How American Christians can stop being bullies and start winning convertshttp://theweek.com/article/index/266196/how-american-christians-can-stop-being-bullies-and-start-winning-converts (http://theweek.com/article/index/266196/how-american-christians-can-stop-being-bullies-and-start-winning-converts)
It's time we all made sure to practice what we preach
THE WEEK
By Jonathan Merritt | August 13, 2014
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0123/61815_article_full/sometimes-the-big-hearted-faithful-are-too-quick-to-let-their-small-minded-inner-bully-out.jpg?206)
Sometimes the big-hearted faithful are too quick to let their small-minded inner bully out. (Illustration by Lauren Hansen | Images courtesy iStock)
Eight years ago, Sally Quinn founded "OnFaith," a religious blog hosted (until recently) by The Washington Post. One thing she didn't anticipate? All the nasty Christian commenters.
"I can't tell you how many people wrote in to say that I was a [prostitute] and a [promiscuous] and so much worse that I can't even write it here. And these all came from Christians," Quinn wrote in a recent article titled, "When It Comes to Hateful Internet Speech, Christians are The Worst."
She's been told that Jesus hated her, that she had punched her ticket to hell, and that she had made a pact with the devil. One "God-fearing Christian" commenter even said he hoped that Quinn would wreck her car, explode the gas tank, and burn alive.
Having been a religion writer for nearly a decade, my experience has been similar. The same is true of many of my colleagues.
Now obviously, this is something that internet writers of all stripes experience. It is hardly limited to religion writers and Christian commenters. Across the board, "most comment sections are vats of poison, filled with grammatically questionable rants at best and violent hate speech at worst," as Margaret Eby put it this week at Brooklyn Magazine.
It would be ridiculous to pretend that Christians are the only or worst offenders. But they should know better. It seems deeply antithetical for someone whose faith promotes unconditional love and kindness to spew hate at others.
But can we really expect better from Christians when so many of their spiritual leaders employ similarly awful rhetoric?
(http://media.theweek.com/img/generic/JerryFalwell_690.jpg)
Jerry Falwell blamed gays for 9/11. (Bettmann/CORBIS)
Look at Dallas mega-church pastor Robert Jeffress, who has called secular liberals "godless, immoral infidels who hate God." He also said Roman Catholics practice a "cult-like, pagan religion" and represent "the genius of Satan."
Or one might consider Seattle-based pastor Mark Driscoll. Among other things, he has said that stay-at-home dads are "worse than unbelievers" and that women shouldn't hold leadership positions in the church since "they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men." This week, he apologized for comments posted to a discussion board in 2000 in which he called gays "damn freaks" and made misogynistic remarks.
If that's not enough, take a look at Grand Cayman Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile, an influential voice among some American evangelicals, who in 2013 blogged about "the importance of your gag reflex when discussing homosexuality." In an apparent attempt to have an adult conversation, Anyabwile encouraged the faithful to recover "the yuck factor" when discussing gay marriage.
The standard doesn't improve when one considers Christian commentators.
Take a look at Fox News' Todd Starnes. When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez died of cancer, the outspoken Christian gleefully tweeted, "Hugo dead. The good news is now Saddam, Osama and Adolf have a fourth for Canasta," and "Hell is burning a little bit brighter tonight." Starnes once compared same-sex marriage to wedding one's dog. Even Fox News host Greta Van Susteren has publicly criticized some of his remarks as "bad taste."
Of course, bullying language is not just a problem among conservative Christian commentators. Last December, MSNBC host Martin Bashir was forced to resign from the network after calling Sarah Palin a "world class idiot." He then cited a diary item describing punishment practices on plantations whereby one slave would "S-H-I-T" in another slave's mouth, suggesting that Palin be similarly forced to eat excrement. Bashir is an outspoken Christian who attended Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, where Tim Keller is the pastor.
And Christian crudeness is not a recent development, to be sure. One might recall prominent late 20th century leaders like Jerry Falwell, who blamed gays, lesbians, and abortionists for 9/11, and Pat Robertson, who once said that feminism is "about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
For Christians, this history of histrionics has been bad for business. In a 2010 Barna Research survey, for example, one in five Americans and 35 percent of those associated with non-Christian faiths said that Christians' most negative contribution to society was "violence or hatred incited in the name of Jesus Christ." Twenty-five percent of respondents said they couldn't even think of one positive contribution made by Christians.
Such perceptions have almost certainly contributed to the modest increase in the past decade of those who do not regularly attend church, and the spike in Americans who are religiously unaffiliated. Maybe the Apostle James was onto something when he wrote, "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless."
The time has come for the faithful to make a concerted effort to reform their rhetoric. They must eschew hateful speech, extreme language, mendacious statements, public name-calling, and offensive commentary against minority groups, such as women and LGBTQ persons. This doesn't mean Christians must abandon their counter-cultural doctrines, but they must learn to express and defend those beliefs in respectful and loving ways. Those leaders who resort to abusive behaviors and repugnant speech must be called to account by the community.
Debate and dissent are critical to a healthy marketplace of ideas, but believers must now navigate new frontiers of digitized dialogue. We must answer questions like, "How can we foster healthy disagreement in 140 characters or less?" and "How do we create debate when everyone is allowed to engage regardless of their credentials or expertise?"
American Christians too often contribute to what author Lynne Truss once called "the utter bloody rudeness of the world." If Christians continue failing to practice what they preach, you can expect to see the continued decline of their faith in America. But if they can begin living in accord with their Scriptures' teachings — which repeatedly command speaking to others in a way that is uplifting, gracious, kind, tactful, and tempered — Christians may be able to stop the bleeding and start winning converts.
Good points. I've never understood the "bully pulpit."
A great deal of it is as simple as republican culture co-opting religious - I watched it happen to the Southern Baptists up close back in the 80s. Very close to every single example of hateful behavior cited in the article is adoctrinal, but definitely defensive of traditional social conservative values.
People confusing their native culture with the actual tenants of their religion is disgustingly common, approaching universal. No one, for example, has ever explained to me how a believing Christian can reconcile military service with Matthew 18:22...
Blasted spellcheck. I knew that was wrong.
A great deal of it is as simple as republican culture co-opting religious - I watched it happen to the Southern Baptists up close back in the 80s. Very close to every single example of hateful behavior cited in the article is adoctrinal, but definitely defensive of traditional social conservative values.
Maybe the Apostle James was onto something when he wrote, "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless."That's James 1:26. Just a few verses earlier, he wrote (vss 19-20): "Every man must be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath; for man’s wrath does not work out God’s righteousness."
It was as if Falwell was in direct opposition to St. Paul and Jesus about the law.Agreed.
It's real silly that people should cause such a fuss over something as personal and innocuous as who loves whom.
Traditionally organized religion was as powerful as kings/government. It wasn't so much about 'right/wrong' as making people believe in a religious code in order to obtain religious tithes and fees.
Some may argue that they oppose homosexuality because the practitioners will be going to hell (according to their interpretation of the bible), but to act as if your reading is the only good one (or even that any reading is worth seriously arguing about in secular society) seems like great arrogance to me.
To infringe others' rights or practice hate speech based on your religious beliefs should be criminal.
I think the motivation also varied quite a bit; I can pretty much guarantee, for instance, that when Martin Luther criticized the idea of selling indulgences, "obtaining tithes and fees" was not his motivation.
Stuff about readings
That gets into all sorts of problems...after all, preventing people from acting on their religious beliefs can itself easily turn into an infringement of rights. It's a careful balancing act, and calls for careful distinctions. (Saying "kill all the Jews" based on your religious beliefs is unacceptable, but saying "the Jews must repent of their error before God takes them to account", while not exactly pleasant, is more problematic to ban than to allow. And what about hate speech against a historical group that no longer exists...I don't think that is harmful enough to justify interfering with religion. Or what about hate speech against neo-Nazis? Things get complicated.)
And of course the whole question of "rights" is also complicated...if God exists and created people in order that they behave in a certain manner, they have an obligation to behave in that manner and hence do not have a right to go against that.
Of course, government can't really act on that when it's not proven...but that's more a pragmatic consideration than one of them actually having that right.
QuoteI think the motivation also varied quite a bit; I can pretty much guarantee, for instance, that when Martin Luther criticized the idea of selling indulgences, "obtaining tithes and fees" was not his motivation.
I agree. I believe early religions were largely about political power, not money, with a side order of genuine religious belief.
I believe the less politically powerful religious institutions of the modern West are still interested in gaining and exerting political power, but not as obviously or brazenly as before; due to the popularity of secularism.
My general argument was that religious belief should not affect government policy (secularism) and that where religious belief incites bigotry it should be censured.
My assertion that religious readings should not be discussed seriously in secular society comes from my belief that religion is ridiculous* and that we should not make important decisions on the basis of nonsense.
* That is, I think that belief in an intervening God or any entirely nonsensical (as in not capable of being sensed) phenomena is intellectually dishonest and worthy of ridicule.
I agree that hate speech is difficult to define, but I believe that it is right for the state to attempt to legislate in this area: free speech should not always [Sleezebag] one's right to live without harassment and intimidation.
I'd say that even if God did exist and created people in order that they behave in some manner that we *don't* then have an obligation to do as God wills.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
Part of the reason I distrust, even to the point of despise religion now is that not only did I grow up with Soviet education and rejection of such beliefs
the resurgance of Orthodox church and the fact they often support the far right wing gives me even less reason to like them.
Part of the reason I distrust, even to the point of despise religion now is that not only did I grow up with Soviet education and rejection of such beliefs
Understandable, though for me that's a reason to distrust and despise the Soviets...
Quotethe resurgance of Orthodox church and the fact they often support the far right wing gives me even less reason to like them.
You really shouldn't judge all organized religion by one group.
People confusing their native culture with the actual tenants of their religion is disgustingly common, approaching universal. No one, for example, has ever explained to me how a believing Christian can reconcile military service with Matthew 18:22...
Part of the reason I distrust, even to the point of despise religion now is that not only did I grow up with Soviet education and rejection of such beliefs
Understandable, though for me that's a reason to distrust and despise the Soviets...
Well that's kind of the pot calling the kettle black, if the only justification for vilifying the other side is that they vilify you in return then we haven't established any morale superiority or inferiority. We could have any two competing religions both throw comparable accusations at each other.
The Soviets did at least walk the walk on tolerance, they practiced radical levels of gender and racial equality considering the centuries of cultural baggage they had to deal with, part of this was that class was their all consuming obsession and they considered every other distinction as irreverent.
He isn't, or at least a wider sample size wouldn't change the conclusion, organized religion in western civilization consistently supports the political right (and I'm fairly certain this will hold for the East as well). It's just a fundamental incompatibility for 'religion' aka a system of codified ethics and norms to be 'liberal' because liberalism is by definition the open ended questioning and critiquing of societies codes and norms.
Fact for you Yitzi- yes there was religious intolerance by the Soviets. But two things to remember-
During the Patriotic war, churches and other religious buildings were actually re-opened for use. (which remained afterwards in effect) It's just the state NEVER (and should in my opinion) support or connect a religious body.
And secondly, the Orthodox church used to torture people who disagreed with them during the days of the Tsar, and there is historical and archeological evidence to prove it. Pogroms headed by the White Russians (many of which who were supported by or even were Orthodox priesthood) used to beat to death and torture Jews as well as Communists and Bolshevik supporters just so you are aware.
Let me state it like this. I despise organized religions for the fact they use an often benevolent sounding idea or faith in order to capitulate their power and control over people, often through bloody means. The Orthodox church killed millions during many Tsar's reigns, Ivan the terrible being notable for this. The Spanish inquisition for Catholics... I don't need to list the amount of genocide and pain organized religions have caused of various faiths, nor do I need to speak on all the things done in the name of Communism or other ideals. Communism at least never stated once it had intentions of being peaceful, its a revolutionary ideal aimed to achieve political control for it's own purposes of realizing class equity.
Th actions taken for any ideal that end in suffering, they are all horrible, but the fact is I was educated to distrust said religions because they WERE not to be trusted. They were enemies of the state because they DID hunt the revolutionaries down, they DID actively try to stay in power and not support the cause the nation was founded on, and they were NOTORIOUS for monstrous acts. And at the time I was educated it wasn't too far a distant memory... I grew up during the Patriotic war under a regime of a man who participated in the revolution and civil war himself.
And the education system did change over time, my daughters certainly learned more then I did... and different stuff.
It wasn't lies what they taught us, and I later checked back to clarify this for myself, later in life. Slanted and aimed to make us distrust it, yes.
And don't tell me they didn't do the same in America with Communists or other ideals, even to this day.
There is many reasons Yitzi, then those example provided why I distrust them.
Class equity is benevolent, the ending/result of it is- but the means to do it aren't. And this isn't hidden even in Marx's original manifesto, its going to require a power shift from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. Islam was spread nigh purely through conquest from 7th-8th century, its founder being a conqueror. Hebrews/Jews also were stemmed in conquest throughout their history, Moses and others conquering the area of modern Israel and outright killing off entire populations, such as Jericho, and later having conflicts over differences/heresies between their faith (such as when idols were built in the north, the same kingdom which later betrayed their hebrew kin and sided with Assyrians.)
