thought that got overlooked in the discussion here. Understandable to an extent, but wanted to point out the take away tag line.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)for what, again? What does religion contribute to society that can't be had through any other means?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nobody here is claiming that goodness can't be achieved without religion. Yet you appear to be obsessed with the fantasy that we are.
Are you expecting to encounter some RW fundies here? Or did you log on to the wrong forum?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And who would that be? Are you speaking for all of the religious believers here? Or are you presuming that your little clique of faitheists and apologists has everything covered?
And if goodness can be achieved just as easily without religion, what kind of person would embrace and defend religion, knowing all of the evil and hatred that it carries with it?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I doubt that those who defend their religion see it with the prejudiced eye that you do.
How do you defend your hatred of those who embrace liberal people of faith? How do you defend your bigotry, in calling them "delusional and psychotic"?
I neither embrace, nor defend religion, but I defend any individual's right to his spiritual beliefs, as I defend your right to be an anti-theist, as abhorrent as your remarks often are.
Please tell us how you manage it?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)How would YOU characterize people whose attitude is "We MUST prevent the use of artificial contraception at any cost, because it's what god wants, and we don't care how many people have to suffer and die horribly as a result".
If you consider condemnation of that attitude "abhorrent", then I can only consider myself amply justified in my assessment of you. I have no problem defending my disgust towards apologists for that attitude. Trying to paint that as nothing more than a "spiritual belief" to justify your apologetics is really beyond the pale.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It is part of RCC doctrine. However, few Catholics subscribe to it, so why attack them? Do you attack all Americans because you may oppose some aspect of its foreign policy?
Intolerance of a particular belief is not bigotry. Intolerance of the followers of an entire religion is pure bigotry.
Intolerance of a single piece of dogma is not bigotry. Branding all Catholics as "delusional and psychotic" is extreme bigotry. But you don't just attack Catholics, you attack all believers and those who support their right to believe.
This is how you succeed in marginalizing yourself.
Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #45)
eomer This message was self-deleted by its author.
Promethean
(468 posts)Yet the pews still get filled, the tithes still paid and there isn't a popular movement within the church to reform. Silence is consent.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you check the attendance at the RC churches?
I do. I doubt you will find too many pews filled in too many churches. The RCC is struggling as it has never struggled to keep its flock.
The RCC is a church in crisis and it has been for quite some time. I am in Italy, where many churches are empty. Many others have been sold and are now private homes, stores and restaurants. Many of those still open for business are tourist attractions.
If you think there is no movement within the Church to reform, then you are seriously out of touch. Most Catholics are lapsed or semi-lapsed, waiting for a reason to return to the fold. This Pope is their hope. They are watching him constantly and hoping that he represents the change they've been waiting for so long.
If the RCC depended on tithes, it would have folded a long time ago. The church still has enormous wealth, mostly consisting of real estate. Some of the most valuable real estate on the planet.
Silence in the churches here in Italy is not consent. It is an empty church.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Companionship, a sense of community, added meaning to life, a spiritual expression, something "other" than day-to-day stuff, a time for reflection, the ritual, a time out, shared goals, specific projects, a history of family involvement, a cultural history, belief in the tenets of a certain religion, dissent, hope, personal turmoil, service, curiosity, the pot lucks, etc. etc.
I suppose you'd have to ask folks one-on-one or in some kind of round-table discussion. I have the sense that we would all find more in common than assumed. Some kind of religious tradition is present in most societies, in general. i.e. They're a part of the larger society, fwiw.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)With the author laying out what real Christianity is, etc. It's a terrible, intellectually dishonest argument with little persuasive power because it's based on a completely subjective basis: interpreting religious scripture, and an unprovable premise: that the god of the Bible exists.
Good luck consisting the fake Christians their wrong, they think this guy is fake with just as "strong" of an argument .
bvf
(6,604 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)They'll never be able to make good or consistent arguments. It requires a certain level of intellectual dishonesty to focus on the "putrid ideology" promoted at times by the Bible and ignore the "good parts".
