Religion
Related: About this forumGod, guns and guts, eh?
Imagine if the name on the store was "Islamic Soldier Firearms And Accessories"...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DryRain
(237 posts)Americans seem to think they have a right to shoot up people and places that do not reflect their own view of one or another fairy tale.
Disgusting how the nation that was founded upon freedom of religion has now become a nation of hatred and guns, where more people per hundred thousand are killed than anywhere else on Earth.
THis is religion's "gift" to America.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Disgusting how there has developed a hatred of the religious in a country founded by people who wished to escape just that.
While there are groups that have fomented hate and promoted guns using religion, there are also religious groups that promote tolerance, fight bigotry and are decidedly for stricter gun control.
That is also religion's gift to America.
eomer
(3,845 posts)What I do see developing is fervent disagreement with the religious, still by a relatively small minority. And this minority is gradually finding its voice and coming out. The coming out has some range to it - some merely state publicly that they are not religious, others argue the reasons why they are not religious, and a small minority of the minority express out loud what many of the others believe but keep silent about: that the beliefs of (most of) the religious are without foundation and therefore absurd.
Meanwhile, even the mildest of this range can get you ostracized - I had the rumors run through my extended family after I silently stood during the pledge of allegiance at my nephew's graduation ceremony.
What I don't see in this country is any faction, even small, that goes so far that it could be called "hatred of the religious". But I'm here to learn, please make your case and I will gladly listen.
Let me add that the definition of "religious" makes a difference here. From reading this group for a while I've come to the conclusion that some of the "religious" here say so little that I'm not sure it should be called religious. For example, some seem to say no more than that God is that which goes beyond what we can know. That seems to me to be nothing more than semantics and nothing much that atheists would disagree with. Call it X or call it God, all it is is still whatever we can't know, which atheists agree will likely always exist.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)What I object to are those blanket hateful statements against all believers.
It's bigotry.
Those that can't distinguish between the religious right and the religious left are divisive within the party and are carrying republican water.
Believe in a god or not. I don't really care. People can think it's absurd. They have a right to their opinion, I guess.
Those that ostracize you for your lack of beliefs are the same as those that ostracize, or worse, others for their beliefs. If those beliefs do not impinge on the rights of others, who cares what they believe. If there is no effort to codify their beliefs into law or curriculum, what difference does it make.
You can see the hatred and wish to destroy on this site. It does nothing to help us achieve shared goals, it just feeds into the right wings hands.
So I stand in support of both believers and believers who want to work together. And I stand against those on either side who wish to destroy the other (or score points or whatever it is they are trying to do).
eomer
(3,845 posts)What constitutes a hateful statement against a believer? If it's not a hateful statement to say one thinks it absurd to believe in God (which I would agree it's not) then the line is drawn a bit further than that. So what is it about a statement (or else what are some examples) that is over that line?
Or is it not just a characteristic of the one statement but rather the larger context of a pattern of statements that you're getting at?
And, finally, does it seem fair to you to distinguish between hate and anger? I think there's a fair bit of justification for anger at religion. Maybe it's not fair to be angry at all religions because of the "sins" of a subset of religions or a subset of the religious, but it's probably understandable. I'm angry specifically at the people in my family and in the church that my parents raised me in for teaching me as if it were "the truth" what actually amounts to a massive deception, mostly of omission, about the Bible and the life of Jesus. I believe you agree with me about this last bit but am not sure you're always applying it in your dealings with others - could it be that sometimes what they're expressing is anger rather than hate? How can we distinguish one from the other, what constitutes hate?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I draw the line at anti-theists.
There are those that say all believers are delusional, stupid, weak, cowardly. That's BS. There are those that say that all religion needs to be destroyed. That's anti-theist garbage. It's never going to happen and the sign of someone with a weak argument.
