Religion

[S0lo]

 

 

What happened in this thread while I was sleeping? Quick, someone give me the run down.

 

I got angry at some incoherent imbecile stuff.

 

Everyone is arguing. It's a sh*tstorm. It's fun though.

 

See? What'd I tell you?

 

 

What i once again witnessed in this thread is that sh*tstorms usually start with someone coming in and posting something along the lines of "this will end in a sh*tstorm". self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak. While people were actually discussing about the topic of the thread, instead of posting their opinion about the thread, we had a good thing going. it's the meta-sh*tposts that derailed it.

 

Now even i myself react with a meta-post. I don't plan to do it again, so please, just keep it on topic. If you feel like enjoying your "i told you so!", do that, but please do it in silence.

[Dingdongs]

Honestly we discuss issues much more controversial than this here all the time, I don't know where the "sh*tstorm is coming" people were then.

[S0lo]

 

I don't want to come off as cynical, but I have to point out that, aside from the doctrine, there are other aspects in play within the Catholic Church. When a new Pope is chosen, he's essentially seen as the Vicar of God, as you put it, or God's mouthpiece, so to speak. Of course, besides this, there is also a human dimension to consider. If the Pope deviated radically, let's say even completely, from the established doctrine, I doubt he would have any credibility as the head of the Catholic Church. The believers wouldn't just follow him and change their entire belief system just because the Pope's words encouraged them to do so. I'm fairly sure that if he made a statement asserting that the whole doctrine is wrong, they'd just reject him; or else they would have to accept that God had gone completely nice personoo. This is what I mean by Pope Francis' words reflecting his kind personality rather than the views of the Catholic community.

That's just an insane hypothetical though. Forgive my use of the word insane, but it truly is. There is no way a Pope would do something like that, given the vetting process for the Pope and given their lifelong commitment to the Church. It's really just entirely irrelevant, to a Catholic that's like saying "Yeah well Obama's approval rating would go down if he ordered everyone who voted for Mitt Romney killed", like yeah of course that would happen, but it's a stupid thing to even consider.

 

I do believe that his views represent the majority of the community, though. While Catholics don't really support gay marriage on a great scale, they also do not agree with the Bible line for line, just as Muslims do not support the parts of the Qu'ran that call for holy war against infidels.

 

 

 

 

As for the charity acts, I'd like to at least believe that humans would find common decency and empathy to help one another. Not every atheist is a kind, charitable person with an interest in helping others, just like not every believer is. I always like to think of it as brothers helping one another; the vehicles by which they choose to do so are, or should be, irrelevant.

Of course they're irrelevant, but again that doesn't change the fact that the Church/Mosque/Temple are highly important vehicles for serving the community and encourage that kind of brotherhood and solidarity amongst the community. Again you may think this sounds ridiculous as a European, but google up charity by religious groups in the US, it's extensively common everywhere, including the progressive areas. In fact religion is so common amongst Americans that even the most left of the lefties practice, though not usually Catholicism or Anglicanism but rather Methodism, Reform Judaism, or other more liberal forms of religions. What I'm trying to say is that you should not allow bad things written in the religious texts to discount the good every religion does for society and its adherents.

 

 

While there's no denying that a lot of good is done by religious charity, i do want to direct your thoughts towards the issue that the poverty and inequality addressed by charity are, in major parts, actually the results of class structures that were heavily supported and upheld by the religious elites since the beginning of history, and which by now are so deeply imprinted in the human psyche that we accept the existence of poverty and fortune as if it was a law of nature and not product of cultural developments that were set in motion by the invention of personal property. Yes, i said "invention", as a simple look at all the other species on this planet quickly reveals that personal property is a uniquely human concept. While long since swept away by our western mono-culture, there have at all times been societies in which all property belonged to everyone and whose languages did not even know a word for "mine", yours" etc., which proves that there is no instinct, no little part of our reptile brain, commanding us to take possession of goods to secure them only for our self.

 

The claim, that the possession of great power, or in god's case even of omnipotence, is in itself already justification enough to use said power to rule over those not in possession of it, has up until really not very long ago been an unchallenged dogma in pretty much all major religions and their communities. leading to easily controllable subjects who willingly accept their oppressed position within society, which is why even the most secular of dictators often resort to religious imagery and vocabulary in their speeches, as it was religion that first told people to obey without questioning, and as it was religion that has worked for thousands of years on fine-tuning and perfecting its methods of domination.