There, fixed it for you!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that require religion, superstition, magical beliefs, woo-woo or the alleged dictates of an undemonstrated "god" in order to put them into effect. So why would anyone but the deluded and the psychotic think that religion should be embraced or defended when it contributes nothing unique except the bad parts?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nice to know you consider a large percentage of the world's population "deluded and psychotic".
Do you actually believe the bigoted rubbish that you post?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Whose attitude is "We MUST prevent the use of artificial contraception at any cost, because it's what god wants, and we don't care how many people have to suffer and die horribly as a result"
And I'm not "marginalized" by any decent people who reject that sick notion (and yes, "sick" describes it perfectly, no matter how apologists and accommodationists like you try to dress it up). Only by your little clique here, who can't legitimately defend what they're trying to defend, can't respond to tough questions directly, but can only resort to calling everyone who opposes that a "bigot".
And I don't lose any sleep over that, trust me.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Response to bvf (Reply #34)
Post removed
bvf
(6,604 posts)I've yet to hear a rational argument from an evangelist of any stripe.
okasha
(11,573 posts)ST and cbayer are in Italy, several timezones east.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The Bible quote is from Rev. 13.7-8.
And the statement from Freud is well-documented. On DU in fact, we recently spent several weeks presenting dozens of articles from professional psychological journals, that linked religion to delusion. If you missed it, or need a simple summary, here's a simple Wiki reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_delusion
So is SkepticScott "marginalized? Starboard Tack is going against 1) the Bible. And against 2) Freud and a huge body of psychiatric literature. SkepticScott on the other hand, is supported by many key key texts. And often, by many persons on DU like myself.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)However, I disagree with you on that. I think there are some good parts. Some are whole stories like David and Goliath in the OT, and the Good Samaritan in the NT. Those are two that made an impact on me and helped in my personal decision making.
Many are just notable quotes. Here are a few that helped me.
“Do not judge lest you be judged."
"This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place."
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
Of course, I could come up with many notably deplorable quotes, but that's what cherry picking is all about.
Whether these stories and quotes are unique to the Bible is irrelevant. I care more about the story than the library I borrowed it from.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I would personally not root for David in that sense.
'Judge not' is a sentiment not unlike the golden rule, which is of course, older than the texts we are discussing.
I never found anything of inspirational value in the bible. Corinthians has that bit about love, but I must set "it keeps no record of wrongs" against other lines found in the OT, around things like stoning an adulterer to death. One of these things is not like the other.
I don't see any productive way to extract anything useful from the entire collection of texts. Certainly nothing that is philosophically useful, AND unique to the texts.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't claim that the Bible was the only place I could have learned certain values or enjoyed certain stories. Those are just a few that left a mark and that's where I encountered them.
You are far more familiar with the book than I am, or ever was. Live and let live and do unto others as you would have done unto yourself are pretty much the only rules I live by.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The combat between David and Goliath takes place in the context of an Israelite war of liberation against the invading Philistines. The Philistines were one branch of the "Sea Peoples" who were marauding throughout the eastern Mediterranean at the time. David symbolizes the weaker, far less organized, nascent kindom of Israel.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It might be a little bit of an existentialism type point, but that land changed hands so many times, we'd be splitting hairs over whether, for instance, Ashdod was occupied, or a Philistine city in that time period.
phil89
(1,043 posts)to forgive your "sins", I don't see how you can be a good person, christian or otherwise.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)You are so intelligent and articulate, yet your approach to religion reflects such a narrow view.
You have many roads to travel, I think.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That's it. That's the religion in a nutshell. Golden rule? Can find that in dozens of other faiths, some well older than the NT.