There is countless examples of barbarism against people through organized religion- and keep in mind I am not stating religious faith itself did this. I am talking of the political organizations behind these faiths that control the believers, not the actual faith itself. I don't deny Stalin was a megalomaniac who went off the track of true communist ideal, and I am not stating that the Popes of Catholicism or Imam's of some Islamic sects who pursue violent jihads and crusades are the embodiment of their respective faiths.
But I have throughout my years garnered enough reason to not trust religious organizations and the fact they profit and get empowered from people believing in a spiritual faith like a business disgusts me. This is someone's spirituality we are talking about, something important to them and their being- and I have similar feelings over certain bodies within the former Soviet Union as well, who took communist ideal and skewered it for their own greed and evils.
With Jews in the Soviet Union, they actually lived better then they did under the days of the Tsars.. the persecution of them stopped.
And note, I include political organizations that treat their ideals like a faith and use it as a cloak to power and profit for their own greedy ends to be on the same boat as an organized religion.
I've met very few religious organizations that don't operate like a corporate business, if any. Otherwise they wouldn't be an organization.
And Jews faced that sort of discrimination in many nations- including the United States.
Communism isn't the reason why Judaism is for the most part a minority faith in most regions, and nor was it more effective then a rival organized religion- that was cultural bigotry at work.
It's the same story with the United States for the longest while not allowing native languages to be spoke or Spanish for that matter, only until the latter half of the last century did they allow it to be taught in standard curriculum. And if anything there was MORE persecution of Jews in the United States, not because the government led edicts against Judaism but because there was serious built up cultural distrusts of them due to the Christian roots of the populace.
If anything if it wasn't for Communist ideal much of Eastern Europe would've been an intolerable place to live for Jews, and the organized religions of Orthodox and Catholic churches and Islam certainly did not help, and if anything killed and persecuted your faith's population at every heed and turn. It wasn't just in Russia.
Keep in mind, I am stating ORGANIZED religions. I am going to blanket all organized religions with distrust because in order to be organized they have to be a socio-economic/political body
Even in the worst Soviet republics the government's provided basic healthcare, education and infrastructural services to their people. I cannot say the same for the organized religious bodies in most of the world, and I am glad secularism is dominant within governments now.
I don't hate religious faith Yitzi, or the people who have one. I hate the organizations that claim they support it and adhere to its guidelines but instead use it as a mist to cover their insidious greed.
I think the crux of this point about treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union is that to what ever extent they were mistreated, that treatment was not Antisemitism, but merely the mistreatment that most ethnic minorities suffered under.
Also I do not believe their is a single instance of organized religion failing to persecute minority religions, ethnicity etc once obtaining the political power to do so.
But political philosophies because they are based on reasoning how ever flawed are always going to be held to account for their failings by their internal populations. Religion and any faith based doctrine can and always will retreat behind the impregnable walls of faith to resist change and deny culpability.
Communist policies did reduce religious participation and membership- that was intended.
And to be quite frank, while I don't hate religious faith, I don't agree to it and its not my heaviest concern. Considering the amount of oppression religious bodies make and the lack of accountability most religious organizations have (the Catholic church apologized for the crusades after... what, 800 years? What about the Spanish inquisition, the systematic rape and abuse of children in missionary schools in many European colonies?)
What of all the Jihadist wars and Mujahideen groups that slaughtered innocent people in the name of their god? What of the invading Israelite who cleansed the entire city of Jericho and other places back in ancient times and then again the invasion of Israel in modern times by displaced Jews? What of the Palestinians who raided Jewish Kibbutz before that and other extremist groups?
The thing is with non-profit charity groups is a lot of these groups aren't entirely as efficient as a government program would be.
I am a firm anti-philanthropist, in the sense I believe that it doesn't exist. When a system relies on philanthropy needs are not going to be met, charity is not going to provide for people sufficiently and I've seen real world cases where this is so commonly proved that its horrifying.
When religion becomes the government it barely provided these services, on the contrary. Bring me an example where it efficiently provided for people
I am not making an assumption. I am making an observation of how the vast majority of religious organizations behaved and still behave like, the magnitude of how bad they are may have lessened from the past to present, but many of these greedy traits persist and quite frankly, have worsened in some instances.
The invading Israelites were (I believe) acting on God's orders (and He has the right to give His land as He wishes); were it not for that, you'd be right. The modern time wasn't really an invasion, but rather a homecoming that turned violent when it was resisted violently. Regarding the Muslim actions, I agree with you.
I am a firm anti-philanthropist, in the sense I believe that it doesn't exist. When a system relies on philanthropy needs are not going to be met, charity is not going to provide for people sufficiently and I've seen real world cases where this is so commonly proved that its horrifying.
Under whose god? What if that god was not theirs, was not mine?
Whose to say this god was the proper god?
This is why we have different religions, and systematically invading, killing people and committing genocide isn't an excuse for this I think. Sure this was in the ancient world, a time of relative barbarism- but the point still stands where I do not believe that religious faith should justify such actions. The thing about communism or other modern ideologies is that they are addressing issues that actively affect everyone- class disparity and conflict is an active real thing that affects society in a negative way. There is reason for communists to physically fight.
When someone proclaims they are fighting for a spiritual being that, realistically has no physical manifestation or influence on the group of people they are waging war on, I find that psychotic.
Its an imaginary pretext- the crusades for instance and the invasion of Israel as well back in the ancient world were pretext's for militant Christian nobility and the pope to claim lucrative trade routes in the middle east, using their "god" as a justification. The pilgrims only started to get attacked AFTER the crusades.
As for the invasion of Israel, archeological evidence has pinpointed the Israelite were a nomadic tribe that was fairly warlike- they operated as a buffer tribe for the Egyptians, much like how Visigoths did for the Romans, to keep out invaders. Eventually the Israelite would get tired of this and they moved, and they go back to Israel, plunder, loot and pillage and secure the lands as their own to make a new home out of it and claim its riches for themselves. Throwing in their god was just a customary "were justifying our wants, desires and needs over yours because our god says so."
As for philanthropy- I've been to China, my own country (which is renowned for its hospitality), America, various nation of Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Cuba, Africa and I can say that in nearly all the places I have been any poverty there was was not solved by charity, but by government programs. If there wasn't any programs people remained in vast swathes of despicable poverty and it was only meagerly alleviated by churches and other religious organizations, and far from solved.
As for the non profit, non charity groups- they aren't an organization. They are an establishment or group, and thus not a concern or source of distrust to me.
The fact you believe it to be right (and im not scolding you for such beliefs, but this is where my distrust stems from) that its justified to invade somewhere based on the orders of one's faith and god, something that can not even be applicable to other people
A god who created everyone has claims on everyone, whether they believe in Him or not.
That's what I believe; I didn't claim I had a rational basis.
There's also a reason for believers in a true religion (if one exists) to physically fight as well; the question is then simply whether there is a true religion, and if so which one it is. (I, of course, believe that there is and it's Judaism.)
Creating them (or rather, their ancestors) and the land they live on doesn't count as a physical manifestation or influence?
I'd need to see a source for that.
Source?
From what I've seen, government programs don't seem to do such a good job of solving it either; they make it bearable (sometimes), but don't really solve it.
Maybe we're using different understandings of the same word; what do you mean when you say "organization"?
I see you misunderstand what I said. In a polytheistic world, where one group's god would indeed not be applicable to other people, it would indeed be unjustified to invade somewhere based on that god's orders. Religion can only justify invasion when the god in question is god over the people being invaded, with all the rights involved with that. (It is not, however, necessary that they accept His divinity or even existence, though without such acceptance only a creator god would have the right to be god over them.)
And I believe we evolved naturally over a length of time, as did all other life without the need of a higher being. I don't believe in this god because in my eyes and the eyes of evidence thus far, he does not exist, at least in any way shape or form Abrahamic religions may imagine a higher deity.
And im not going to accept your reasoning if it isn't rational and universally acceptable
And that reason is psychotic in the modern world. If you want to expand your religion to other people, do it through legal channels, not kill over it.
Give me proof this god created us.
http://history-world.org/crusades.htm (http://history-world.org/crusades.htm)
Source?
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx)
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/slaughter-at-jericho/ (https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/slaughter-at-jericho/)
Look at the quotes of the siege of Jericho. Translate it into military tactics, combine it with archeological finds.
From what I've seen, government programs don't seem to do such a good job of solving it either; they make it bearable (sometimes), but don't really solve it.
I'd say the rise of literacy from roughly 40% of my country in 1918 to over 98% in the 1930's to be problem solved, as well as other, similar examples of government provided education and literacy programs.
Ones no religious group did to that scale of improvement.
I'd consider people having houses from when they did not prior a problem solved or at least, drastically improved.
I'd also consider a nation without industrial capacity, a agricultural feudal state run by serfs in all but name to an industrial workers state that ranked as a world power within a period of a decade far more improvement then the church ever did for my country.
Maybe we're using different understandings of the same word; what do you mean when you say "organization"?
First google popup of definition
1.
an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc.
"a research organization"
synonyms: company, firm, corporation, institution, group, consortium, conglomerate, agency, association, society; More
dot-org;
informaloutfit
"a large international organization"
2.
the action of organizing something.
"the organization of conferences and seminars"
synonyms: planning, arrangement, coordination, administration, organizing, running, management
"the organization of conferences"
the structure or arrangement of related or connected items.
"the spatial organization of the cells"
synonyms: structure, arrangement, plan, pattern, order, form, format, framework, composition, constitution
"the overall organization of the book"
an efficient and orderly approach to tasks.
Religious organizations I distrust because their purpose they say they are uniting for is to worship their religion. But it turns out they are more about expanding their power, increasing their wealth and profit, and increasing their control over their followers, as evidenced by history.
So once you get politics involved like that your religious organization is just a socio-economic business using religion as its marketing plan.
We live in a multi-thiestic world
I don't want any governmental assistance or support to them or giving them an ear when it comes to politics, because that's a slippery slope to theocracy, but I don't mind if people practice their faith and worship there is nothing wrong with that. People use their spirituality to help with their identity and purpose and help keep themselves sane and happy, understandable.
I'm old and lazy, so if I stop replying don't take it as an insult- its more so because im lacking energy ;lol
With the Jews and their literacy- keep in mind these were SMALL isolated communities or groups of people within a community. Jews were fairly educated yes, but they were also generally a more wealthy minority in every European nation due to their spending habits and other cultural practices that had them have a built up family wealth.
So they don't exactly count for nation wide education now, do they? It's not "widespread" its amongst their own enclaves. Its not distributed amongst the majority of the population so saying its widespread is laughable.
As for the crusades- the motivations were purely economic.
And as for the Israelites invading ancient Israel, they threw in their religious reasoning (of which the locals did not recognize and did not accept) to add salt to a wound, more or less.
I mentioned they were a buffer tribe with Egypt like the Visigoths were to Rome to draw a parallel- they were a hardened race of warriors and herdsmen who were used to warfare, and they got fed up with the pharaohs of Egypt and left.
As for a government not interfering with spiritual practices of its people- that's PRECISELY what I want. I want governments to be completely cut off from religions
and its a double edged sword. While there is absolutely no support for religions, religious groups having to setup their own organization themselves, that also means governments won't impede a religion and its worship. Schools and public establishments won't have religion enforced on them, and any people who want religious education seek it through complimentary or different channels- its not prohibited, just not supported.
I state multi-thiestic in the sense of religions, we have many religions, I am aware polytheism means multi god religion. But we have many faiths in this world, and Abrahamic one's aren't the only one. And many people aren't entirely even ascribed to one faith anymore, people change faiths and many people are agnostics. We live in a SECULAR world- completely atheist? I think not.
There is still many pagan religions about, and many polytheistic religions besides Hinduism. There is even a revival of things like Wiccans and pagan religions to boot- its not en masse comparable to catholics, protestants or jews, or islam for that matter but its notable.
As for poverty and literacy- actually they are very much interconnected. If you cannot read you are less likely to get a better paying job. Literacy improves your quality of life in society because it enables you to do much more, to get better jobs, to be a more educated person.
And I'd like a source where housing was provided by a church or religious group on the same scale of state programs did.
And industry does help raise potentials to solve poverty- if you industrialize you can create more food, jobs, better work environments, new tools, sanitation, many different improvements to society.
As for organization definitions, the houses of worship do in the literal sense of the word. In the way im treating it, typically not because I am taking it with the business definition
however the organization of a church or what have you like the Papacy? More or less a business with religion as its marketing plan as stated, amongst other religious organizations..
On the note of me accepting those who a "god" commands to attack and invade people who have nothing to do with their faith, I am not going to respect or take them seriously with what they tell me.
but its not that hard to see why I don't trust the more extreme or business oriented ones...
In response to these-
When the Kingdom of Israel existed, not many people were literate back then.
The site I linked says there was genuine feelings over the Holy Land, yes. But those were backing the majority objective- economic colonization and political control. And you helped back up my point with what you said, and for the pope, they were useful justifications.
As for the evidence that Israeli's were a buffer tribe- Look to your own Torah/Old Testament- it explicitly states the Israeli's settled on border regions granted by the Pharaoh of Egypt
and in order to conquer a walled city like Jericho and the whole of Canaan and Israel you HAVE to be a well structured military force.
The fact they evaded the Pharaoh's armies for years in the desert also speaks of a highly skilled commander (Moses) who was smart in evasion and escape.
but regardless of which way you cut it historically and with historical finds from the Kingdom of Israel and other digs and finds it pinpoints the Israeli tribes were fairly tough, disciplined warriors who knew what they were doing.