[sivispacem]

If Science was based on evidence, why are there so many things that can't be proved?

This statement is completely meaningless. I was going to label it a non-sequitur argument, but that would imply it was at least coherent. You appear to confuse the concepts of "evidence" and "proof", which are not interchangeable. Evidence is empirical data which supports a hypothesis. Scientists seldom, if ever, refer to the idea of "proof" because they aren't so narrow-minded as to think that their hypotheses, even those supported with a wealth of evidence, are categorically an indisputably true. This is a false impression that seems to manifest itself solely in the minds of religious sceptics, new-age woo peddlers and practicers of pseudoscience who lack any understanding of the scientific method; the same people who commit negative proof fallacies en masse and don't understand the concept of scientific burden.

 

 

I don't know what the f*ck you are talking about regarding the fossil fuels and mental gymnastics, either get straight to the point or stop talking out of your ass if you have nothing to say back to me properly.

Hold on just one f*cking minute here; you're accusing Black_MID, a man you called a "bellend" for no discernible reason at the beginning of your exchange, of mental gymnastics and "talking out of his ass"? You've consistently demonstrated your complete ignorance of even the simplest underlying tenets of the scientific method and the theory of evolution, commit a despicable butchering of Einstein and incoherent character attacks on science as a discipline, and yet you have the audacity to accuse another poster of being evasive? It's utterly laughable.

 

 

If there's nothing created in the first place, then it can't evolve out of nowhere.

Who created the creator? Or are we supposed to believe that everything in the universe is dependent on causality except the invisible, intangible deity whose very existence is mere speculation, who mysteriously created the universe without leaving any evidence of doing so? Right.

 

 

That's a part of my belief and I absolutely don't give a bollocks about what you think of it.

As an individual deciding to express this view publicly, you give all of us the right to dissect, ridicule or lambast your comments. Despite your insistence to the contrary, you are clearly so thin-skinned and cautious about the validity of your own views that you have to resort to persistent and unnecessary ad hominem attacks in order to defend them. I would suggest that yes, you very much do give a "bollocks [sic]" about what other people think.

 

 

The difference is unlike you, I'm not ignorant

Um, yes you are.

[dice]

While there's no denying that a lot of good is done by religious charity, i do want to direct your thoughts towards the issue that the poverty and inequality addressed by charity are, in major parts, actually the results of class structures that were heavily supported and upheld by the religious elites since the beginning of history, and which by now are so deeply imprinted in the human psyche that we accept the existence of poverty and fortune as if it was a law of nature and not product of cultural developments that were set in motion by the invention of personal property. Yes, i said "invention", as a simple look at all the other species on this planet quickly reveals that personal property is a uniquely human concept. While long since swept away by our western mono-culture, there have at all times been societies in which all property belonged to everyone and whose languages did not even know a word for "mine", yours" etc., which proves that there is no instinct, no little part of our reptile brain, commanding us to take possession of goods to secure them only for our self.

Religion isn't really the cause of class stratification, animals fight for territory or other 'valuables' since forever

[GTA36362355]

How you people discuss religion is beyond me. The division of the world into two domains, the one containing all that is sacred, the other all that is profane, is the distinctive trait of religious thought. Then why is religion still so static when our opinions have become so dynamic?

 

What I believe is that if religion does not teach how to behave for the well being of society, it has failed to achieve one of the basic needs for which it came into effect. It was our belief that society needs religion and that is why it got so well integrated into the society. It was collective thinking. Personal goals and needs of the society came together in such environment. It set us apart from the other animals because we could organize our thoughts and knowledge into generally accepted principles and we managed to turn it into a program for generations to come. It brought a sense of order in the uncertain lives we had and ultimately made us think beyond death(pain). People have always been superstitious and have held beliefs in lack of scientific evidences but religion advocated such beliefs only because they were functional for that period of time and for that group of people. It was their collective idea. But then came institutionalized religion and why is that not mind control?