Ask a Christian to sum up why their faith is different. You won't get a different answer, in my experience.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The liturgical churches all have deeply sorrowful mourning rituals for the days commemorating the betrayal, crucifixion and burial of Jesus. I can't post videos from my phone, but suggest you check out the hymn "Go to Dark Gethsemane" as an example.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I am usually pointed to the willing sacrifice, as the 'gift', the resurrection is just the proof that he was who he said he was.
okasha
(11,573 posts)For Paul, the entirety of his message hinges on one sentence: "If Christ is not raised, then the dead are not raised." He dwells extensively on the resurrection. The crucifixion is simply a step on the way to get to Easter morning and is glossed over so lightly that the "Jesus never existed" crowd cites his lack of attention to the subject as "evidence" that Paul's Jesus was never a physical human being at all.
It seems to me that you have spoken to relatively few people about this, and that they aren't necessarily the best informed sample you might have consulted. How does your s sample break down by affiliation?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)As I asked of Cbayer, if jesus slips, trips, falls down the stairs and breaks his neck of his own accord, does that fulfill prophecy, and then does his resurrection then satisfy the debt?
okasha
(11,573 posts)But the issue isn't whether or not he's crucified, it's the emphasis put on the crucifixion relative to the resurrection. I just finished a rather long post in response to another of yours detailing the liturgical churches' observances from Thursday to Sunday of Easter week. And again, I'll repeat that the crucifixion is not celebrated except in the sense that it's ceremonially observed. Good Friday is not Happy Friday. I
trotsky
(49,533 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In christianity, this is a very big one indeed and it does differentiate this religion from others.
So what? As Okasha says, the crucifixion is not celebrated, it's the resurrection. There is no rejoicing in the torture and execution of a person.
So while we clearly have a whiner, I do not think we have a winner.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Wow, stay classy cbayer. Makes sure to set the example for what you think is acceptable behavior.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)You put two words into an image search, get some images and think that proves something?
Yes, that's pretty ROFLy.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You couldn't be more wrong. That's what was funny. How wildly wrong you and okasha are. Though, okasha wasn't as glib about it, so I addressed it in a more serious manner.
There are an inordinate amount of Christians that do celebrate the crucifixion, as a total event, because it is their salvation.
This sort of sentiment is extremely common among Christians:
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Good Friday is usually a day of sadness and reflection. The celebration is held on Easter Sunday.
If by "celebrate" you mean recreate, re-enact, talk about, observe and perform rituals, then I guess you have a point. If you mean cheer in a happy and glorious way, you don't.
Anyway, I think most people that find the days notable do not do much celebrating on Friday. It is a very important day and if it makes you feel better to think that christians are celebrating it, go for it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cel·e·brate [sel-uh-breyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), cel·e·brat·ed, cel·e·brat·ing.
1. to observe (a day) or commemorate (an event) with ceremonies or festivities: to celebrate Christmas; to celebrate the success of a new play.
2. to make known publicly; proclaim: The newspaper celebrated the end of the war in red headlines.
3. to praise widely or to present to widespread and favorable public notice, as through newspapers or novels: a novel celebrating the joys of marriage; the countryside celebrated in the novels of Hardy.
4. to perform with appropriate rites and ceremonies; solemnize: to celebrate a marriage.
It doesn't have to be happy.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Except, oops! You said rejoice was the win.
rejoice
verb
feel or show great joy or delight.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)over and over and over, in reference to his death, not just his resurrection. Because his death is the mechanism, not the resurrection.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Anyone who rejoices in the death of christ can not be a good person!
How have I been so blind!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I just don't think they see it like we do.
They see it as a willing, necessary sacrifice. We question the arrangement of the rules such that such a sacrifice is even necessary. (Usually)
I would not share in proceeds of the brutal torture and murder of an individual, no matter how amortized through the years that murder may be, through time/number of people who benefit. That's morally abhorrent to me.
But they don't see it the same way.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm not going to debate christian belief with you. I think there are great lessons to be had in the story of Jesus and I think the crucifixion and resurrection stories are a part of that. If it means nothing to you, that's fine. Even if it's morally abhorrent to you, that's fine too.