Similar records of this time from Egypt also depict a tribe called the Habiru- which is a collective term for people who were nomads, but MOSTLY attributed to Semitic Hebrews and related groups of nomads. And they were detailed as mercenaries, laborers and other sorts of workers- the Jews did help in building the pyramids, but the pyramids have also been proven to, for the most part not been built by slaves but rather peasants without work after the Nile floods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru)
As for accepting that this world is one of a monotheistic god- my answer is flatly no. I do not believe in a god, I do not believe this world was made by a god, or if it was, not by one we truly understand and should even worship, its unwise to worship or believe in something you don't fully comprehend or know.
As for the people who believe they have command over their own religious group and thinks its fair to commit atrocities even if its under the name of their god? I don't for one second believe in that because who says these people, from a spiritual point, are truly receiving orders from their holy one, are following the creeds and scriptures faithfully of their religion and are even doing their acts for religion, but rather instead power or psychosis?
If there is a Mujahideen firing his gun at my muslim friend, I am going to shoot that Mujahideen and wipe his arrogant, self righteous opinion and living body off the face of the planet.
If the god they follow is truly wise and benevolent they'll realize this and should actually be happy that their followers aren't mindlessly following his/her orders, if this god you cherish so much loves its followers and creations-
Wouldn't it want true love, compassion and intelligent behavior in return?
But that's my opinion. I'm a communist, an authoritarian on some levels and a militarist
Understandable. Will you, however, at least accept that if they were in fact acting on orders from a god who is god over the people they're attacking, they would be justified?
And will you also accept that a god (theoretically speaking) can be god over people said god created even if those people do not adhere to a religion that recognizes said god?
Understandable. Will you, however, at least accept that if they were in fact acting on orders from a god who is god over the people they're attacking, they would be justified?
And will you also accept that a god (theoretically speaking) can be god over people said god created even if those people do not adhere to a religion that recognizes said god?
That is a definitive NO, Gods creation of or being 'over' a group can not make an action that would otherwise be immoral moral. Just as I can not morally kill my child just because I created it or have authority over it.
My previous point stand, but to be frank killing for something that for all intents and purposes is a matter of faith- or to be a lot more crude and brash, imaginary/existent only in the eyes of their believers, is psychotic in my eyes.
Atheist must swear to God -- or leave US Air Forcehttp://news.yahoo.com/atheist-must-swear-god-leave-us-air-force-232153866.html (http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-must-swear-god-leave-us-air-force-232153866.html)
AFP
6 hours ago
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/GlZfxsdzD66TS0u.fLaOww--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTY5NTtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/d90fb9239e9ff10154addfb785b06bccb296babb.jpg)
Air Force Academy Cadets walk onto the field at the start of the graduation ceremony for the US Air Force Academy at Falcon Stadium on May 23, 2012 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. (AFP Photo/Chris Schneider)
Washington (AFP) - The US Air Force has told a sergeant he will have to leave the military unless he agrees to take an oath with the phrase "so help me God," officials said Tuesday.
In the latest religious controversy to roil the air force, the atheist airman last month was denied his request to re-enlist because of his refusal to swear to God -- and he is now poised to take the military to court, his lawyer said.
"We have not received word from the Air Force regarding our letter. It has not indicated a willingness to settle out of court," said Monica Miller, an attorney for the American Humanist Association, which has taken up the service member's case.
With the deadline for re-enlisting expiring in November, the technical sergeant at Creech Air Force base in Nevada -- whose name has not been released -- will be forced to sue the government in a federal court, Miller told AFP.
In the past, an airman could opt for an alternative phrase and omit the words "so help me God," but the US Air Force changed its policy in October 2013.
The other branches of the American military do not require the reference to God and make the phrase optional.
"This is the only branch to my knowledge that's actually requiring everyone in all instances to use the religious language," Miller said.
The requirement violates the US Constitution, which bars religious tests to hold office or other positions, Miller said of the case, which was first reported by the Air Force Times.
"The government cannot compel a nonbeliever to take an oath that affirms the existence of a supreme being," she said.
The sergeant's service expires in November and he has until then to re-enlist and take the oath, said US Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek.
In the meantime, "a written legal opinion is being requested" from the Pentagon's top lawyer, she said.
The air force has been plagued by controversy for years over religion and the role of Christian evangelists.
The US Air Force Academy in Colorado faced accusations several years ago that evangelical Christians exerted a dominating influence over the institution.
But attempts to counter the perceived bias in the service have sparked criticism from Christian activist groups, who allege a new rule stifles the religious expression of troops.
The disputed rule bars commanders from promoting their religious convictions to their subordinates.
Advocates of the policy say it protects troops who worry their careers could be jeopardized if they do not take part in their superior's Christian activities.
Scientists used smartphones to test morality in the real worldhttp://www.theverge.com/2014/9/11/6133619/in-the-real-world-being-religious-doesnt-make-you-commit-more-morally (http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/11/6133619/in-the-real-world-being-religious-doesnt-make-you-commit-more-morally)
Turns out, religion doesn't make you any more moral
The Verge
By Arielle Duhaime-Ross on September 11, 2014 02:01 pm
We’d all like to think that morality is cut and dry. But the truth is that many factors come into play when determining what each individual’s morality rests upon. Conservatives, for instance, tend to hold loyalty and purity in the highest regard, whereas liberals are more likely to base moral acts on caring and fairness. Yet, the only reason we know that these trends exist is because scientists tested various scenarios in controlled, laboratory settings to see how various groups of people react.
But a new study published today in Science has taken morality research out of the lab and into the streets, which means that we finally have an idea of how often humans encounter morally relevant situations and dilemmas in their every day lives. And, as it turns out, there's a lot more moral overlap between various groups — religious or nonreligious, for instance — than researchers previously thought.
"The methodology is really novel," says Dan Wisneski, a psychologist at Saint Peter's University and a co-author of the study. "A lot of previous moral and ethics studies have taken place in the lab, in a controlled setting, and although these are important, we wanted to take those findings and compare it against people's everyday moral reality."
In the study, 1252 American and Canadian adults answered surveys about their experiences with morality for a period of three days. The surveys were initiated by text message five times a day at random intervals, and each provided a link to a survey that asked participants if they had experienced, witnessed, performed or learned of a moral or immoral act in the last hour. If they had, they were asked to describe that event. And each time they submitted a survey, they were entered in a contest to win a prize.
Once the answers were submitted, the researchers assigned it a single, specific category, all of which were based on the "moral foundations theory" — a theory that bases morality on eight basic foundations, including fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty.
"We were able to take those open ended responses and code them," Wisneski says, by assigning a foundation to each description. "We tried to pick the ones that we thought fitted best," Wisneski says, but that wasn't always easy. "For example, if we decided to code ‘I cheated on my spouse,’ then we coded it as disloyalty. But it could have been coded as dishonesty as well." Ultimately, he explains, the research team opted to be consistent in their coding and to stick to the foundations’ definitions.
And the results they’ve obtained so far are pretty revealing. For one thing, they found that the moral acts that people described tended to be based on caring, whereas immoral acts were more diverse and centered around harm, unfairness and dishonesty. The researchers also found that regardless of religious or nonreligious affiliation, participants responded positively to the survey and described a morally relevant situation about 29 percent of the time. "The main finding is that morally relevant phenomena happens fairly often," Wisneski says. "And being religious, or nonreligious, doesn’t change that frequency."
Moreover, the study was able to confirm what previous lab studies have found: that being the target of a morally positive act makes people more likely to commit one themselves, whereas committing a moral act subsequently gives people the license to do something morally reprehensible — a phenomenon called "moral self-licensing."
"The fact that these data bear out this effect is in everyday life is very interesting," says David Pizarro, a psychologist at Cornell University who didn't participate in the study. "It seems as if good moral deeds spread across people more than within people." Still, Pizarro is skeptical of the self-reporting aspect of the experiment. "Some of the main findings might not be due to the actual frequency of these acts in the real world, but simply to the fact that people are likely to report some acts instead of others."
Wisneski says that this type of criticism is perfectly valid, but counters it by stating that there was no real incentive to present oneself in a favorable light. For example, some people readily admitted to infidelity during the three-day period. Moreover, he says, "some might say that by doing this study, we’re bringing [morality] to mind a lot," and therefore priming people to think of their life in moral terms more than they normally would. But in reality, the participants were "incentivized to under-report moral acts" because answering the survey negatively didn't take as long, and they were still entered in the contest. Thus, Wisneski thinks that it’s likely that the results are pretty representative of what humans of a certain economic status — humans who own smartphones, as was required of the study’s participants — experience on a regular basis.
"This is a novel, thoughtful and informative study," says Fiery Cushman, a psychologist at Harvard University. "The findings mostly corroborate theories that emerged from laboratory-based research, but there are a few surprises," like the fact that religious affiliation didn’t predict morally positive actions.
The researchers now plan to take an even deeper look into the huge data sets they've gathered. They'd like to look at other factors that might come into play in everyday life, such as socio-economic status. And other, quirkier questions might also be worth investigating, says lead author and University of Cologne psychologist Wilhelm Hofmann. We "did not look at correlates between smartphone [platforms] and demographics or predictors of moral experiences," he wrote in an email to The Verge, but that would "definitely be something to consider in future analyses." For now, however, we have to live without knowing if Windows phone users commit more moral acts than iPhone users.
Parent-child is a much weaker relationship, though. A better analogy is: Can one make a sapient robot while still reserving for oneself the right to destroy it?
My previous point stand, but to be frank killing for something that for all intents and purposes is a matter of faith- or to be a lot more crude and brash, imaginary/existent only in the eyes of their believers, is psychotic in my eyes.
How dependent is that position on said god actually being imaginary?
Parent-child is a much weaker relationship, though. A better analogy is: Can one make a sapient robot while still reserving for oneself the right to destroy it?
I find that robot analogy to be morally identical to Parent-child example for virtually all conceivable actions (for example I would have the responsibility to care for the robot as I would a child), so I find it odd that you feel it is a better analogy.
My previous point stand, but to be frank killing for something that for all intents and purposes is a matter of faith- or to be a lot more crude and brash, imaginary/existent only in the eyes of their believers, is psychotic in my eyes.
How dependent is that position on said god actually being imaginary?
Speaking just for myself I'd say the actual existence of the god is irrelevant.
First it is psychotic for the individual in question to presume that their 'faith' tells them what this god wants done
Second if said god actually wanted these crimes to be committed then the god itself would be immoral and unworthy of worship
Third the act of surrendering ones will to some 'higher power' is always unjustified because responsibility for an unethical act can not be transferred to another entity, every individual must judge for themselves every act they do.
Christian conservatives have a terrifying new bogeyman: The Christian leftisthttp://theweek.com/article/index/268704/christian-conservatives-have-a-terrifying-new-bogeyman-the-christian-leftist (http://theweek.com/article/index/268704/christian-conservatives-have-a-terrifying-new-bogeyman-the-christian-leftist)
And they're right to be scared...
The Week
By Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig | September 26, 2014
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0125/62949_article_full/theres-really-no-divide.jpg?209)
There's really no divide. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
A resurgence of the Christian left may seem a distant hope, but the idea of it has certainly spooked the Christian right. Such is the impetus for Distortion: How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel & Damaging the Faith. It's a curious book from accomplished evangelical author Chelsen Vicari, who aims in it to address a "crisis" in evangelicalism — namely the rise of a Christian left.
Vicari's book is neither a principled critique of Christian leftism writ large nor a principled defense of a Christian right-wing; on the contrary, it's very narrowly focused on American Christians who align with the Democratic Party versus American Christians who align with the Republican Party. It's in favor of the latter, of course, but in so doing it visits a number of tired arguments that are only tenuously linked to Christianity, and are more thoroughly associated with secular partisan politics.
One such issue is the nebulously defined question of "big government." Though "big government" can as easily mean a carceral state, a surveillance state, a welfare state, or all three, Vicari appears to take it to mean a state with fairly modest provisions for the poor: food stamps, healthcare, and little more.
"The evangelical left," Vicari writes, "confuses the church's mission to further God's kingdom with unlimited big government." In arguing that Christians should not create states that provide social insurance for poor people, Vicari cites Jerry Falwell: "Jesus taught that we should give to the poor and support widows, but he never said that we should elect a government that would take money from our neighbor's hand and give it to the poor."
In other words, Vicari's complaint with the Christian left is not that their impulse is wrong — she agrees that all Christians, right and left, should recognize an obligation to support the poor as special figures of God's concern — but that the process they envision is wrong. Taxes, she argues, are wrong on the merits because they constitute "taking" from one person for the support of another, rather than relying upon voluntary charity. From this position one would expect a generally libertarian view: that the state is not an object of moral errand-running, and that taxes, being an inherently evil institution, should be used as seldom as possible, and never to undertake specifically moral projects.
This would be a consistent position. But it's not Vicari's position. And her inconsistency here highlights a general problem with right-wing Christians who claim taxes are an immoral method of carrying out moral projects.
In a later chapter, Vicari takes up a spirited defense of American military support for Israel. She argues that "American Christians… have a part in the Abrahamic covenant," noting that God said, "He would treat nations according to the way they treat Israel." Therefore, by her lights, "defending [Israel] is the Christian people's responsibility" — and by this she means Christians acting through the apparatus of the United States' military, funded by taxes. She does not argue, for instance, that Christians are obligated to pool their resources and privately fund a military defense of Israel.