 

Religion must change with time but that doesn't happen as much as it should because of institutionalized religion. When a selected few becomes the authority of religion, there can't be a bigger pain in the ass of humanity. When we start functioning as sheeple and let the Godmen preach us, religion loses functionality. Religion needs to make us understand that God is not just a question to be answered but a personal relationship that we can share with a perceived higher being. Like constellations: They have always been there in the sky even before we started looking for them. Different civilizations had different stories for the same constellations but in subjects like this, what is true is what we believe in and what our neighbors believe in so when the internet brings the world so close, we ought to have a religion that benefits us all. Religion is important even if it is optional. Why throw away a beneficial thing just because our previous versions turned it into a mess? In fact, it would have been interesting if we had made Modern Gods like God of Robotics, God of Aeronautics, God of Nuclear Energy, God of World Peace, etc. to pray to. God is nothing but a symbol.

 

It baffles me sometimes when I watch the way that seemingly religious people treat others. To me, being spiritual is just about being kind to everyone, even if they don't look like you, or believe what you believe. Its about walking the walk of your convictions, because all talk especially religious talk, is cheap.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Mister Kay

[HydraulicWaRiOr]

 

I'm not sure you understand the concept of Buddhism.

All I know is that out of all the religious figures that Buddha looks the happiest and most fulfilled and isn't linked to any hatred or abuse like the other ones have engrained into them. I'd rather rub his belly for luck than tell some dirty old man my misdoings. I do actually have a problem with certain religious nutters such as The West Baptist Church. Also Mormons actually believe the paler someone's skin is the likelier they are to be accepted into heaven... sorry but that's actually just racist.

You don't understand the concept of Buddhism.

[S0lo]

Honestly we discuss issues much more controversial than this here all the time, I don't know where the "sh*tstorm is coming" people were then.

 

You don't have to spell it out to fall victim to it. The post itself is, in my opinion, just one symptom of a mindset so rampant on forums all over the web that it has often become the dominant one. The basic attitude is one of upmost cynicism and self-depreciation, soaked in the expectation that things will always go wrong if there is a chance that they could and that if they do, they go as wrong as they can.

 

A positive attitude , the display of genuine interest in a topic or someone's thoughts, the effort to better oneself and thus the community as a whole, all such uplifting behavior, they all work as bright red flags for people of said mindset (lets call them doomophiles for now) and need to be ridiculed and belittled by them for their naivety. Because if there is one thing no doomophile can tolerate, then it is naivety, respectively what he perceives to be just that, as it is the most n00b1sh notion there is, amirite?

 

I mean, once you've desensitized yourself with thousands of hours of the most depraved and deranged sh*t ever captured/produced/written/etc., how could you possibly still see man as anything less than the worst he can be? The internet as a whole and the forum-sphere in particular must inevitably turn their users in to cynical assholes with hearts blacker than a moonless night in a mineshaft, and if anything in what you post indicates that this hasn't happened to you, then that can only mean you haven't been around for long enough or weren't 1337 enough to wander beyond the boundaries of of taste, ethics, humaneness, the whole bleeding heart shabang.

 

The frivolous surmise that one has made a conscious decision to no longer be a misanthropic douchenozzle and to instead consciously try to enrich the world one is surrounded by does not even deserve to be entertained in the eyes of le doomophile, as he deals with cognitive dissonance not by ultimately accepting the more progressive option, but by entrenching himself in the darkest part of the challenged attribute and ultimately of his own mind. I do not envy them one bit, not their anger, their sadness their fear-driven intolerance, their immunity to reason, their "sarcasm" (quotes bc real sarcasm is an invaluable paradox tool of processing what otherwise might be too cruel/saddening/devastating for one's psyche, while a doomophile's "sarcasm" is just another poisonous weapon in his arsenal). With all that said, i plan not to go off topic in here again now.