Some people find abortion morally abhorrent, but I don't think they have the right to judge everyone that makes that choice as being bad or incapable of good.
Do you?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And we know what my position on the possibility of a 'soul' is, and why I fully and enthusiastically support all family planning options, including abortion.
I didn't say Christians were incapable of good as a result. In fact, I don't think they've considered the implications of what they have accepted. (Reinforced by a recent brouhaha on facebook where some were trying to get me to believe. I had them chasing their tails trying to justify that sacrifice and the arrangement of the rules such that it was necessary.)
I also oppose the death penalty. Christians overwhelmingly poll in favor of it. Keep in mind the percentage of the US pop that is Christian, and see this:
Interesting, millennial Christians only poll in favor at 32%. Something is changing. I think people are starting to weigh deeper philosophical questions around death, and that will lead to more consideration around sacrifice too. I find it a valuable debate tactic, actually. Very effective.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you find something morally repugnant, then you should be permitted to not have to endorse it but you should not be permitted to tell other people that they should (or have to) feel the same way you do.
Your view of the christ story is yours and it is yours alone. It does not jive with how others see it. You have no right to judge those that see it differently.
In short, your feeling it is morally repugnant does not make it so.
The comparison to abortion is apt in this regard.
Your arguments with people on Facebook who want to convert you are about as anecdotal as it gets. They don't represent anyone but christians who post on Facebook with whom you interact.
I fail to see how any argument about the death penalty has weight here. I just reviewed the statistical data I could find and concluded that support or lack of support is much more closely correlated with political persuasion than with religious affiliation. In fact, some of the most vocal and strident anti-capital punishment activists have been members of the RCC clergy, particularly nuns.
I'm glad that you are having success with your crusading debate tactics, I guess.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You seem to have jumped a shark or two here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)you win a debate?
Yes, I'm jumping sharks, which works great because that means you don't have to reply to the substance of the post.
It would be refreshing if you would ask what I meant by "permitting", but I'm not going to hold my breath.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Your view of the christ story is yours and it is yours alone. It does not jive with how others see it. You have no right to judge those that see it differently."
I already referenced you very old material from which my view either originated, or was influenced by. It is not a new discussion, even among Christians.
It is not just mine and mine alone.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,257 posts)with political persuasion for death penalty support.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=140582
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/bpuzgpfb2b/tabs_OPI_wwjd_20140702.pdf
Republican support/oppose: 68/20
Independent: 60/20
Democrat: 50/29
Catholic: 66/23
Protestant: 59/24
other religion: 54/20
Agnostic or atheist: 48/29
Republicans are the most likely group, just, in those listed for religion or politics, but only just, but the A&A group is the least likely - so it's a tie, basically. There is, of course, a correlation between being Republican and Christian is the US. And whatever some clergy members think, the average Catholic is highly likely to support the death penalty. Sometimes the followers can be less liberal than the leaders, even if they're in favour of contraception.
I'd point out that all of us frequently "tell other people that they should feel the same way (we) do". That's advocacy. It's what the article you link to in the OP does.
okasha
(11,573 posts)is used in reference to the crucifixion by whom?
And I'm sure you realize that the self-crucifixion depicted in your link is an extremely unusual practice that is unique to specific cultures. You've never seen this in a park in Seattle, right?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)After all, the government prohibited the Sun Dance for some 90+ years, and that just pierces the skin.
As to your other question, there are plenty of questionable platitudes on the web, if you've never encountered such Christians.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)wrong either way.
"Let’s rejoice in Jesus and what He has done for His elect. We don’t deserve salvation, we deserve hell. He lived the life that we could never live. Jesus was hung on a cross, and it was there that he who knew no sin, became sin, and satisfied God’s wrath."
What he 'did' for his elect was absorb their sins via his crucifixion and torture and death. His resurrection isn't actually relevant to that point, it just proves to the believers, who he in fact was, that he had the power to intercede for them, for their sins as god/son of god/man.