If her distinction between the obligation of individuals to care for the poor and the obligation of states to care for Israel rests on the word "nation," she could look to Matthew 25:31 (the famous parable of sheep and goats) to see that Christ will equally judge all nations based on their treatment of the poor, sick, foreign, and similarly oppressed.
If Christians should always resist "big government," then what's bigger than a government that not only militarily defends its country's own borders, but those of a totally independent sovereign country? Or, if Christians should only support big government insofar as it's used in defense of people who are important to God, why wouldn't that extend to the poor, who win so much of Jesus' special attention? There is a reason that libertarians have an embattled relationship with hardline Republicans when it comes to Israel, and this conflict is why those differing accounts of the right use of the state are so hard to square up. The question is even more nonsensical when framed in theological terms.
And yet perhaps this tension is what occasions such a book. If the old guard on the partisan Christian right envisions itself to be crumbling, there's nothing more apt than a forceful restatement of terms, preferably with a fresh face. But if it's crumbling, it's because the foundations are weak, and illustrating that inadvertently isn't going to make its last gasps any more graceful. Far from being the death knell for the American Christian left, Vicari's book might be little more than a signal that this is the Christian left's moment to rise.
QuoteChristian conservatives have a terrifying new bogeyman: The Christian leftisthttp://theweek.com/article/index/268704/christian-conservatives-have-a-terrifying-new-bogeyman-the-christian-leftist (http://theweek.com/article/index/268704/christian-conservatives-have-a-terrifying-new-bogeyman-the-christian-leftist)
And they're right to be scared...
The Week
By Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig | September 26, 2014
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0125/62949_article_full/theres-really-no-divide.jpg?209)
There's really no divide. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
A resurgence of the Christian left may seem a distant hope, but the idea of it has certainly spooked the Christian right. Such is the impetus for Distortion: How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel & Damaging the Faith. It's a curious book from accomplished evangelical author Chelsen Vicari, who aims in it to address a "crisis" in evangelicalism — namely the rise of a Christian left.
Vicari's book is neither a principled critique of Christian leftism writ large nor a principled defense of a Christian right-wing; on the contrary, it's very narrowly focused on American Christians who align with the Democratic Party versus American Christians who align with the Republican Party. It's in favor of the latter, of course, but in so doing it visits a number of tired arguments that are only tenuously linked to Christianity, and are more thoroughly associated with secular partisan politics.
One such issue is the nebulously defined question of "big government." Though "big government" can as easily mean a carceral state, a surveillance state, a welfare state, or all three, Vicari appears to take it to mean a state with fairly modest provisions for the poor: food stamps, healthcare, and little more.
"The evangelical left," Vicari writes, "confuses the church's mission to further God's kingdom with unlimited big government." In arguing that Christians should not create states that provide social insurance for poor people, Vicari cites Jerry Falwell: "Jesus taught that we should give to the poor and support widows, but he never said that we should elect a government that would take money from our neighbor's hand and give it to the poor."
In other words, Vicari's complaint with the Christian left is not that their impulse is wrong — she agrees that all Christians, right and left, should recognize an obligation to support the poor as special figures of God's concern — but that the process they envision is wrong. Taxes, she argues, are wrong on the merits because they constitute "taking" from one person for the support of another, rather than relying upon voluntary charity. From this position one would expect a generally libertarian view: that the state is not an object of moral errand-running, and that taxes, being an inherently evil institution, should be used as seldom as possible, and never to undertake specifically moral projects.
This would be a consistent position. But it's not Vicari's position. And her inconsistency here highlights a general problem with right-wing Christians who claim taxes are an immoral method of carrying out moral projects.
In a later chapter, Vicari takes up a spirited defense of American military support for Israel. She argues that "American Christians… have a part in the Abrahamic covenant," noting that God said, "He would treat nations according to the way they treat Israel." Therefore, by her lights, "defending [Israel] is the Christian people's responsibility" — and by this she means Christians acting through the apparatus of the United States' military, funded by taxes. She does not argue, for instance, that Christians are obligated to pool their resources and privately fund a military defense of Israel.
If her distinction between the obligation of individuals to care for the poor and the obligation of states to care for Israel rests on the word "nation," she could look to Matthew 25:31 (the famous parable of sheep and goats) to see that Christ will equally judge all nations based on their treatment of the poor, sick, foreign, and similarly oppressed.
If Christians should always resist "big government," then what's bigger than a government that not only militarily defends its country's own borders, but those of a totally independent sovereign country? Or, if Christians should only support big government insofar as it's used in defense of people who are important to God, why wouldn't that extend to the poor, who win so much of Jesus' special attention? There is a reason that libertarians have an embattled relationship with hardline Republicans when it comes to Israel, and this conflict is why those differing accounts of the right use of the state are so hard to square up. The question is even more nonsensical when framed in theological terms.
And yet perhaps this tension is what occasions such a book. If the old guard on the partisan Christian right envisions itself to be crumbling, there's nothing more apt than a forceful restatement of terms, preferably with a fresh face. But if it's crumbling, it's because the foundations are weak, and illustrating that inadvertently isn't going to make its last gasps any more graceful. Far from being the death knell for the American Christian left, Vicari's book might be little more than a signal that this is the Christian left's moment to rise.
I don't consider it identical, since making a robot is a more purposeful act, more akin to making any other item (with all its implications on rights) than to conceiving a child.
Not so clear; there are times when the greater good would be better served by such actions. A sufficiently knowledgeable and intelligent god would be able to determine those times, at which point it becomes a question of "does the end justify the means", or more generally deontological vs. utilitarian ethics. (Although I would argue that a creator god has a special status in deontological ethics.)
Sort of true. Responsibility for an unethical act cannot be transferred to another entity; however, there are cases where the ethicality of an act depends on the situation, and what orders one was given and by whom are part of that situation. (Of course, most cases of "just following orders" are not of this sort; one of the major guidelines to use is that if someone does not have the right to do something themselves, them ordering you to do it does not make it ethical outside of some highly contrived cases, whereas if they do have that right they can usually transfer that right to you.)
I don't consider it identical, since making a robot is a more purposeful act, more akin to making any other item (with all its implications on rights) than to conceiving a child.
Depends upon the perspective of the creator. I can certainly tell you many people purposefully have children, and an unfortunate portion of them is less of love and more of a distinct purpose for said child- such as receiving welfare money or to have a helping hand /source of income. Not as much anymore these days but it still happens.
Not so clear; there are times when the greater good would be better served by such actions. A sufficiently knowledgeable and intelligent god would be able to determine those times, at which point it becomes a question of "does the end justify the means", or more generally deontological vs. utilitarian ethics. (Although I would argue that a creator god has a special status in deontological ethics.)
To be quite frank clarity isn't the question here- when someone is committing a genocide and performing horrific acts, regardless if the god is knowledgeable and intelligent I am going to resist said actions and strike the follower of said god down before he kills everything I know and love. Hitler was a knowledgeable and intelligent man, but that didn't mean he wasn't a sociopath Nazi bent on genocide and the political domination of Europe and beyond.
Not saying your god is this; but it matters not who gives the order to do such things, only what the order is. I'd treat Communists who intended to do mass murder of innocent people with the same attitude- there is necessary wars to fight for the survival of your cause like the Russian Civil war against real enemies, and then there is instances of pure sociopathic powerplay like the holodomor, or when the Khmer Rouge started fertilizing their fields with the blood of innocent people just because they were educated beyond a certain point.
If their intention is the mass slaughter and harm of a population then its no excuse regardless of their creed. The only time this is even remotely justifiable is when said population has the exact same intentions and the two cannot tolerate each other whatsoever, and the destruction of one is inevitable.
Sort of true. Responsibility for an unethical act cannot be transferred to another entity; however, there are cases where the ethicality of an act depends on the situation, and what orders one was given and by whom are part of that situation. (Of course, most cases of "just following orders" are not of this sort; one of the major guidelines to use is that if someone does not have the right to do something themselves, them ordering you to do it does not make it ethical outside of some highly contrived cases, whereas if they do have that right they can usually transfer that right to you.)
This I agree with- sometimes you do have to do harsh actions, sometimes as stated before blood need be spilt. But the reasoning for it must be looked at before you do it, and if in my eyes, you are exterminating life merely because your "god" or ideal says so- then that reasoning in my opinion is needless bloodthirst.
It's still not as purposeful/"creative" an act as making a robot, though.
That's valid; God may have reasons for believing that in a particular case genocide is in fact for the greater good...but unless God clearly and unambiguously tells you otherwise (and "know you're not hallucinating" is an important part of "clearly and unambiguously", so we're essentially talking about a scientifically provable god at this point), you should act on what you can know, which is to stop that genocide.
I think that is a fair analogy, although the people behind the Russian Civil War were neither as wise/knowledgeable as God nor as entitled to ignore the deontological side of things. But certainly the distinction between truly necessary/justified and pure sociopathic powerplay is a useful one when considering what religious people tend to do.
What if the other population does not explicitly have the exact same intentions, but is otherwise causing equivalent amounts of harm?
What if the reasoning for you is "I don't know, but someone else, who's in a better position than me to know and shares my values, says it needs to be done"?
And what if the reasoning is "they did and continue to do X, which is really wrong, and the only way to stop it is to kill them"?
Finally, we get back to the question of the balance between utilitarian morality (under which needless bloodthirst is bad) and deontological (under which a creator god may have the right anyway.)
It's still not as purposeful/"creative" an act as making a robot, though.
Debatable, still.
Ever hear of story of Pinocchio? What if the creator only wanted a son ;lol
And on that logic, isn't this god you speak of more or less in the same line of that? Created us for the purpose of.. creating us, and then decided he wants to be loved by his own creations, and if we don't and don't live by his rules he'll send us to a place of fire and brimstone (and this is for the majority of Abrahamic faiths. I'm aware some forms of Judaism, especially older ones actually don't believe in an afterlife). That's one of the things I find a little psychotic about said god...
And if I get a clear sign from god to kill my neighbor, im seriously going to ask him for weeks supply of vodka and cognac. Maybe a crapload of money and an offshore banking account to go with it too.
And if he wants me to commit genocide? I am going to ignore this madman in the sky and not follow suit, his cosmic holiness be damned.
I think that is a fair analogy, although the people behind the Russian Civil War were neither as wise/knowledgeable as God nor as entitled to ignore the deontological side of things. But certainly the distinction between truly necessary/justified and pure sociopathic powerplay is a useful one when considering what religious people tend to do.
Under whose judgement were they more or less "wise/knowledgeable" then your god?
If they were truly wise and knowledge
Unless of course you are saying your God is communist, which is hilarious.
If one is defending themselves against extinction, no matter the intention of the other party, they have a right to fight back. One is entitled to defend themselves in a war or climate of war, there is no question of that. This is why capitalists fight communists, and while I despise capitalism I have never blamed them for fighting back when they are attacked by a communist, even if our intentions were never to outright kill them.
Then you seriously need to think about who you are taking orders from and seek the truth yourself.
I've never once blindly followed an order to kill someone
And what if the reasoning is "they did and continue to do X, which is really wrong, and the only way to stop it is to kill them"?
If X is bloodthirsty, murderous genocide and they keep doing it, you eliminate them before they can continue to carry it out. A war crime is a war crime, no matter who it is.
In this argument deontological isn't logical to me and I quite frankly think, even if not intended to be, an excuse for murder and conquest.
I don't believe in your god
Edit: If I appear rude in this post- not my intention. I'm just very blunt and brash... so apologies in advance if I have offended.
In the case of such a futuristic government, and if they asked me to do an ethnic cleansing on that scale I'd need to be shown the evidence myself before I'd do it. They'd need to convince me first and properly explain why im doing such a horrible thing-
They'd really have to define what this "long term benefit" was because if it wasn't something urgent then then I'd flatly disagree to it. I do not support fascism.
Humans aren't all knowing, but we can still look into something before we march forward with it. When I was in the military and I was ordered to do rather... horrible things I first asked the premise of it when we were being debriefed and reasoning, why it was essential. It got explained to me to a reasonable level- military's aren't a democracy and there is a chain of command but when you're asked to do certain things you have a right as a human being to know why to a certain extent.
As for a strategy whose goals I understood and method I did not- if I didn't know their method I wouldn't be on the field fighting for them, now would I?
And carrying out said methods. I'm no stranger to bloodshed, Yitzi. I've seen it first hand and personal and done some rather terrible things to people, but never once have I done flat out murder of a populace or civilians in the manner of a deathsqaud.
Needless to say you can probably understand why I have such a vitriolic distrust for religion in general and outright hatred of said extremist groups- I've lost friends and colleagues on that front.[/qupte]
Indeed; however, that does not change the fact that one can consider a situation in which those extremist groups are in the right. It's just a pretty safe bet that the real world is not such a situation.QuoteAs for things like human sacrifice- it'd depend on the premise of it. If the subject of said sacrifice is willingly giving up their life to be sacrificed, as silly as that sounds to either you or me... that's their own free will. But if its a captive being ripped asunder for the pleasure of their captor's gods or god... I am simply just going to blast a bullet through the brains of their captors and get that captive out of there, their religious beliefs of no importance to me.
Let's say it's child sacrifice, i.e. the subject of sacrifice is the son or daughter of the person doing the sacrifice.