[Judicious 7]

Heheh.. Sure. Religion makes people uncomfortable, but I don't mind talking about it. It's an interesting subject.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Judicious 7

[Fonz]

 

I don't want to come off as cynical, but I have to point out that, aside from the doctrine, there are other aspects in play within the Catholic Church. When a new Pope is chosen, he's essentially seen as the Vicar of God, as you put it, or God's mouthpiece, so to speak. Of course, besides this, there is also a human dimension to consider. If the Pope deviated radically, let's say even completely, from the established doctrine, I doubt he would have any credibility as the head of the Catholic Church. The believers wouldn't just follow him and change their entire belief system just because the Pope's words encouraged them to do so. I'm fairly sure that if he made a statement asserting that the whole doctrine is wrong, they'd just reject him; or else they would have to accept that God had gone completely nice personoo. This is what I mean by Pope Francis' words reflecting his kind personality rather than the views of the Catholic community.

That's just an insane hypothetical though. Forgive my use of the word insane, but it truly is. There is no way a Pope would do something like that, given the vetting process for the Pope and given their lifelong commitment to the Church. It's really just entirely irrelevant, to a Catholic that's like saying "Yeah well Obama's approval rating would go down if he ordered everyone who voted for Mitt Romney killed", like yeah of course that would happen, but it's a stupid thing to even consider.

 

I do believe that his views represent the majority of the community, though. While Catholics don't really support gay marriage on a great scale, they also do not agree with the Bible line for line, just as Muslims do not support the parts of the Qu'ran that call for holy war against infidels.

It is insane, but I'm not arguing about the verisimilitude of the situation, but rather the possibility of it. Theoretically, it could happen. And if it did, what would the believers and the rest of the Church do? Assume God's changed his mind on every single aspect of life, or just discredit the Pope and discharge him (possibly even excommunicate him)? I would lean more towards the latter.

 

This is comparable to a political hierarchy and representation:

 

In a party, a Secretary-General is supposed to represent the views of political community, the notions, policies and measures they consider desirable, but of course there will always be people who disagree with him/her (even within their own party, as intra-party conflicts are quite common), even though this person was chosen as a spokesman for the party, its mouthpiece.

To outsiders, the views of the Secretary-General represent the views of the party itself. However, if he, were to betray the fundamental principles of the party's ideology (and this has happened before, with Stalin), he would either be discharged, or take up an authoritarian stance and remain in oppressive control, which was what Stalin did. The Pope, like I mentioned, would be discharged if the majority of his views contradicted the official doctrine, which would be the ultimate proof that a Pope's statements are reflective of his personal beliefs and may very well contradict the main dogmatic source, which would render either the Pope or the Bible irrelevant, and I personally can't imagine that it would be the Bible that would be discredited.

 

This is to say that the Pope's views as a human may very well change, while his doctrine as a solid, unchangeable truth (like any doctrine, really) may not. Hopefully, the example of a genuinely good man will excite in the believers a whole new outlook that will culminate in the realization that they should act out of pure humanitarianism and benevolence, rather than out of fear for a vaguely defined character of which we know nothing on a scientific level.

 

edit: altered to polish some minor typos, as well as to embellish a few points that might have been previously unclear.

 

Edited February 22, 2015 by Black_MiD

[Man-Django]

Jesus would've been like David Blane and a really clever bloke. Hate it when people say that there's definitive proof. Well let's see it then. Actual YouTube videos of God n such. Instead I see these videos of UFOs and docs of aliens/higher-beings meddling with our DNA and making hybrids!! And I think "this seems more legit than the other theory's"

Edited February 22, 2015 by TheMckeever

[Dingdongs]

 

 

 

I don't want to come off as cynical, but I have to point out that, aside from the doctrine, there are other aspects in play within the Catholic Church. When a new Pope is chosen, he's essentially seen as the Vicar of God, as you put it, or God's mouthpiece, so to speak. Of course, besides this, there is also a human dimension to consider. If the Pope deviated radically, let's say even completely, from the established doctrine, I doubt he would have any credibility as the head of the Catholic Church. The believers wouldn't just follow him and change their entire belief system just because the Pope's words encouraged them to do so. I'm fairly sure that if he made a statement asserting that the whole doctrine is wrong, they'd just reject him; or else they would have to accept that God had gone completely nice personoo. This is what I mean by Pope Francis' words reflecting his kind personality rather than the views of the Catholic community.