Yes, Christians DO celebrate this.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Just curious. Like, do you see how they talk to one another? Not just how they proselytize, or speak in front of non-believers like us, but how they speak to each other?
You are entirely correct that the resurrection is a joyous thing for them, but that is quite apart from their joy. If he tripped, slipped, fell down the stairs, broke his neck, and then rose from the dead 3 days later, that would probably still be significant for them, but it would be completely absent his sacrifice, which is part and parcel of the crucifixion. His alleged purpose upon the earth, to fulfill prophecy, and absorb/intercede for our sins as fallen humans.
It's what they do.
I doubt any of them are high-fiving each other during what, the 30 minute beat-down depicted in the Passion of the Christ, but absent that sort of environment, I observe them literally celebrating, rejoicing in his death, because in their view, his death brings them eternal life, and the resurrection confirms it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I know lots of christians. There are some that proselytize and speak in certain ways to each other and others that are completely different.
Do you know many christians? For whatever reason, I think you know only a narrow slice.
That's unfortunate. But when you think a win is a statement that no christians can be good people, that says a lot about where you are coming from…
and it isn't pretty.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And it's not a new one. That book I mentioned is a 135 year old critique of the nature of Christian salvation and the moral implications of accepting it.
To me, to my morals, it's a horrifying proposition. And I do question the morals of any person who would share in the benefit/proceeds from such a murder. But I also know, they rarely consider that cost in those terms.
Humans are a funny lot when it comes to sacrifice. Michael Sandel of Harvard has a great series you might watch, if you have access to video streaming at the moment. It has some interesting exploration into the nature of sacrifice to benefit others, not engineered specifically as a reflection of any religion, but it might help you understand my views.
It's an amazing free resource.
http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/03/episode-01/#watch
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)So in effect, the Bible itself warned that all apparent "Christians" could be bad and evil. Since they may have followed a false idea of Christ.
The Bible in fact warned hundreds of times, that there have always been bad and as it said "false" and "deceitful" and "lie"ing things, in every aspect of religion. Including Christianity and the core apostles (Mat. 16.23, etc.).
Then it added blanket censure in fact: "All have sinned" it told us; "no one" is good but God.
Claiming that it is impossible for all Christians to be wrong, therefore, clearly shows us where Ms. cbayer is coming from; among other things, from an ignorance of the Bible itself.
Weary of Ms. cbayer? Try quoting a few Bible lines to ms. cbayer, and see how well she handles them. Usually exceedingly poorly.
Ms. Bayer may (or many not) know something about Medicine. But she knows amazingly little about religion. Though this is the subject that she has however spoken about with great dogmatism on DU, for more than 130,000 posts.
okasha
(11,573 posts)It is a far from universal practice.
In the liturgical churches, the period from Thursday evening to midnight Sunday is a time of fasting and sorrow. It's a time in which Christ is "absent" from the church. On Thursday evening, the altar is stripped of its vessels and linens and any consecrated bread and wine "reserved" in a special container during the service of Tenebrae. All lights are extinguished.
Good Friday is observed by an hours-long vigil in which the participants reflect on--not celebrate--the crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus.
Saturday is a day of waiting for Sunday, and prayers are centered on the mortality of Jesus and the meaning of the humanity the worshippers share with him. The altar is re-vested and candles set in place.
The rejoicing comes at midnight Sunday, with the lighting of the Paschal candle, from which the other candles are lit, and the proclamation that "Christ is risen!" That's when the celebration starts, with hymns about the resurrection, bright lights, flowers, everything that expresses joy. Baptisms are traditionally done on Easter.
I went to Catholic school for eleven years, and as an adult was s practicing Episcopalian for many more. These are things I personally observed, in both sense of the word, along with my schoolmates and members of my parish. This four-day observance, culminating in the celebration of Easter, was an annual experience for those active in both denominations. Justin and other Episcopalians, and Catholics on this board, can bear me out in this. From your remarks, you've never participated in or observed these ceremonies. Several versions are available on YouTube. I suggest you give them a look. (I'm not trying to convert you here. I'm no longer a Christian myself. But you're drawing sweeping conclusions from scanty information, and I assume you'd prefer to have your opinions better grounded.)