People have the right to be angry in many cases. I might be angry at the people who flew into the WTC, but if I extend that anger to all Middle Eastern people or all Muslims, then I am just a bigot. I don't find it understandable at all. And, as a consequence, you throw out all the good people on the religious left that are totally on your side.
Be angry at your family, the church you grew up in. I am sure you have good reason. But once you extend it to everybody, you have crossed the line, imo. Maybe that is the difference between anger and hate.
eomer
(3,845 posts)I think you're right that using words like that about all believers is over the line. I would actually go further and say that using words like that about even just one believer (or any number of believers up to all of them) is over the line.
But I also think that one can say something very similar, in different words, that would not be over the line. For example, even though saying that all believers are stupid would be unacceptable (according to you and me), saying on the other hand that all believers are mistaken would not. Similarly, saying that all religions should be destroyed would be over the line; saying that all religions should be abandoned would not.
On your last point, I agree that anger at all Middle Eastern people or all Muslims over the WTC is clearly wrong and bigotry. But my case is a bit different. My anger is mostly over the deceptive way that the Bible was taught to me. I said that I was angry at my own aunts and uncles, and at my own church where they were Sunday School teachers, because they are the ones who delivered that deceptive message to me. But when I think further about it, they were not really the ones to blame for that - they were passing it along because they themselves had been fooled by the same deception. So in my case it may actually be more appropriate to feel anger at Christianity in general or at least at the broad mainstream segment of Christianity because from what I can see the deceptive approach is systemic.
Perhaps there are other Christian churches, ones that are more religiously liberal, that teach Christianity in a way that acknowledges and embraces the true history of the Bible. I don't know much about such churches and would be interested in learning more. But I was raised in mainstream churches and it seems appropriate to me to be angry at them broadly because the deception mechanism is itself broad and systemic.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I might object to your saying that all believers are mistaken, as I hold the position that neither believers nor non-believers know anything for sure. I think both are mistaken when they claim they do, but respect their right to hold that position. I think we would both agree with statements like, "I think your reasoning is illogical and your conclusion unsubstantiated".
One of the most egregious positions I see is the calling of religious people psychiatrically ill. Clearly, as one can see by the poll in this group, there are some members who think that is a-ok.
We clearly had dramatically different experiences growing up. I grew up in very liberal (both religiously and socially) churches with little dogma and lots of emphasis on social justice and equality issues. While you are angry, and understandably so, I am grateful. It seems neither of us has religion now, but the difference in our experience of it is pretty dramatic.
It's great talking with you eomer. I really enjoy it.
Decka
(13 posts)I've never seen anyone besides extreme exceptions who think they have the right to shoot anything up..
And you complain about Americans, yet address religion at the end?
Where did any religion command to kill people with guns if they don't share a point of view? I'll eagerly await your proof, but won't hold my breath..
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Where did any religion command to kill people with guns if they don't share a point of view?"
Considering most religions originated before guns, you've got a nice little safe question. However if you're honest, and omit the italicized part, you must acknowledge that glorified stories of killing non-believers, if not the direct command to do it, are found in all three Abrahamic religions.
Sure there are some in there, all certainly have a context of the particular event and reason for such a commandment at that time.
As for the future commands on how to address non-believers, the New Testament's message of loving all would be the backbone.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Wow. That's amazing. Do you have any idea what that good reason would be? Or what context would make it OK to kill them?
Would "bring my enemies and slay them before me" be one of those messages of "loving all" found in the NT?
Decka
(13 posts)You're arguing about human rights as compared with the will of a God. Plus, we're talking about two entirely opposite views of life in general: Human life as everything vs. Human life as close to nothing.
Do I know all of God's rationale? I never claimed to, and nor should any Christian.
All I know is that Christians, myself included, believe in God no matter what he does because he sacrificed so much for us. He doesn't owe us anything.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You just said there was a time and place it was OK to kill someone because they believed something different about god. So much for human life being "everything."
I'm frightened by your lack of any kind of discernible moral compass other than "whichever way my god points."