That's just an insane hypothetical though. Forgive my use of the word insane, but it truly is. There is no way a Pope would do something like that, given the vetting process for the Pope and given their lifelong commitment to the Church. It's really just entirely irrelevant, to a Catholic that's like saying "Yeah well Obama's approval rating would go down if he ordered everyone who voted for Mitt Romney killed", like yeah of course that would happen, but it's a stupid thing to even consider.

 

I do believe that his views represent the majority of the community, though. While Catholics don't really support gay marriage on a great scale, they also do not agree with the Bible line for line, just as Muslims do not support the parts of the Qu'ran that call for holy war against infidels.

It is insane, but I'm not arguing about the verisimilitude of the situation, but rather the possibility of it. Theoretically, it could happen. And if it did, what would the believers and the rest of the Church do? Assume God's changed his mind on every single aspect of life, or just discredit the Pope and discharge him (possibly even excommunicate him)? I would lean more towards the latter.

 

This is comparable to a political hierarchy and representation:

 

In a party, a Secretary-General is supposed to represent the views of political community, the notions, policies and measures they consider desirable, but of course there will always be people who disagree with him/her (even within their own party, as intra-party conflicts are quite common), even though this person was chosen as a spokesman for the party, its mouthpiece.

To outsiders, the views of the Secretary-General represent the views of the party itself. However, if he, were to betray the fundamental principles of the party's ideology (and this has happened before, with Stalin), he would either be discharged, or take up an authoritarian stance and remain in oppressive control, which was what Stalin did. The Pope, like I mentioned, would be discharged if the majority of his views contradicted the official doctrine, which would be the ultimate proof that a Pope's statements are reflective of his personal beliefs and may very well contradict the main dogmatic source, which would render either the Pope or the Bible irrelevant, and I personally can't imagine that it would be the Bible that would be discredited.

 

This is to say that the Pope's views as a human may very well change, while his doctrine as a solid, unchangeable truth (like any doctrine, really) may not. Hopefully, the example of a genuinely good man will excite in the believers a whole new outlook that will culminate in the realization that they should act out of pure humanitarianism and benevolence, rather than out of fear for a vaguely defined character of which we know nothing on a scientific level.

 

edit: altered to polish some minor typos, as well as to embellish a few points that might have been previously unclear.

 

Writing from my phone so excuse the brevity of my post but again, you're not making a valid argument here. I understand you're using it as a hypothetical, but it's just not a conducive example. The Pope is nothing like the secy general of a party. You can't excommunicate Pope because of Papal infaliability, the example just doesn't make sense and it's a moot argument... that would just never happen- a Pope would never, ever do something remotely like that, again it's like saying what if Obama ordered everyone opposed to him summarily executed. It's just a silly non issue and doesn't serve to argue anything. Catholics views are changing on these issues and the idea is that we are all created in God's imagine; and he can evolve in his views too. Pope's have been issuing edicts reinterpreting church doctrine for the entire history of the papacy. I appreciate & understand the point you're trying to make but it just doesn't pan out if you truly knew/understood what the Papacy represents. Edited February 23, 2015 by Irviding

[xoC18H21NO3xo]

I don't really have a religion. I've borrowed Theravadan principles, but I don't worship any supernatural deities. I regard the Universe/Cosmos as 'God.'

If you go the Buddhist route, warning, it is very difficult to reconcile Buddhist principles with playing Grand Theft Auto. I live in a constant flux of inconsistency and self-disappointment because I refuse to let go of wanting.

 

I was raised Christian. I rejected it by high school. I've studied Islamic and Judaic principles. I even gave Wicca a go in the nineties. Currently, I consider myself an atheist and use Buddhist principles as guidance to deal with my human condition. The Golden Rule: Do unto others... is not a religious thing for me, it just makes sense to me to treat others the way I want to be treated.

 

Enjoy your journey, let it be yours truly!

[Braindawg]

This thread promotes fictious belief and deceiving meaning and pictures. I strongly suggest you guys cut this illegal activaty right away or severe actions will be taken against you.

 

all hail the mighty ethaist army!!! lol...

 

 

Religion devides us as human beings. No religion, no devision, world peace. More people are killed in the name of god/allah/jesus than anything else throughout the history of mankind.

