Religion
Related: About this forum
On Respecting Beliefs
Another great video from Theramin Trees. Also points out how a lot of the beliefs in the Abrahamic faiths dehumanise nonbelievers.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Can you hear me? Am I typing loud enough?
It's for your own good, you, you kindling you...
Heddi
(18,312 posts)They'll be beleaguered with less-than-optimal web speeds, unable do to anything but type on an already-bogged down and slow to load website for hours on end betwixt watching Cuba Gooding movies about lovable homophobic bigots. But this...no, too much bandwidth. It takes too long. It's buffering. Maybe they can watch it when they get better internet in the year 7653.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Cognitive Dissonance.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Love your new sig line. Love your honesty. I'll inform the yacht club at our next meeting.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)not to mention the victim blaming, atrocity diminishing, etc.
Things such as original sin, hell, divine judgement, heaven, etc. are just atrocious ideas in general.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Was it the graphics or the message? Or was there something else that held the power? Did you have some kind of revelation?
bvf
(6,604 posts)Yes, you are.
phil89
(1,043 posts)revelation. Not everyone thinks in such goofy religious terms.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Dd you learn something new?
rug
(82,333 posts)The disrespect is directed against the person, cartoons notwithstanding.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Eventually, against the fundamentalists who want to prevent these ideologies from being amended.
The Founding Fathers seperated Church from State. They met stiff resistance. Religious types never let go easily.
“A Memorial and Remonstrance”
James Madison, 1785Their earliest collaboration followed the framing of Virginia’s state constitution in 1776, which exempted dissenters like the Baptists from paying taxes to support the Anglican clergy. That did not go far enough to satisfy Jefferson, so in 1779 he presented a bill to the state legislature guaranteeing full religious liberty to all Virginians—not merely tax exemptions to non-Anglicans—only to meet with resistance from those who deemed his measure too radical. Among them was Patrick Henry, who countered by proposing a “general assessment” on all citizens to support Christianity itself as the established religion of Virginia.
rug
(82,333 posts)So, you concede attacking fundamentalists, not just fundamentalism. A refreshing admission.
However, you attack all religious belief, not just fundamentalism. If you say you attack only non-fundamentalist beliefs, but not non-fundamentalist believers, you are being disingenuous.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The Torah does. The Quran does. Their foundational texts are fundamentalist.
Therefore these texts and attached doctrines need to be pummelled. Hard.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)There are no if's and but's in the Torah: blasphemers, gays, and witches must be killed.
There are no if's and but's in the Quran: blasphemers, gays, and witches must be punished.
rug
(82,333 posts)
See that rectangle of text near the top?
That's Torah. The rest of the page is commentary.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Some doctrines taken literally are not dangerous because they are good doctrines. Like pacifism.
Some doctrines taken literally are dangerous because they are bad doctrines. Like the monotheisms.
Your "cure for literalism is not more literalism" carefully avoids that key point.
btw: just curious: where do you speak from? What supernatural do you believe in and why?
rug
(82,333 posts)
Ok.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Nice way to avoid admitting there are good and bad ideas/ideologies.
rug
(82,333 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I am merely pointing out that being the literalist follower of a doctrine does not entail equally dangerous consequences depending on the intrinsic degree of dangerosity of the doctrine itself.
If my doctrine is mass extermination of a group, being a literalist of this doctrine creates harm.
If my doctrine is to never hurt anybody, being a literalist of this doctrine won't.
In the spectrum of ideologies, the Old Testament or the Quran contain plenty of opportunities to harm others if taken literally. As the Garland shooters so powerfully demonstrated.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)when it describes them as objectively disorded, and their "activities" as "gravely depraved"?
rug
(82,333 posts)Now, tell me about your dog.
but if you're in the RCC you have no credibility on this subject.
rug
(82,333 posts)Ok, phil. This is your one chance to explain how that is not a bigoted statement.
Go ahead.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Especially if one finds them absurd.
I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they choose, but not the beliefs themselves. And I have no expectations about others respecting my beliefs, nor do I care. Beliefs are very personal.
Actions are a whole other kettle of fish. Beliefs! Who cares?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Although I think 'respect' is a word that's used oddly. I don't actually 'respect' one's right to believe absurd things. I acknowledge it. I understand that I might not have any way to stop people from believing absurd things. It's the way things actually are - people believe absurd things. That doesn't mean I actually 'respect' that they can believe absurd things, merely that it happens whether or not I agree with them.