Nothwithstanding the above, my mother did her best to raise me as a Baptist, and I wound up going to her services for a few Easters. For Protestant churches at the time, Good Friday was--Friday. ("Primitive" Baptists were rumored to do some vague foot-washing thing on Thursday evening, but there weren't any in my area.) Nothing on Saturday except "Do your homework today. We'll be at your grandmother's all day tomorrow." Sunday was the only special day, and again, the emphasis was all on the resurrection.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)To celebrate need not mean a joyous occasion. Though, in western culture, the word 'commemorate' might sometimes be substituted.
Synonyms
1. honor, solemnize. 3. laud, glorify, honor, applaud, commend.
Jesus isn't normally depicted as bleeding at the resurrection. Have you ever heard the song "Glory in the Cross"?
okasha
(11,573 posts)Don't know that song. I am familiar with "Go to Dark Gethsemane," which centers on the emotional suffering between the Last Supper and Jesus' arrest, and "Alas, and Did My Savior Bleed." There is a hymn called "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," that is sometimes used. Its history is interesting. When it was first composed, it was banned in the Anglican Church precisely because it emphasizes the gore--the response to it was horror, not rejoicing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I haven't observed the interior of every type of church, that's for certain, but from what I have witnessed, there is a full-meal-deal sort of package in the torture, crucifixion, and then resurrection of jesus for them, that they rejoice in.
Without the torture/crucifixion, there is no payment for sin.
I would say that many of the cultures in Latin America have latched on to the more obvious connotation there, hence the geographic commonality of the images you objected to earlier. What they are doing, or what they have focused on, seems like the obvious and inevitable conclusion, to me, as an outsider.
okasha
(11,573 posts)running through Spanish Catholicism in the colonial era--that was the time of the flagellants and such. These "imitation of Christ" practices took root then. It's not something you're going to find outside those specific Spanish-influenced cultures, and it's way off mainstream for them.
Yes, it's a "package" in the sense that the events commemorated depend on a given sequence. My whole point is that there is a distinct difference in how those events are regarded and in the degree to which they're emphasized.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The price, the core premise of Christianity is laid bare in that book, in case the bible didn't make it clear for you.
Pay special attention to Ivan and Aloysha, as they are the tools by which Dostoyevsky illustrates the nature of the cost of Christian salvation.
2naSalit
(86,282 posts)organized religions are merely population control devices reinforced by guilt and fear.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)and less reliance on dogma, that's for sure.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)is best served by thinking and ill served by dogma.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Religion is belief in imaginary beings instilled in the young before they're old enough to think critically, for the most part. People kill each other over it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)your rigid and narrow view of that subject.
Once again you have used only trite and dogmatic phrases to describe religion - three to be exact in only two sentences.
bvf
(6,604 posts)If it's as simplistic as you say, it shouldn't be difficult to refute.
Afterthought: The most important thing I took from my Jesuit education was to think for myself.
Address my previous point, please. If you cannot, I don't see any reason to continue this conversation. That's not to say you'll have the last word.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)BTW, I'm saying it's complex. YOu are the one saying it is simplistic.
I am a fan of Jesuit education and am glad you were afforded the opportunity to learn to think for yourself. This is a good time to apply that, because what you are doing is throwing out platitudes without any evidence.
You may discontinue the conversation at any time. I have no need to have the last word.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I merely pointed out that quantum physics was complex. Belief is a snap to the intellectually lazy.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)However, there are many believers and non-believers who have reached their place after traveling long and difficult roads.
Making blanket assumptions about believers is also intellectually lazy. That's the simplicity I refer to and it is yours. I don't agree with it.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Why maintain a belief in a supernatural power, or for that matter, defend those who do?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It just is. You don't have a belief, others do.