 

Atheists: All believers are wrong/might be wrong

 

Believers: lol atheists are going to hell

 

blah blah blah

 

this kind of thread leads to nothing. Just arguing. nobody knows what happens when you die. Whoever tells you they DO know is bullsh*t...

Edited February 23, 2015 by Braindawg

[S0lo]

This thread promotes fictious belief and deceiving meaning and pictures. I strongly suggest you guys cut this illegal activaty right away or severe actions will be taken against you.

 

all hail the mighty ethaist army!!! lol...

 

 

Religion devides us as human beings. No religion, no devision, world peace. More people are killed in the name of god/allah/jesus than anything else throughout the history of mankind.

 

Atheists: All believers are wrong/might be wrong

 

Believers: lol atheists are going to hell

 

blah blah blah

 

this kind of thread leads to nothing. Just arguing. nobody knows what happens when you die. Whoever tells you they DO know is bullsh*t...

 

Ultimately nothing ever leads to anything, as we'll all just turn to dust at some point without our planet, our galaxy or the universe even noticing. So why not be a man of consequence and just end it right here and now? Go ahead, looks like you're pretty certain of your analysis of the situation.

 

Seriously though, i'm so fed up with meta-sh*tposting,with that special brand of written diarrhea that doesn't even pretend to care for the topic but always readily jumps in to discuss about discussing

Edited February 23, 2015 by King S0lo

[Coin]

This thread promotes fictious belief and deceiving meaning and pictures. I strongly suggest you guys cut this illegal activaty right away or severe actions will be taken against you.

 

all hail the mighty ethaist army!!! lol...

 

 

Religion devides us as human beings. No religion, no devision, world peace. More people are killed in the name of god/allah/jesus than anything else throughout the history of mankind.

 

Atheists: All believers are wrong/might be wrong

 

Believers: lol atheists are going to hell

 

blah blah blah

 

this kind of thread leads to nothing. Just arguing. nobody knows what happens when you die. Whoever tells you they DO know is bullsh*t...

 

You say this as if humans aren't perfectly capable of creating division absent religion, lol.

[Fonz]

(breaking up the quotes to avoid a quote train)

Writing from my phone so excuse the brevity of my post but again, you're not making a valid argument here. I understand you're using it as a hypothetical, but it's just not a conducive example. The Pope is nothing like the secy general of a party. You can't excommunicate Pope because of Papal infaliability, the example just doesn't make sense and it's a moot argument... that would just never happen- a Pope would never, ever do something remotely like that, again it's like saying what if Obama ordered everyone opposed to him summarily executed. It's just a silly non issue and doesn't serve to argue anything. Catholics views are changing on these issues and the idea is that we are all created in God's imagine; and he can evolve in his views too. Pope's have been issuing edicts reinterpreting church doctrine for the entire history of the papacy. I appreciate & understand the point you're trying to make but it just doesn't pan out if you truly knew/understood what the Papacy represents.

 

Yes, I do agree the hypothetical is absolutely insane, but I'm just taking a little (however unlikely) possibility and expanding upon it. I do recognise that some intricacies are slightly off with the Party/Church analogy, but you seem to have understood the general idea, which was that the source material never changes, but the party members' interpretations and views do. Thankfully so, because social dynamics have changed a whole lot since the time they were produced. I understand Papal authority, but I just wanted to present an extreme case and analyse it.
As far as the authoritarian Obama scenario goes, I wouldn't say that is so unlikely. There have been considerable examples of similar cases in politics, but I don't believe that he would actually do it, either.

It's true what you say about the Popes' issuing edicts, but most of the early ones were meant to address matters of hierarchy, rather than amends on dogmatic views. There's been a case of a Pope and an Ecumenical Patriarch excommunicating each other (Pope Leo IX and Michael I Cerularius), but this is an extraordinary example, of course.
Other than that, it seems we agree on the notion that people should strive for a tolerant, mutlicultural outlook on life, regardless of their creeds. If the Pope's statements are a vehicle for the achievement of that goal, then I'm truly happy for that, especially considering his massive influence.

Thank you for presenting valid thoughts and not venturing into ad hominem drivel, Irv. I've enjoyed this exchange!