And what if there wasn't just one or two people doing it, but a whole civilization? Would you be willing to destroy that civilization and its culture in order to put a stop to the practice?
So in my scenario (where the evidence involves calculations that you don't have the resources to carry out yourself, and probably lack the mathematical background to even understand), you wouldn't do it even though it would be a net good?If they can't explain it in terms I can understand, a relatively intelligent military man, then their credibility is questionable, don't you think?
If you wouldn't do it based on a non-urgent long term benefit, that implies you aren't a pure utilitarian. You already said you don't subscribe to deontological ethics...so what is your moral system?I never said I was a pure utilitarian. I just said I don't follow your logic when it comes to a god- my morality is based on a few basic concepts. How necessary it is to perform and action, and the consequences of it- sure the net benefit long term may be very good to eliminate an entire race, but the short term drawbacks would lead to massive problems and lashback, ones that I quite frankly may not be able to live with.
To a certain extent. But of course "more than you are intellectually able to handle" (and everybody has that point somewhere) is beyond that reasonable extent. So what happens when the "meat" of the explanation lies in that area?
Really? If a particular city was critical to the strategy, but you didn't understand why and attempts to explain it failed due to your not being a specialist in military theory, you wouldn't fight to take that city?
Which is a good thing, as I'm fairly certain that you were not fighting for a government with the capability to judge accurately that such an action is a net good.And I doubt your god or this futuristic government is without flaw either- because as stated numerical calculations, even if you somehow factor in human error to a significant extent, things can still change and not EVERYTHING can be factored in. What if the head programmer/tenant of this program or interpreter or something is suicidal, or has other motives? And maybe the calculations were fine but the "interpretation" of the answer was seen in a certain... perspective.
Indeed; however, that does not change the fact that one can consider a situation in which those extremist groups are in the right. It's just a pretty safe bet that the real world is not such a situation.Even if the groups were in the right Yitzi and their answer was the most efficient one, I still wouldn't want to support them, and I would not go down without a fight. Just because Zeus favour the Greeks at Troy and Aphrodite caused the conflict to begin with does not mean the Trojans should've just laid down and died. Sometimes even when you are wrong, its better to go down admirably and fight for what you believe in, and only surrender when nothing good is going to come of it or you have a chance to save the lives of the people you were fighting for or with.
Let's say it's child sacrifice, i.e. the subject of sacrifice is the son or daughter of the person doing the sacrifice.Yes, I would destroy that civilization and break the back of its culture, I wouldn't kill everyone in it, but I would certainly assimilate them to a more hospitable cultural model. Because children, even though they are sentient living beings with their own thought processes are easily manipulated and cannot fully fend for themselves both physically and mentally. And it's abhorrid a society would do that. And on a more logic based point of view, morality aside, you are pointlessly and needlessly killing the next generation to appease a fictional god or gods. Killing someone for something that doesn't even exist- and if it boosts happiness of the populace- then that populace needs to be socially engineered because under my principles of morality, not only is it needless suffering, needless waste of resource, and a never ending spiral of unnecessary murder- its also morbid and disgusting in my eyes for the reason that you are killing something that came from your own flesh and blood. Different cultural mindset, sure- but I have my reasoning. Point is, I still wouldn't kill that populace outright.
And what if there wasn't just one or two people doing it, but a whole civilization? Would you be willing to destroy that civilization and its culture in order to put a stop to the practice?
Yitzi- I learned military theory so I could understand strategic importance. You learn a basic degree of it even as a conscript, and I was a university educated military man- so I understood premise of situations I was involved in.
If they can't explain it in terms I can understand, a relatively intelligent military man, then their credibility is questionable, don't you think?
I never said I was a pure utilitarian. I just said I don't follow your logic when it comes to a god- my morality is based on a few basic concepts. How necessary it is to perform and action, and the consequences of it- sure the net benefit long term may be very good to eliminate an entire race, but the short term drawbacks would lead to massive problems and lashback, ones that I quite frankly may not be able to live with.
Mathematics and calculations can change if the conditions of the equation change, Yitzi, and humans are not perfect and 2+2 does not always equal 4 in a sense. Sometimes it will equal 3 when you input human error, and said operation can horribly backfire too or fail. And then what are you left with? An outraged populace that is determined to destroy you, now.
So, how necessary is something, the consequences, and also the amount of suffering it's going to inflict. And one of the other important things when it comes to my morality is, the utilitarian part- how much progress would such an action yield, and at what cost? If I were a businessman, I could say cut the wages of my employee's in half legally because they were at a different standard before, which would save me up a lot of money to spend on financing the company and buying new equipment, maybe even open up a new factory or something. But here's the thing- while its the most efficient option I am also thinking of the workers themselves and their families:
I am not going to cut their wages in half, even though they could potentially survive it, because that would horribly cut their morale and worsen their living conditions. Even though the long term profit I'd rake in would be fairly significant and in the eyes of the most cut throat capitalist, worth it.
Yitzi- I learned military theory so I could understand strategic importance. You learn a basic degree of it even as a conscript, and I was a university educated military man- so I understood premise of situations I was involved in. And if I didn't understand them, no I wouldn't fight. I'm not going to fight for a cause I don't believe in- unless im forced. And then I really don't have much a choice then do I? If a nation invaded my country however, I'd already know, even if not educated in military matters- I am defending my country and those within it, including me, my family and everything I grew up with, love and cherish.
Even a grunt is educated to a point, and an educated military force, a smart military force- is much more valuable then just blind simpletons who can't read. Its why the Congolese movements against Mobutu failed due to the huge amount of superstition and lack of education- there was a lack of cohesion in their military, their troops did not understand the reasoning for their orders and they referred to age old practices that simply did NOT work when it came to modern warfare.
Which is a good thing, as I'm fairly certain that you were not fighting for a government with the capability to judge accurately that such an action is a net good.And I doubt your god or this futuristic government is without flaw either- because as stated numerical calculations, even if you somehow factor in human error to a significant extent, things can still change and not EVERYTHING can be factored in.
Even if the groups were in the right Yitzi and their answer was the most efficient one, I still wouldn't want to support them, and I would not go down without a fight. Just because Zeus favour the Greeks at Troy and Aphrodite caused the conflict to begin with does not mean the Trojans should've just laid down and died. Sometimes even when you are wrong, its better to go down admirably and fight for what you believe in, and only surrender when nothing good is going to come of it or you have a chance to save the lives of the people you were fighting for or with.
Let's say it's child sacrifice, i.e. the subject of sacrifice is the son or daughter of the person doing the sacrifice.Yes, I would destroy that civilization and break the back of its culture, I wouldn't kill everyone in it, but I would certainly assimilate them to a more hospitable cultural model. Because children, even though they are sentient living beings with their own thought processes are easily manipulated and cannot fully fend for themselves both physically and mentally. And it's abhorrid a society would do that. And on a more logic based point of view, morality aside, you are pointlessly and needlessly killing the next generation to appease a fictional god or gods. Killing someone for something that doesn't even exist- and if it boosts happiness of the populace- then that populace needs to be socially engineered because under my principles of morality, not only is it needless suffering, needless waste of resource, and a never ending spiral of unnecessary murder- its also morbid and disgusting in my eyes for the reason that you are killing something that came from your own flesh and blood. Different cultural mindset, sure- but I have my reasoning. Point is, I still wouldn't kill that populace outright.
And what if there wasn't just one or two people doing it, but a whole civilization? Would you be willing to destroy that civilization and its culture in order to put a stop to the practice?
Or it's just really, really complicated.
So you're concerned with the short as well as long term, and that's why you would refuse even if the net benefit long term were positive? That, I don't understand; I don't see why the short term should be considered by morality.
Yes, human error is a factor, but let's assume in our scenario that the government is really good at predicting human error and has taken it into their calculations.The amount of compotence this government is showing is frightening, they must be an alien or something, has to be ;marr; or ;caretake; and we know how much we can trust them...
That's not a result of long term vs. short term, so much as that you care about other people more than profits. Which is a good thing, of course, but not really relevant to this discussion.
For a normal government, this is a concern. For a hypothetical case (government or theological) used to explore a point, though, we can just say that such is not the case and that you know it.I don't know about that, the fact this government has somehow determined killing an entire race of people for some up till now even unmentioned benefit they won't even tell me, I think that this government you speak of is a monstrous creation and im not sure how benevolent they really are. What if they then determine, after this populace is dead, that another populace has to go? Then another, and another. Sure there'd be less friction and debate culturally but you are literally living in a Nazi superstate then. Not sure if I'd care for that to be honest.
Even if that would come at the cost of lives of other people?
Ok, I'll grant that I have no clue why that approach (kill enough that the rest can be assimilated without assimilating in turn) wasn't used in the case of the Canaanites (who did indeed do child sacrifice, and this is strongly implied to be the reason for being so extreme in their treatment). Unless the concern was that giving orders of that sort would lead to their culture not being quashed enough, and thereby influencing the conquerers even more than it actually did...
Or it's just really, really complicated.
If its that complicated the plan is bound to fail
Just because the net long term benefit is positive does not mean it will be positive enough to rectify the short term. And the short term can seriously effect the long term. Why should it be considered by morality?
You are tasked with KILLING AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE. I don't know about you but that's not exactly easy to sit on one's conscience and im not sure I'd really want to go down in history as a mass murderer, even if the cause was apparently mathematically figured out to be positive. Or something.
If this calculation was so enigmatic that not even I, a commander, could understand the reasoning its pointless and this super genius is a lot more stupid and incompetent then we think. Because a true genius can at least find someone to present their theory or application to other people, otherwise how would they even be perceived as a genius?
The amount of compotence this government is showing is frightening, they must be an alien or something, has to be ;marr; or ;caretake; and we know how much we can trust them...
Actually I mentioned long term benefits- better profits both short term ad long term, more jobs could be opened with new factories and my business could expand. But because of how drastic it'd be for the short term (and long term due to the short term actions) I would decide against it. Its a totally relevant example of long term versus short term arguments.
I don't know about that, the fact this government has somehow determined killing an entire race of people for some up till now even unmentioned benefit they won't even tell me, I think that this government you speak of is a monstrous creation and im not sure how benevolent they really are.
My enemy is not a concern of me. And the people dying on my side are first going to be the defenders of the others- its better to go down with dignity as a soldier and buy time for the ones who can't defend themselves to escape.
It's because they blindly followed a God, if albeit intelligent, who was flawed and not as all knowledgeable as he seemed instead of evaluating their situation on the front themselves.
oh wait there was still reports of worship of Baal and child sacrifice after.
As for what I include in my morality- I already mentioned whats important to me earlier. I am not native at English speaking so maybe im not expressing myself properly with it; but look to my former posts on what I value, and make your assessment there.
If you are suggesting transcendent ;lal; or ;deidre; I HIGHLY doubt either of them are going to suggest wiping out an entire race. If anything thats against everything what ;lal; believes in and ;deidre; is not that violent, she would search more pacifist means.
As for if the long term effects would be more drastic for the sum of everyone- you're really going to have to specify what those effects are and how they affect the larger sum of everyone, I know we being hypothetical at current moment, but you're going to have to be specific in what the issue they are causing is.
And as for genius's and appreciation of them- if they are asking me to kill an entire race, even if they are following Michelangelo syndrome like an artist ding and then all his art being worth something, I am still going to be rightfully skeptical of someone who can't explain themselves or their reasoning when its such a heavy matter as that. And you would be too.
And no, there is no set of hypothetical evidence that would prove benevolent intent.
I need hard, rock solid evidence and I need a clear example of benevolence to believe someone is benevolent or even telling the truth.
And as for the worship of Baal and child sacrifice- they should've properly assimilated them, not just enslaved them.
I wouldn't be skeptical if they provided me enough evidence.
As for evidence of someone being benevolent, they do a benevolent action. As in actually do it, not give me a hypothesis or just talk about it. Actions speak louder then words, and just because someone says they are good- doesn't mean they are. They have to prove it to me.
A sufficient example that you are benevolent? In the case of a ruler, supporting social security programs and actually taking care of your people.
As for examples of assimilation? Religions are one of the best at assimilation- my own country turned from a predominantly polytheistic pagan worshipping populace to Orthodox Christians rapidly, the tsars and kings of Slavic kingdoms forcibly baptizing their populaces and crusaders from Prussia and Western Europe constantly looting and pillaging Slavic lands. Or the vast majority of native populations in many European empires being converted to Christianity by missionaries, residential schools in said colonies, indoctrination camps of various regimes and the United States for the longest time was fairly assimilative (and genocidal). Rome was a great example of assimilation, while they did tolerate different gods they completely instituted Roman culture onto their most well controlled provinces and essentially transformed the Gauls into Roman Celts, and its a similar story in Britain. That's just some among many examples of it, I could go on about how Islam also assimilated most of the Middle East and North Africa too.
There is also less violent examples too, such as the whole modern culture where everyone is becoming streamlined culturally through hegemonic influences in media today.
I never said assimilation was pretty. But neither is human sacrifice and killing children and babies, and I don't know, stopping a civilization that will literally sacrifice its own children as well as others is... worth the backlash and bloody actions of gunning down their priesthood and "re-educating" their populace.
As for a government that has laws of solidarity to take care of the poor- depends on how much its actually enforced. If its reliant on charity its not going to work, refer to my points on philanthropy a while back.