Could you choose to be a believer? I doubt it. So do you think believers could choose to not be believers?
The bottom line is that no one has proof for or against the existence of a god or gods, so taking the position that you are right and others are wrong is not reasonable. You just don't know.
Why do I defend those that do? Why wouldn't I? I believe in religious freedom to be allowed to believe or not believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others.
I am more than willing to address any point you put out there.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Smacks of fascism if you ask me.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Don't you ever wonder what drives people to kill each other in the name of their god??
Saying "don't ask" is vacuous.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I hope we have the opportunity to talk again, but this conversation is over.
bvf
(6,604 posts)with religion. That's cute. It's like dividing up people who see 2+2=4 and those who see 2+2=5.
You come to the defense of the latter, but I'm hard-pressed to see why.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Who sees 2 + 2 = 5? Not a very good analogy. It's more like dividing up omnivores and vegetarians.
I just told you why I come to the defense of the latter. What part did you not understand?
bvf
(6,604 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)And please don't dismiss the question as you have previously by saying, to paraphrase, there's no asking why.
That's the very definition of ignorance.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And if you continue to ramp up your personal attacks on me, this conversation will be over.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Just know that there are plenty of people who are ready and willing to kill in the name of your beliefs.
If you can manage to read a personal attack in that, there's nothing I can do about it.
bvf
(6,604 posts)The part where you said religion is fine so long as believers don't go around looking for converts, or what is much worse, attempting to kill those whose beliefs differ.
Never gonna happen. Admit it, will you?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)is worse than proselytizing?
Ok, I admit it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and responded correctly to that crap.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)LTX
(1,020 posts)Mathematics is discovered.
A simplistic statement. Shouldn't be difficult to refute.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Some religious individuals, with very sincere religious beliefs, think that fertilized eggs are people. So using their perspective, any religion that says abortion is acceptable is a STUPID RELIGION.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)I believe that there is a distinct difference between peoplewho live what I believe is a good Christian life, and the right wing version of Christianity that is used to hate people. When I see someone with a WWJD bracelet I ask them what they have done for someone less fortunate today? How are you treating people in general? If a brown man with long hair sandals and robes walked into their Church would he be welcomed? WWJD indeed.
I know some people I believe walk the walk of Christianity. They go to Church, not every Sunday but most of them, they are kind people, give back to their community without blowing their horn about it and see the world as generally a good place. When talk moves to the religious right and their choke hold on Christianity, they are kind in their comments but clearly find those people living outside WWJD. In fact one friend suggested they needed to go back and read their bible, in particular the parts about forgiveness of sin.
Painting all Christians with the same brush is no different that what the right does with Muslims, not all Muslims are radical right wing extremists and terrorists.
I found the Unitarian Church better fit my beliefs and needs but I would never suggest that someone who truly believes is wrong. Tolerance would make this world a much better place.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)important differences in people that call themselves the same thing.
WWJD is often helpful whether one is a believer or not. Whatever one thinks he may have been, he did bring a positive message.
I wish more people had access to UU churches. They are a great example of honoring different beliefs and ways of seeing the world. Tolerance would indeed make the world a much better place.
Thanks for weighing in on this.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)directed a "groups" it disturbs me. I got caught up in it a couple of time here on DU, I went to a UU book club thing and told them about it. They all laughed and said, "it is easy to get caught up in negative things, much harder to get caught up in positive ones these days" . Love the people I interact with there. It isn't as progressive as the UU Church we had up North but it is still a great place of understanding and forgiveness.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It is harder, I agree, and you run the risk of being called names and mocked.
But like your avatar says:
:large
pinto
(106,886 posts)On a personal level. That often gets overlooked, imo, among the institutional dogmas and the extremism that grabs the headlines.