Edited February 23, 2015 by Black_MiD

[Man-Django]

This thread neither promotes fictitious beliefs and doesn't say their true either. Religion is a touchy subject but same rules apply in here as they do in real life. Respect each other, most religious people are peaceful with the odd exception of a few bad nuts (kkk, isis, west baptist church) that are just scum that cling onto old books. If they never had they books could you imagine how honest their recruitment quotes would be "We're c*nts and we know we are"

[Clem Fandango]

its mind control because it turns you an obedient meek. it tells people what to do, whats right and whats is sin. it tells you what to think about (prayer and worship only) and what to not think about, dont do this, dont do that. its all restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

[Clem Fandango]

 

People who are anti-religion are just as annoying as extremists. I used to be atheist and talk sh*t about religion to people who didn't ask for my opinion. And then I became an adult.

 

 

lol yes being opposed to people obeying an archaic book of evil lies is so lame. I too support killing homosexuals, women not being allowed to speak in church, women completely submitting to their men("for the husband is the woman's head"), and punishing masturbation by death.

 

Get a f*cking grip.

 

I'm not too sympathetic to organised religion, but egregiously mischaracterising peoples' beliefs helps no one. No Christian authority supports any of the things you mentioned. If you want to criticise religion, fair enough, but at least do it accurately rather than regurgitating New Atheist spiel. Nobody believes in "a man in the sky" or thinks we should stone adulterers. Christianity is a nuanced belief system and set of institutions which evolved over the last two thousand years, your knee jerk reactions from watching it from afar aren't useful.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Melchior

[S0lo]

-snip-

I'm not too sympathetic to organised religion, but egregiously mischaracterising peoples' beliefs helps no one. No Christian authority supports any of the things you mentioned. If you want to criticise religion, fair enough, but at least do it accurately rather than regurgitating New Atheist spiel. Nobody believes in "a man in the sky" or thinks we should stone adulterers. Christianity is a nuanced belief system and set of institutions which evolved over the last two thousand years, your knee jerk reactions from watching it from afar aren't useful.

 

 

 

Uhm... Eurocentric much? Africa, especially Uganda and Nigeria, are experiencing a horrifying escalation in fundamentalist christian influx, leading to widespread violence against their LGBT communities, all under the eyes, or even supported by, the governments. This is not random cultural backlash, but the result of very focused efforts by US-American Adventist church groups exporting their extremist views to more traditional communities, because they are less and less able to find enough radicals in western countries. I won't go in to it much further, but this is a what google just told me to bring it to you.

 

LGBT Criminalization And Dehumanization Under Adventist Influence In Africa you should reallly give it a read, it might help further prevent you from the usage of such nonsense as

 

-...helps no one

-No Christian authority supports any of the things you mentioned.

Nobody beliefs...

-Christianity is...

 

Are you even aware that you got as many universal quantifications in there as lines of text?Even without empty buzz words such as "New Atheist spiel " (whatever the fucck that may be or you mean by it) this has as much to do with accurately criticizing his poiint as character assasination has tp da ritical portray o f someone.

Edited February 24, 2015 by King S0lo

[Man-Django]

There's also a few godless tribes through out the world that shy away from the rest of the outside world. Some of these tribes have lower rape and murder rates than some of our societies despite being heathens!

Edited February 24, 2015 by TheMckeever

[AlienTwo]

"Godless tribes"? I've never heard of such a thing, religion is usually really big in smaller tribal societies... can you cite any sources?

Edited February 24, 2015 by Alien

[Jehannum]

 

I'm not sure you understand the concept of Buddhism.

All I know is that out of all the religious figures that Buddha looks the happiest and most fulfilled and isn't linked to any hatred or abuse like the other ones have engrained into them. I'd rather rub his belly for luck than tell some dirty old man my misdoings. I do actually have a problem with certain religious nutters such as The West Baptist Church. Also Mormons actually believe the paler someone's skin is the likelier they are to be accepted into heaven... sorry but that's actually just racist.

 

 

You've got the brains to see what's bad about religions, so you're effectively proving that you don't need a religion.

[Geck0]

Praise Allah

[AlienTwo]

Praise Allah

Really earning that signature....

[Geck0]

 

Praise Allah

Really earning that signature....

 

 

Work hard, play hard.