And assimilation of this group that sacrifices children en masse is going to require brutal tactics to subdue and subvert. I still would not agree to genocide mind you
and throwing back to that old subject of the futuristic government, it'd still need to clearly explain or at the very least give me a valid reason. Even as much as: This group has a specific gene that makes them a vulnerable ground of growth for a pandemic, and the infectious material is arriving via space and while it won't affect us initially, if they contract it the virus or contagion will mutate rapidly and then be highly transmittable to other humans beings. And quarantining them is going to be too risky due to factors x and y, and unsustainable to boot. If they proved that much to me or so then I'd definitely consider it, with a heavy heart but I'd definitely consider it.
The thing is, while people might be a bit more grudging to follow "you are required to give," they are actually more inclined to do it because authority is telling them to. If it's "please be nice and give," sure it will receive warmer reception in terms of how the public might see it- but it may very well not do anything because again you're just leaving it up to charity.
If the contagion was as bad as a serious disease, even if not fatal but inhibitive it'd still be a matter of survival because as a society you need healthy working people to be able to operate it. If everyone or the vast majority of people are afflicted with a terrible disease its going to make society fail, and in turn countless amounts are going to die of poverty due to there being no support system.
As for assimilation of that culture; not necessarily. It'd be cultural genocide, yes in the sense we WOULD be killing a culture. But eradicating the people themselves?
And last I checked with enough of a cultural imprint you'd be fairly immune to them subverting you.
edit: What about you Yitzi? What is your thoughts on this, where do you stand on such hypothetical cases such as this. I've only been assuming your stance, I'd like to hear where you actually stand on these issues.
In terms of deontological (I have rarely heard that term mind outside this conversation) I am not entirely against it. I just have absolutely no religious relations or motifs when it comes to that end of my morality- and I think that not even a god is excused from it.
I think it'd be hypocritical for a god to be actually, and it'd make me hateful towards said god because he ignored morality entirely.
And that mindset is blind in my eyes. To be unquestioning to a god or entity, and its dangerous.
Whose to say your god isn't corrupt himself, maybe even bloodthirsty? He seems to command a lot of it
and he seems to refer to slaughtering humankind when they don't follow his specific ideas, even to the point of flooding the earth
A god in general wouldn't be, but as I said earlier, I believe a creator has a special status, because duties (the basis of deontological ethics) are the flip side of rights, and I believe that a being can be created with limitations on its rights.
I categorically deny that that a creator can deny rights to his creations, this is the thinking which has animated slavery, genocide and every from of barbarism history has ever known.
That any person in our century would deny the basis of inalienable human rights shocks me.
Your logic here seems to be that being 'created' confers reduced right and elevated duties, aka you are your creators bith.
to the point of dictating morality itself
A god that is an 'exception' to it's own moral code simply because it was the creator of said code is a flaming hypocrite, the code in question is rubbish because it rests on the moral authority of a hypocrite.
Also in the last few pages you two have been arguing over of acting on the orders of an all-knowing, good-willing agent that orders massive harm (god, phyco-history, time-travelers take your pick), this is basically an extreme ends-justify-means constitutionalism argument.
Jarl seems to agree with Consequences justifying actions, but he denies that we not-all-knowing individuals would ever be able to be convinced of that absolute infallibility and or good-will (and truthfulness I'd like to point out) of this agent to every justifiably act upon these orders. A kind of moral Heisenberg-uncertainty principle shielding us from an obligation to obey the order to do harm even though we may be committed consequentialist.
I think everyone would agree that their exists some point beyond which a harmful act can only have ultimately harmful ends, maybe that point is 'global therm o-nuclear war' or 'causing the sun to go super-nova'
But Yitzi now seems to be switching tracks to 'deontological ethics', which (after goggle to the rescue) is the basis that actions are ethical not because of consequences but because of duty, and in this context it is the duty to obey god.
Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?http://theweek.com/article/index/269462/why-do-so-many-liberals-despise-christianity (http://theweek.com/article/index/269462/why-do-so-many-liberals-despise-christianity)
Liberals increasingly want to enforce a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. And they see alternative visions of the good as increasingly intolerable.
The Week
By Damon Linker | 6:06am ET
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0126/63270_article_full/many-of-the-health-care-workers-assisting-ebola-patients-are-missionaries-so-what.jpg?209)
Many of the health care workers assisting Ebola patients are missionaries. So what? (REUTERS/Jo Dunlop/UNICEF/Handout via Reuters)
Liberalism seems to have an irrational animus against Christianity. Consider these two stories highlighted in the last week by conservative Christian blogger Rod Dreher.
Item 1: In a widely discussed essay in Slate, author Brian Palmer writes about the prevalence of missionary doctors and nurses in Africa and their crucial role in treating those suffering from Ebola. Palmer tries to be fair-minded, but he nonetheless expresses "ambivalence," "suspicion," and "visceral discomfort" about the fact that these men and women are motivated to make "long-term commitments to address the health problems of poor Africans," to "risk their lives," and to accept poor compensation (and sometimes none at all) because of their Christian faith.
The question is why he considers this a problem.
Palmer mentions a lack of data and an absence of regulatory oversight. But he's honest enough to admit that these aren't the real reasons for his concern. The real reason is that he doesn't believe that missionaries are capable "of separating their religious work from their medical work," even when they vow not to proselytize their patients. And that, in his view, is unacceptable — apparently because he's an atheist and religion creeps him out. As he puts it, rather wanly, "It's great that these people are doing God's work, but do they have to talk about Him so much?"
That overriding distaste for religion leads Palmer to propose a radical corollary to the classical liberal ideal of a separation between church and state — one that goes far beyond politics, narrowly construed. Palmer thinks it's necessary to uphold a separation of "religion and health care."
Item 2: Gordon College, a small Christian school north of Boston, is facing the possibility of having its accreditation revoked by the higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, according to an article in the Boston Business Journal. Since accreditation determines a school's eligibility to participate in federal and state financial aid programs, and the eligibility of its students to be accepted into graduate programs and to meet requirements for professional licensure, revoking a school's accreditation is a big deal — and can even be a death sentence.
What has Gordon College done to jeopardize its accreditation? It has chosen to enforce a "life and conduct statement" that forbids "homosexual practice" on campus.
Now, one could imagine a situation in which such a statement might legitimately run afoul of an accreditation board or even anti-discrimination statutes and regulations — if, for example, it stated that being gay is a sign of innate depravity and that students who feel same-sex attraction should be subject to punishment for having such desires.
But that isn't the case here. At all. In accordance with traditional Christian teaching, Gordon College bans all sexual relationships outside of marriage, gay or straight, and it goes out of its way to say that its structures against homosexual acts apply only to behavior and not to same-sex desires or orientation.
The accreditation board is not so much objecting to the college's treatment of gays as it is rejecting the legitimacy of its devoutly Christian sexual beliefs.
The anti-missionary article and the story of Gordon College's troubles are both examples (among many others) of contemporary liberalism's irrational animus against religion in general and traditional forms of Christianity in particular.
My use of the term "irrational animus" isn't arbitrary. The Supreme Court has made "irrational animus" a cornerstone of its jurisprudence on gay rights. A law cannot stand if it can be shown to be motivated by rationally unjustifiable hostility to homosexuals, and on several occasions the court has declared that traditional religious objections to homosexuality are reducible to just such a motive.
But the urge to eliminate Christianity's influence on and legacy within our world can be its own form of irrational animus. The problem is not just the cavalier dismissal of people's long-established beliefs and the ways of life and traditions based on them. The problem is also the dogmatic denial of the beauty and wisdom contained within those beliefs, ways of life, and traditions. (You know, the kind of thing that leads a doctor to risk his life and forego a comfortable stateside livelihood in favor of treating deadly illness in dangerous, impoverished African cities and villages, all out of a love for Jesus Christ.)
Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an alternative vision of the good — one that clashes in some respects with liberalism's moral creed — is increasingly intolerable.
That is a betrayal of what's best in the liberal tradition.
Liberals should be pleased and express gratitude when people do good deeds, whether or not those deeds are motivated by faith. They should also be content to give voluntary associations (like religious colleges) wide latitude to orient themselves to visions of the human good rooted in traditions and experiences that transcend liberal modernity — provided they don't clash in a fundamental way with liberal ideals and institutions.
In the end, what we're seeing is an effort to greatly expand the list of beliefs, traditions, and ways of life that fundamentally clash with liberalism. That is an effort that no genuine liberal should want to succeed.
What happened to a liberalism of skepticism, modesty, humility, and openness to conflicting notions of the highest good? What happened to a liberalism of pluralism that recognizes that when people are allowed to search for truth in freedom, they are liable to seek and find it in a multitude of values, beliefs, and traditions? What happened to a liberalism that sees this diversity as one of the finest flowers of a free society rather than a threat to the liberal democratic order?
I don't have answers to these questions — and frankly, not a lot hinges on figuring out how we got here. What matters is that we acknowledge that something in the liberal mind has changed, and that we act to recover what has been lost.
QuoteWhy do so many liberals despise Christianity?http://theweek.com/article/index/269462/why-do-so-many-liberals-despise-christianity (http://theweek.com/article/index/269462/why-do-so-many-liberals-despise-christianity)
Liberals increasingly want to enforce a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. And they see alternative visions of the good as increasingly intolerable.
The Week
By Damon Linker | 6:06am ET
(https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0126/63270_article_full/many-of-the-health-care-workers-assisting-ebola-patients-are-missionaries-so-what.jpg?209)
Many of the health care workers assisting Ebola patients are missionaries. So what? (REUTERS/Jo Dunlop/UNICEF/Handout via Reuters)
Liberalism seems to have an irrational animus against Christianity. Consider these two stories highlighted in the last week by conservative Christian blogger Rod Dreher.
Item 1: In a widely discussed essay in Slate, author Brian Palmer writes about the prevalence of missionary doctors and nurses in Africa and their crucial role in treating those suffering from Ebola. Palmer tries to be fair-minded, but he nonetheless expresses "ambivalence," "suspicion," and "visceral discomfort" about the fact that these men and women are motivated to make "long-term commitments to address the health problems of poor Africans," to "risk their lives," and to accept poor compensation (and sometimes none at all) because of their Christian faith.
The question is why he considers this a problem.
Palmer mentions a lack of data and an absence of regulatory oversight. But he's honest enough to admit that these aren't the real reasons for his concern. The real reason is that he doesn't believe that missionaries are capable "of separating their religious work from their medical work," even when they vow not to proselytize their patients. And that, in his view, is unacceptable — apparently because he's an atheist and religion creeps him out. As he puts it, rather wanly, "It's great that these people are doing God's work, but do they have to talk about Him so much?"
That overriding distaste for religion leads Palmer to propose a radical corollary to the classical liberal ideal of a separation between church and state — one that goes far beyond politics, narrowly construed. Palmer thinks it's necessary to uphold a separation of "religion and health care."
Item 2: Gordon College, a small Christian school north of Boston, is facing the possibility of having its accreditation revoked by the higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, according to an article in the Boston Business Journal. Since accreditation determines a school's eligibility to participate in federal and state financial aid programs, and the eligibility of its students to be accepted into graduate programs and to meet requirements for professional licensure, revoking a school's accreditation is a big deal — and can even be a death sentence.
What has Gordon College done to jeopardize its accreditation? It has chosen to enforce a "life and conduct statement" that forbids "homosexual practice" on campus.
Now, one could imagine a situation in which such a statement might legitimately run afoul of an accreditation board or even anti-discrimination statutes and regulations — if, for example, it stated that being gay is a sign of innate depravity and that students who feel same-sex attraction should be subject to punishment for having such desires.
But that isn't the case here. At all. In accordance with traditional Christian teaching, Gordon College bans all sexual relationships outside of marriage, gay or straight, and it goes out of its way to say that its structures against homosexual acts apply only to behavior and not to same-sex desires or orientation.
The accreditation board is not so much objecting to the college's treatment of gays as it is rejecting the legitimacy of its devoutly Christian sexual beliefs.
The anti-missionary article and the story of Gordon College's troubles are both examples (among many others) of contemporary liberalism's irrational animus against religion in general and traditional forms of Christianity in particular.
My use of the term "irrational animus" isn't arbitrary. The Supreme Court has made "irrational animus" a cornerstone of its jurisprudence on gay rights. A law cannot stand if it can be shown to be motivated by rationally unjustifiable hostility to homosexuals, and on several occasions the court has declared that traditional religious objections to homosexuality are reducible to just such a motive.
But the urge to eliminate Christianity's influence on and legacy within our world can be its own form of irrational animus. The problem is not just the cavalier dismissal of people's long-established beliefs and the ways of life and traditions based on them. The problem is also the dogmatic denial of the beauty and wisdom contained within those beliefs, ways of life, and traditions. (You know, the kind of thing that leads a doctor to risk his life and forego a comfortable stateside livelihood in favor of treating deadly illness in dangerous, impoverished African cities and villages, all out of a love for Jesus Christ.)
Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an alternative vision of the good — one that clashes in some respects with liberalism's moral creed — is increasingly intolerable.
That is a betrayal of what's best in the liberal tradition.
Liberals should be pleased and express gratitude when people do good deeds, whether or not those deeds are motivated by faith. They should also be content to give voluntary associations (like religious colleges) wide latitude to orient themselves to visions of the human good rooted in traditions and experiences that transcend liberal modernity — provided they don't clash in a fundamental way with liberal ideals and institutions.