It's good to see that mentioned.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I like UU, they like me and other atheists too. They are so small and unrepresentative that as an example of Christians and Christianity they make the opposite point.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Spirit . And let us not forget it was religious sycophants who called for his prosecution and eventual crucification .
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)As for the "spirit"?
The Bible warned hundreds of times about many false things in even our holiest men, including the Christian apostles. And in their "spirit." God warning constantly about "false spirit"s (1 John 4.1, etc.). And for that matter, warning about "false Christ"s.
So finally the New Testament and Jesus, and even his "spirit," are not assuredly the final answer. Not even according to the Bible itself. More interesting is the "son of Man," perhaps. Who is to arrive in the End. He however is not definitely Jesus himself; Jesus referring to him in 3rd person and so forth.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)" Not even according to the Bible itself " and " He however is not definitely Jesus himself; Jesus referring to him in the third person and so forth " I say once again wHHAA??? Go forth and so forth .
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)For this and other reasons, it is far from certain that any references to any "son of Man" are references to Jesus himself. Jesus himself normally speaks as if the son of Man is not he, himself.
Regarding John 4.1: it in effect says that often thoughts we think are from God, are false spirits. Yes, this means we need better "discernment." But what guarantees that even your "discernment" in turn, will not ALSO be wrong?
How do you know that your "discernment" is not in its own turn, just another "false spirit"? Because the Bible told you the "holy Spirit" would protect you? But then Paul warned that even the holy spirit of God and Jesus was with the people of Moses in the wilderness - and yet it did not protect them; they "perished" in the wilderness.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Faith .
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Since our holiest religious leaders and spirits - even Christian ones - were not infallible, Paul and much of the Bible also warned finally that we should NOT be following them and their idea of God, quite so "faith"fully.
In fact, the Bible began to warn about sins even in "faith." "Certain people ... made ... shipwreck of faith." "Do not believe" in me, Jesus told us; not until we see physical material "proofs," "fruits," "works," deeds.
Since our holy men often made huge mistakes, perhaps even the "spirit" of "faith" had problems too. Therefore finally I suggest in my writings that rather than stressing faith, even Paul began to suggest that we "test everything" (1 Thess. 5.21); "put me to the test says the LORD" (Mal. 3.10); "understanding ... science" (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-40).
Our holy men and their ideas about God were unreliable, the Bible itself warned; they were unreliable from Adam and Moses, to St. Peter and beyond (Mat. 16.23). Therefore, even their allegedly "high"est thoughts, moods, "spirits" - like faith and "discernment" - need to be critically examined. Even with "Reason" and "science." As the Bible itself began to finally tell us.
But then what happens when we at last hear this side of the Bible - and being to look at our holy men's idea of God, with a more rational and scientific eye? We find the enthronement of false and abusive ideas and spirits. Not just in Moses, but also in the New Testament too.
In current DU posts, we are particularly interested specifically in "signs" of an abusive, patriarchal side to Christianity. In BOTH 1) literal/fundamentalist AND 2) "modern," "liberal," "spiritual" Christianity too.
enki23
(7,786 posts)It's like grappling in a void. You can pull together. You can push apart. You can all claim to be standing at the center of things. There's no way to check, unless you look to some nearby mass to get your bearings. We secularists call that "the universe." We may not always understand all of it, but we live here. We can keep score for you, if you like.
From here, it looks like you're trying to play baseball. One side is a bunch of people with bats blindly swinging at nothing. The other side is swinging them at the other team, each other, and the spectators. But since the two sides are playing by different rules they made up, there's no way to say who is actually winning. We can definitely say that one side is a bigger hazard. But when we try to criticize them, they keep pointing at you saying, "See? everybody knows we're supposed to be playing this game." But only they know the right set of rules.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)don't actually follow the rules they claim to. "Biblical inerrancy" is the banner they rally under, but in practice it functions as a claim that whichever interpreter is speaking has inerrant interpretation skills. It's their way of keeping the gatekeeping function of the Pope while still rejecting the Pope.