[Clem Fandango]

 

-snip-

I'm not too sympathetic to organised religion, but egregiously mischaracterising peoples' beliefs helps no one. No Christian authority supports any of the things you mentioned. If you want to criticise religion, fair enough, but at least do it accurately rather than regurgitating New Atheist spiel. Nobody believes in "a man in the sky" or thinks we should stone adulterers. Christianity is a nuanced belief system and set of institutions which evolved over the last two thousand years, your knee jerk reactions from watching it from afar aren't useful.

 

 

 

Uhm... Eurocentric much? Africa, especially Uganda and Nigeria, are experiencing a horrifying escalation in fundamentalist christian influx, leading to widespread violence against their LGBT communities, all under the eyes, or even supported by, the governments. This is not random cultural backlash, but the result of very focused efforts by US-American Adventist church groups exporting their extremist views to more traditional communities, because they are less and less able to find enough radicals in western countries. I won't go in to it much further, but this is a what google just told me to bring it to you.

 

LGBT Criminalization And Dehumanization Under Adventist Influence In Africa you should reallly give it a read, it might help further prevent you from the usage of such nonsense as

 

-...helps no one

-No Christian authority supports any of the things you mentioned.

Nobody beliefs...

-Christianity is...

 

Are you even aware that you got as many universal quantifications in there as lines of text?Even without empty buzz words such as "New Atheist spiel " (whatever the fucck that may be or you mean by it) this has as much to do with accurately criticizing his poiint as character assasination has tp da ritical portray o f someone.

 

Right, how about you don't talk to me like you're dropping mad knowledge, when I know all of this already? Mainstream religion in modern, industrialised societies is not comparable to religion in broadly- and notoriously- superstitious African countries. I was clearly talking about mainstream Western Christianity, I'm not going to defend the entire spectrum of beliefs labelled Christian, give me a little credit. In fact, I wasn't even really defending Western Christianity, so don't talk to me like I'm an apologist.

 

The stuff you mentioned is the reason I said I have no love for organised religion. The issue isn't that I think religion is good- I don't- the issue is that New Atheists have no grasp of theology and don't really understand Christianity in any meaningful way.

[Fonz]

The stuff you mentioned is the reason I said I have no love for organised religion. The issue isn't that I think religion is good- I don't- the issue is that New Atheists have no grasp of theology and don't really understand Christianity in any meaningful way.

 

No, they just study the source material objectively... because that is what Christianity is, above all: a doctrine. And the information for that doctrine comes mostly from two books.

 

For example, when you analyse a political ideology, what you actually analyse is the main source of information for that ideology (e.g. if you want to scrutinise Communism, you need to read Marx and Engels, not what their followers say). So, Marwin's statements about sexism and homophobia in Christianity are true, because, evidently, it's part of the source material. It's great that preeminent Christian figures don't support that anymore; still doesn't invalidate the fact that it was written in the books they follow. Those texts aren't going to be changed any time soon.

 

The bulk of the Christian community, however, is just a group of regular humans who adapt their views to their sociocultural contexts and whatnot (there are also extremists, but what religion doesn't have them?).

Edited February 24, 2015 by Black_MiD

[feckyerlife]

 

The stuff you mentioned is the reason I said I have no love for organised religion. The issue isn't that I think religion is good- I don't- the issue is that New Atheists have no grasp of theology and don't really understand Christianity in any meaningful way.

 

No, they just study the source material objectively... because that is what Christianity is, above all: a doctrine. And the information for that doctrine comes mostly from two books.

 

For example, when you analyse a political ideology, what you actually analyse is the main source of information for that ideology (e.g. if you want to scrutinise Communism, you need to read Marx and Engels, not what their followers say). So, Marwin's statements about sexism and homophobia in Christianity are true, because, evidently, it's part of the source material. It's great that preeminent Christian figures don't support that anymore; still doesn't invalidate the fact that it was written in the books they follow. Those texts aren't going to be changed any time soon.

 

The bulk of the Christian community, however, is just a group of regular humans who adapt their views to their sociocultural contexts and whatnot (there also extremists, but what religion doesn't have them?).

 

2 books meaning old testiment and new? i thought the bible is actually 40 books split into 2 halves?