In the end, what we're seeing is an effort to greatly expand the list of beliefs, traditions, and ways of life that fundamentally clash with liberalism. That is an effort that no genuine liberal should want to succeed.
What happened to a liberalism of skepticism, modesty, humility, and openness to conflicting notions of the highest good? What happened to a liberalism of pluralism that recognizes that when people are allowed to search for truth in freedom, they are liable to seek and find it in a multitude of values, beliefs, and traditions? What happened to a liberalism that sees this diversity as one of the finest flowers of a free society rather than a threat to the liberal democratic order?
I don't have answers to these questions — and frankly, not a lot hinges on figuring out how we got here. What matters is that we acknowledge that something in the liberal mind has changed, and that we act to recover what has been lost.
---
Because conservatives say imaginative things like this article. See also the first article in this thread.
Unitarian Universalism teaches tolerance and that actions matter more than beliefs. That would probably be the only real compromise out there. Basically, believe what you want but do not be a [feminine washing]or force your stuff on someone else.
Problem is, if you read through these "holy books" and take them literally, there is no room for tolerance.
He cared for people but wondered why if he prayed, he could not cure folks like the bigtime preachers said you could with faith.
He poured over religious texts and found hatred, bigotry, and little to do with love.
Universalism becomes unworkable only because it messes with the whole concept of "we are right".
Why, it should not even be POSSIBLE to be moral without their belief system and structure Because it is RIGHT and the other choices are wrong (so you are told).
The major religions could not stand for even considering alternatives or that the could be wrong. Folks would lose jobs!
They will (and do) use the court system and lobbyists to try to make whatever religious tenant the law of the land.
But, if it mattered more behavior as opposed to merely believing in something, that in effect is Universalism and is (at least currently - historical Universalism meant all were saved and was a Christian denomination) maybe the world would be a better place.
But Yitzi, you do bring up a point. As long as belief matters more than outcomes or actions, the world is going to be a very hostile place in areas where theocratic leanings are dominate.
I see no alternative but to hinder the spread of religion and dismantle most of those institutions through education.
Or do what the Soviets did. You phase it out by education, subtly dismantling it and having an overpowering ideal to replace it and give people hope.
Orthodox Christianity is not as big as it was a hundred years ago, and many people despise it- And many of the younger Russians do not like it all.
And Yitzi, religious groups even if faced with that threat will not unite enough to put aside their own differences.
And there is good people who follow these faiths- its just the faith itself is ruled by political bodies that care nothing about the welfare of people and even morals and more about culturally controlling people, expanding their influence, and getting money. Plain and simple.
Well put, Jarl.
Speaking of zealots, "god's will", and arrogance, the article I posted from Louisiana showed a picture. Now, I have not lost comrades or anything harsh like Jarlwolf. But, I am in fear in some situations in Louisiana if I am too open about non belief, I can face economic persecution and possible homelessness. In the city, less so. Rural areas in the Bible Belt more so.
THIS is what was in the article put in mail boxes to atheists gathering in the western part of my state, only a hour or so drive from here.
Oh, and Yitzi. Universalism as a philosophy is not about everything applying one dogma to everybody.
No, it simply means that everyone has their own path to enlightenment.
Wait, wouldn't that make it relevant only to enlightenment-based systems, and completely irrelevant to service-based systems (whether theistic service-based systems such as Abrahamic religion, or humanistic service-based systems such as many secular approaches to morality)?
QuoteWait, wouldn't that make it relevant only to enlightenment-based systems, and completely irrelevant to service-based systems (whether theistic service-based systems such as Abrahamic religion, or humanistic service-based systems such as many secular approaches to morality)?
Maybe that was the wrong wording. Better wording would be "a free and responsible search for meaning/truth" that could apply to many religions.
But some like the more hardline Abrahamic would need to cull some of the condemning things out of their teachings because some of the passages outright condemn, justify violence, or wish supernatural torture to opposing viewpoints which are harmless otherwise.
You must agree to basic principles. Simple stuff like recognizing every human has worth, not trashing the environment, etc.
Which no one here is doing, were all adults who are compromising and understanding of that premises
And to me that's because despite our ideological, spiritual and other belief differences we all have a common underlying belief here; consensus and community. We all have some things we agree upon, and we all share this ideological trait and grow respect from it.
And its why this forum can house Communists, Legalists, Christians of various direction, Jews, Muslims, Militarists, Pacifists, Anarchists, Solidarists, Communitarians, Communalists, Individualists, Collectivists, Utilitarians, even Fascists/Nationalists to some degree, and somehow we aren't constantly at each others throat.
It's why I am so against a religious group acting like it has jurisdiction, Yitzi, over its "own people" and genocide in general. Its why I am typing this rant out right now because I am sharing my experience, my pain, to share another perspective to think about. Just as much as I am listening to others in here as well, and thinking on it.
The thing is, your religion may be truthful to you- but that doesn't mean its truthful to others.
And I certainly don't agree to how Israelites are treating civilians on the Gaza strip
If a god is so weak and pitiful to ask of and rely on its followers to massacre and butcher people who don't believe in him, regardless if he exists or not he does not deserve to be worshiped in my eyes and he is a coward. That's just my personal opinion.
Yitzi, principles such as treating others with dignity has nothing to do with anything divine or any "truth".
I also do not believe the church or religion in general can survive as a "service" based organization to an invisible divine power except in places of ignorance and low education.
The problem is when God says something, who is to question it?
Also, who says that God said this? A book written and rewritten since the Bronze Ages or some dude who has a position of power of a large organization?
Why can't things be questioned? When I mean question, I do not mean not understanding and getting it repeated to you in a different way. I mean truly held up to reason.
No religious organization allows questioning.
Very few evolve or change with technological and social advances.
Some things that may have been practical in the Bronze Age or in the Koran's case Dark Ages are not applicable now.
This is the reason the religious organizations SHOULD cull archaic concepts from teachings or at least relegate those things for historical context.
You see, even if there is a god or not, no creator would give you a powerful tool like questioning and not expect you to use it.
Could you please give us examples of this questioning in Judaism
and how you can prove the Torah/Bible was not re-wrote constantly over time?
And the "moral" truth isn't a fact, its a matter of opinion. One person's morality may be different then another because they hold different values.
And thus that makes the state of your god purely an opinion, as no god or higher entity has revealed themselves, provided evidence for themselves or even directly spoken for themselves: It has always been through "prophets" and "chosen ones" or "sons of god" throughout history.
And we cannot take the accounts of an ever changing book as fact, especially one written by rather biased men who actively painted their enemies as demons in their history. Do I need to mention how Babylon and the Assyrians are mentioned in the Torah/Old Testament?
I don't think so. The thing is said holy book has so many different variations now that if you read different Jewish sects of the Torah or different Christian sect's and their version of the bible, there is differences between them. In some cases they may be subtle, slight: And then some are radically different.
They may have been at one time; but in this day and age I see them as an impediment and my reasoning and evidence is the horrible things I have witnessed fighting against it, and the catastrophes it has caused over the ages when it comes to genocide, inquisitions and the widespread persecution it induced.
The thing is, your religion may be truthful to you- but that doesn't mean its truthful to others.Quite true! ;lol Now as it happens, my fundamentalist Christian perspective has me believing that all Jews are "God's chosen people" according to the Word of God, and as such I view all of them something like Hindus view cattle - sacred. At the same time I realize that to any objective person, the whole Jewish religion probably comes across about as arrogant as aristocracy, nobility or royalty - It's kind of an I'm-better-than-you-because-my-ancestors-were-better-than-your-ancestors-thing.
And I certainly don't agree to how Israelites are treating civilians on the Gaza strip, and how at points in recent history Muslims were gunned down on pure suspicion. It doesn't matter if the extremists are Jewish or Muslim or Christian, I do not think a religion has jurisdiction to do that sort of thing because quite frankly it does not apply to the real world.I too, have issues with the State of Israel. As near as I can tell, a lot of people within that nation have political differences, even though Judaism is used as a cloak for political purposes. I think that is an entire tangent to a religious discussion, let alone one about American Christianity.
If a god is so weak and pitiful to ask of and rely on its followers to massacre and butcher people who don't believe in him, regardless if he exists or not he does not deserve to be worshiped in my eyes and he is a coward. That's just my personal opinion.
What exactly is wrong with "feel good" positions?
There is no way a rational person would just agree to belong to an organization of unquestionably strict rules that have no place in reality unless they had been programmed as kids to do it under fear of some sort of hell.
Also, what kind of book could really give "truth" about god?
I think things along that line should be up to the individual as long as that "truth" doesn't wind up being harmful to others.
Quite true! ;lol Now as it happens, my fundamentalist Christian perspective has me believing that all Jews are "God's chosen people" according to the Word of God, and as such I view all of them something like Hindus view cattle - sacred. At the same time I realize that to any objective person, the whole Jewish religion probably comes across about as arrogant as aristocracy, nobility or royalty - It's kind of an I'm-better-than-you-because-my-ancestors-were-better-than-your-ancestors-thing.
Quite true! ;lol Now as it happens, my fundamentalist Christian perspective has me believing that all Jews are "God's chosen people" according to the Word of God, and as such I view all of them something like Hindus view cattle - sacred. At the same time I realize that to any objective person, the whole Jewish religion probably comes across about as arrogant as aristocracy, nobility or royalty - It's kind of an I'm-better-than-you-because-my-ancestors-were-better-than-your-ancestors-thing.
Not really, as it is something that anyone can join if they're willing to follow the rules...
That's cool. I had no idea. I thought one could only marry in, and would still have lesser status, again, not unlike nobles.
Could someone born outside the faith become a Rabbi ? Or would no-one much attend his or her temple, practically speaking?
South Vietnam?
Have you been in any "clean" conflicts?
Some were dirtier fights than others - you were at Stalingrad, and no wonder you don't get along with God...As a child, I had no idea of god, I didn't understand it properly back then. Be thankful it wasn't really taught to me back then because if I was I'd probably be a lot more scornful of things, and intolerant of religion in its entirety. The only love that matters is the real physical world and the people in it that give love and care to you. An imaginary thing that was never there for me is not going to work. That might be offencive to some people here but its the "truth" for me. Even the most rejected outcasts need some sort of care and attention, and I'll quote a rather wise, RELIGIOUS person, Mother Teresa. "The worst disease isn't tuberculosis or cholera, but the feeling of being unwanted." And I guess some would argue this "god" offers that. Perhaps. But for me? In that environment, it wasn't a higher being that made me find love. It was the people I was enduring it with, and that's a fact that never changed throughout my life. Its why I am so passionate over this subject and the implications of it, I suppose. And its funny how even after all of it I still hold onto those values that formed so many years ago... you do change as you grow older, but you also grow more stubborn and resilient to change... an old dog can learn new tricks but he never forgets who his caretaker is or who he is.
Proof that the bible and Torah was edited by other groups? The fact different sects exist of different religions with different words is proof enough.
As for the whole disciples argument... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha)
The fact is religious texts differed even back then, were destroyed, omitted and distorted. If you compare a Catholic and a Protestant bible, there is distinct differences.
As for my morality to be imposed on others? I never stated my morality needs to be opposed on others. The only time I'd intervene with another society in my eyes is if they are committing genocide or harmful practices that endangers the stability of the region which in turn causes danger for me and other neighbours, is a direct threat to me, etc.
And even if I did want to: I am going off of fairly universally accepted moralities established by the UN humanitarian code and Geneva convention, as well as some regarding to my ideals. The former two are INTERNATIONAL LAW agreed upon by hundreds of nations. If that is not jurisdiction enough done by consensus of nations where many of these religions make home, then one is an extremist who is rogue.
As for myself, how many religious groups I've fought against, or have been alive to witness? I've known of militant christian extremists in Uganda and Congo; the Lords Resistance Army. I've known of Christian and Muslim deathsquads both of Bosnian civil war, where people killed each other in massive droves and swarms, the Croatian and Bosnian, and Serbian led genocides of each other using religion and ethnicity as their reasons.
Afghani Mujahideen who I have fought against personally, who persistently wiped out other rival Islamic sects and constantly gunned down Christian and Jewish minorities and did other things that frankly hurts me to talk about. It was that bad.
I've dealt with Christian missionaries while under the status of a POW in a South Vietnamese camp, who used to order us to be beaten and slapped if they deemed us out of order/sinning, and I witnessed them many times sexually harassing female prisoners and I wouldn't put it past those specific priests having done worse then that to some of the prisoners.
I've known men who fought against Israeli forces, and know full well that HAMAS and other fanatical Islamic groups are killing Israeli citizens as much as Israeli soldiers are butchering/butchered Palestinian civilians and people systematically at times.
I'd like a source for that claim about "systematic butchering".
And this is in the MODERN world. As in, the last 40 years... some of this stuff is still ongoing, may I mention ISIS in Syria? May I mention the LRA is still active and at large? How about all those Congolese Christian pogromists? Tribal religions in Africa, like in Sierra Leone at one point or Liberia who cannibalized people, wiped out villages and towns and butchered several thousands?
And if were going back to early 20th century, what about all the Orthodox Christians who killed Jews for being sinners and betrayers to Christ? Who killed Communists for being heathens? What of the residential schools and other religious institutions run by Christian churches who converted through brainwashing and torture or even killed young children in many European colonies? (and this was going on in nations such as Australia and Canada up until the late 90's, though the worst of it was prior 1960.)