Answer honestly: Would you kill someone if you were convinced your god wanted you to?
Decka
(13 posts)No, I said there was a time in place at that point in history that God directly demanded it. God can kill whoever he wants, I'm certainly cool with that, he's the reason I'm alive.
As for human life being everything, that's your stance. Assuming you're a non-believer, which is fine, this human life is everything. There is nothing after. However, to a believer, this is a small blip on the radar screen. What is a human life in regards to eternity? See the impasse?
As for a moral compass, God rarely "points" me, and when he does, it's in a life direction, or to do a deed of charity... Other times I have to live my life as a Christian is supposed to, spreading God's love by loving others.. that's the baseline. Argue with that all you want.
The only way I'd ever kill someone from a demand of God would be if the evidence was absolute and seen by other people.. I'm pretty sure God would understand, at least I hope he would.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)You seem dangerous.
"Evidence" would be if he revealed Himself, and more than me saw it and heard it.
However, even then, I'd certainly protest.
I'm not qualified to judge what God wants any more than you are.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)And a vast overabundance of koolaid in your system.
People like you are what makes up "evil" in this world.
Disgusting
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's OK if god wants to kill someone? Doesn't matter what the reason is? And if you were convinced he had told you to kill, you'd gladly do it. Damn. I'm going to run and hide from you now.
Decka
(13 posts)Yea, it's okay if God wants to kill someone, who am I to argue? God has his reasons, I don't know them, but I seek Him anyways. It's not as if this is a human treating a human case here. That's why this debate doesn't go anywhere, you don't think there is anything above the human race.
The extreme exception I referred to about killing would be if lots of people could see the command, but you're right, even then I'd probably protest. But we all would kill someone in different circumstances... so perhaps I should I hide from you as well, but I won't, because I wouldn't use such obvious side-swiping attempts to label you like that.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Because what you are saying is moronic and no rational person could really believe this crap.
Decka
(13 posts)Bravo, excellent points 
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)I call it like I see it.
And, as you have nothing to uphold your position but myth and speculation, calling the a 'debate' is a stretch.
Have a nice day, but don't be so offensive in the future if you want to chime in on something you don't wish to discuss.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)You believe in a supernatural being who might want you to kill somebody and if some other people shared your delusion it would be OK to do it because you owe your god everything and you must do whatever he/it wants? Because, you know, he's the reason you're here?
You're dangerous because you're not joking.
Why don't you get back to us when you've grown up?
DryRain
(237 posts)I have heard it and read it somewhere else before in about the last 12 years. Just cannnot remember which God was the inspirational source; Christian or Muslim.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Wow. Just wow.
Enjoy your stay. 
Care to elaborate?
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)or the inquisition?
Response to trotsky (Reply #11)
Post removed
Make7
(8,550 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Proof..... just read some world history.
rug
(82,333 posts)
dimbear
(6,271 posts)but discarded that sign as a probable slow seller.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)is it possible to be a Christian and an "Objectivist"?
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)I know folks who will spout Rand left and right and then talk to me about "a Christian Nation". They have no clue.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)and he knew exactly who he was talking about. It's a group that would never support him and he knew it.
meow2u3
(25,250 posts)Who Would Jesus Shoot? 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)This is just disgusting.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Are you the only person who has translated and interpreted the bible correctly?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I was speaking for myself, because I am allowed an opinion THANK YOU.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)but that you knew what Jesus really taught. Glad to hear you don't know either.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)But many liberal Christians seem to be as confident and certain of their interpretation of the bible as the most rabid fundies do, and they don't seem to understand the irony.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Not to be confused with the more important Gospel of Thomas. In the Infancy Gospel Jesus works out his youthful irritations with murder, but as he grows up learns to control those urges.
Not now canonical, but once read as scripture in some churches. You can understand why when the Empire selected from the rich potpourri of gospel literature they left this one in the kettle.