Or how about the conflict between Protestant Christian and Catholics in Northern Ireland? Which is still tense and venturing into sections where you don't belong results in beatens so bad you bleed to death?
This is just in the last 40 year and last century. The amount of religious wars fought over the last thousands of years, hundreds even, is staggering. The Spanish Inquisition, the Noche Triste of the Aztecs, the Aztecs themselves on a monthly basis, the countless jihads and crusades against other religions and "heretics," the Hussite wars, the numerous Jewish revolts where they tried to kill all Roman sympathizers and their communities. The Martin Lutheran reformation itself brought years of warfare, especially in England where a theocracy under Oliver Cromwell and other puritans like himself reigned and stifled culture for years, imprisoning and torturing those who disagreed with the faith?
Too many to count, most wars in history have been caused or propagated/continued under the premise of religion.
As for Jews painting other groups outside their own as bad, what of the city of Jericho? A rather small walled town in reality that simply did not have the means to support nor want to support such a large group of nomads and play host to them, and tried to defend itself and its families? Marching around the "sinners" walls 3 days and 3 nights, beating drums to terrify them and then rushing in to slaughter them all? Are they sinners because they fought against the chosen people?
I do not know the version of the Torah you follow
and the fact is it was edited from its original from. Otherwise we'd be stuck on one single account and nothing new would be added over the centuries.
As for things being imposed on other people without personal threat, it entirely depends whats being imposed in my eyes, and the reasoning for it.
As for being rogue or extremist, and why its bad in this context, if you're generally against the established human code of ethics that UN and Geneva conventions have set you are generally going against them and causing massive harm.
It may not always mean that, but given its very specific in how to defy these conventions and humanitarian laws it usually ends up in someone seriously harming another.
And the thing is about those sub sects Yitzi, is that they still had fairly large powerbases and followers, and were tremendous in their impact in their respective conflicts and regions.
The thing about Jericho is that, while the perversions of their worship can be debated to be outright horrible, such as child sacrifice: The Israelites spared no one in that city. Children included, the digsites showed infants and small children had endured horrible fractures and other injuries most likely being caused by being thrown off the walls. I'm not trying to demonize the Israelites as much as I am trying make a point that people are biased and will bend the perspective of things to make it seem like they are in the right. And absolutely everyone does this- the religious are just infamous for it.
I think one of my biggest issues with religious extremists is that, unlike ideological ones they do not apologize or try to make repairs to the damage they caused. Radical Communist idealists who went far lengths and measures that caused great harm more then good faced their consequences and the majority of Communist and Socialist adhering people all agree that what they did was wrong and we must remember why, and not to repeat the same mistakes. Just the same even as Capitalists who looked back on the industrial revolution, making orphans work in coal factories and the like and adopting progressive politics to try and appease the masses, and keep the socialists at bay. Even fascists to a degree have made reparations (though there is still many toxic individuals with that lot.)
Yitzi- when I meant added I meant as in the whole Old testament would be nothing more then Genesis/Abraham. Its a built up compilation of historical accounts, added on throughout the ancient centuries is what I meant- so technically, it has changed.
As for imposing something that isn't a personal threat? Parenting your child to make them not harm themselves, or to impose education on them so they can be self sufficient. And at most, impose your ideals so that maybe they might see your perspective, or take it into account and develop their own.
Generally=Universally in this instance.
As for the subsects, I stated clearly that HAMAS and the LRA do not represent the entirety or even majority of their religions- but the fact is they are a significant part of it and they have a significant impact either way.
As for the Israelites killing them all: They could have just taken the children and brought them up as their own. Children are easy to mold and form, and it would've been better then brutally murdering them and snuffing out their chance at life. And that's my opinion speaking there.
Apologies and reparations I'd like to see?
I'd like to see Israel and Palestine consolidate their differences, apologize for the ceaseless bloodshed and just share the holy city of Jerusalem and act diplomatically, and prove that their religions isn't just an excuse to grab land and hold political dominance, and to put behind their bloody past and reconcile.
I'd like to see all the Afghan warlords hanged for their crimes against humanity, and proper, stable leaders not merely interested in wiping the next door neighbor out take prominence and have a strong, stable government.
I'd like the Catholic church to apologize for everything it has done. Period. Everything, and pay money to found secular schools where they had brainwashing residential ones.
I'd like the priests who were responsible for all the beatings and torture I and others endured during the Vietnam war to be trialed for war crimes and shot- but this probably already happened after the NVA took over. Serves them right for all of the evil they did...
I'd like to see the Orthodox church to acknowledge the fact it did genocide and pogroms during the civil war.
I'd like to see Yugoslavia reborn again, even if not socialist, and to ensure its government and military is completely secular and to make memorials to all of the victims of the Bosnian civil war.
And most of all, I'd like every single faith's god, gods or goddesses to apologize on behalf of all of the forgotten and ignored prayers of people who died horribly faithfully worshipping them, just to rot into the ground and find out the horrible truth that they don't exist, or even worse, are uncaring and cold.
There is other examples then just your own child where you can impose things on other people- keeping them from harm, education, etc. Its the reasoning, how you impose it and so forth. If you are forcing it, then you there should be a very solid reason: Forcing communism, in my eyes is less so then converting people to an ideal and more so about preserving humanity through an economic system of which I believe is the most beneficial system we can thus think so far. Do I expect everyone to become full hearted with the ideal overnight? No. There is lot of subject and examples in this case, and of course you'd disagree with me on that front as much as I'd disagree with you that people need religious faith and in particular, Jewish faith.
As for the subsects, again I don't hate subsects just because they are subsects- I am only stating that the violent, extremist subsects are significant in how they impact things, which you cannot deny. I have never once stated I hated a religious subsect just because its a subsect or because there is subsects that make them look bad. No, I hate religious extremists for reasons already stated.
As for cases where international law can be violated to serve a greater good- this isn't the case with most religious extremists, and to be frank such cases are rare to begin with.
As for the women, that whole subject is ugly- but yes. They are both adults, and if the Israelites intended to eradicate their culture, they have to get rid of the adults, period. They don't need to kill the children.
There is a restriction that cohanim (members of the priestly caste) are not permitted to marry converts or people with no non-convert ancestry, but that's more a restriction on cohanim (who have other restrictions also) than on converts.
There is a restriction that cohanim (members of the priestly caste) are not permitted to marry converts or people with no non-convert ancestry, but that's more a restriction on cohanim (who have other restrictions also) than on converts.
Well, while we're at it, you can set me straight on this point.
Cohanim- Are these people descendants of Levites on the paternal side, or are they descendants of Judah or Benjamin who have assumed that role?
The family surnames of Cohen and Cohn would have originated with this group?
I was told the people working in Kosher poultry plants, dairies and slaughterhouses saying the blessings/prayers and condemning the food when anyone swore or spit, etc. were Rabbis
but it now occurs to me that they could have been Cohanim ...or should have been.
Cohen's are temple attendants, traditionally speaking. I think you're confusing them with the priestly Levites. Both have roles in ceremonies at synagogue
Yitzi, which tribe are the Cohens from, anyway?
So in that case, I take it that your objections are:
A: That you don't think they are right about the importance of their religion, and
B: That you don't think their methods give the best net benefit even for a worthwhile cause (benefit of doing it quickly minus cost of doing it violently).
Is that an accurate assessment?
Anecdotal evidence-
Well, one story I heard involved a 1,000 cow dairy. Basically, the young, single Rabbi was on payroll and spent practically all of his time in the house trailer provided as residence, studdying scriptures.
As for the kosher poultry plant, there was an old rabbi on the killing floor, and if anybody spit or swore he would hit the stop button on the line and would disqualify the birds.
I was in a winery that produced kosher wine a couple of times. I never saw a Rabbi, but there was a strict prohibition against chewing gum in that part of the plant.
To answer your questions Yitzi:
I do not like violent religious extremists or religious extremists who try to impose their will on others against their own will, or do it to those who are impressionable like children.
A: Entirely accurate. I simply do not acknowledge their religion and believe in it, and while I do not have a problem with people who choose to believe in it, if they think they have the right to kill someone else in the name of it I see them as psychotic.
You'll keep stating your god does exist, and say that other gods don't or versions don't, but the point remains the same: there is no god in my eyes and as far as factual evidence is concerned, there is also no god as there is nothing to prove his or her existence.
And while you could argue there is no evidence against it... there actually is, at least for the Abrahamic and other civilization's versions of god. Most of the written holy books on how the Earth formed and all the stories stating how it formed, as well as the date of the Earth has been THOROUGHLY debunked at this rate centuries ago.
As for them killing the adults, adopting the children on the Israelites subject- maybe not in terms of their perspective. But it still didn't mean it wasn't possible. It was only their perspective based decision that denied that option, nothing physical.
I can't say I know anyone who would flame someone like that. Though many Christians are "luke-warm" as in, they say they are saved but really are not as the Bible states.
I think the best way as a Christian to keep others from being jerks it is to set a good example. And not be hypocrites. Perhaps everyone who owns a piece of technology should wait 2 or 3 minutes, and read over what they're going to post at least one time before they hit "send". That goes for everyone
Anyways, thats my input. Felt like I should say something if I'm saved.
That chaplain was wrong. God's protection would not have been on New Orleans, but he has never had the goal to kill an destroy. Bad and good things do happen to believers as well, to be sure. But we have Jesus to comfort us when things go bad.I can't say I know anyone who would flame someone like that. Though many Christians are "luke-warm" as in, they say they are saved but really are not as the Bible states.Also, for people that want to "save the world", many get a gleam in their eye if something happens to "unbelievers" saying "God works in mysterious ways". Never mind bad and good things happen to everyone, regardless of belief. A true human should not want anything bad to happen to other humans. I was in Hurricane Katrina. I lost everything and barely escaped with my life. 80 percent of a large metropolis was destroyed. When I evacuated, I ended up taking a job in a small county hospital in Mississippi. I was a Nursing Assistant there. This hospital kept a Christian chaplain. We had a man who was airlifted to the hospital from New Orleans who was on his last days. The preacher told him, while I was IN THE ROOM that New Orleans was destroyed because they allowed people to drink, were accepting to gays, and worshiped Satan. I was livid! I told him to stop talking to my patient. I told him I was from New Orleans and if his retarded arse wanted to know, the French Quarter which was the place of "evil" was unscathed while New Orleans East and Chalmette where there is a church on every corner was leveled. Similarly, Biloxi MS which also had loads of churches was annihilated. I told him God had bad aim!!!
I think the best way as a Christian to keep others from being jerks it is to set a good example. And not be hypocrites. Perhaps everyone who owns a piece of technology should wait 2 or 3 minutes, and read over what they're going to post at least one time before they hit "send". That goes for everyone
Anyways, thats my input. Felt like I should say something if I'm saved.
but he has never had the goal to kill an destroy.
Everyone knows somewhere that a God exists.
...I'm guessing from that last part you are atheist?but he has never had the goal to kill an destroy.
I wouldn't go that far; God does sometimes aim to destroy as part of a larger plan/in order to remove evil.QuoteEveryone knows somewhere that a God exists.
I'm not so sure.
...I'm guessing from that last part you are atheist?
But if you are, then I will say that he eventually, as the Bibble states end Earth. Of course, we have plenty 'o chances to turn to him. So I suppose you are right that in some (very rare) circumstances, he will destroy. But that's about the only one.
Perhaps your right....I'm guessing from that last part you are atheist?
No; I'm sure that God exists, I'm just not so sure that everyone knows somewhere that a god exists.QuoteBut if you are, then I will say that he eventually, as the Bibble states end Earth. Of course, we have plenty 'o chances to turn to him. So I suppose you are right that in some (very rare) circumstances, he will destroy. But that's about the only one.
God destroying does seem to be somewhat rare (it takes a long time for Him to "lose patience"), but not extremely rare. To go through the various cases in the Bible where God intentionally caused destruction (with good reason every time, of course, but it's still destruction):
-The punishment of Adam, Eve, and the snake, if you count mortality as destruction.
-The Flood of Noah.
-The Tower of Babel, if you count dispersion as destruction.
-The punishment of Pharaoh when he kidnapped Sarai. (Nonfatal, but seems to have been fairly unpleasant, so it still probably counts.)
-The destruction of Sodom and (most of) its suburbs.
-The punishment of Avimelech when he kidnapped Sarah, if that counts. Certainly what He threatened to do if Avimelech did not return Sarah counts.
-The plagues put on Egypt via Moses (including drowning their army in the sea).
-Various punishments when the Israelites sinned, both in the wilderness and afterward. Some of those, later on, were done by conquerors who weren't too nice to the rest of the world either.
-Commanding the conquest of Canaan due to their sins.
-Commanding the destruction of Amalek due to their barbaric attack in the wilderness.
-Destruction of the Assyrians and later Babylonians for what they did to Israel, as well as of Sannecherib's army.
-Destruction of the Russian-led alliance when it will attack Israel. (Hasn't happened yet, but it is in the Bible.)
So while God is just, He is not exactly a pacifist by any stretch.
30% of that isn't proven and might as well be fictional/overblown
the rest of it is purely historical
and the last one is just political bigotry.
Abrahamic religions just seem hateful to me, even their god seems hateful and retributive.
As for if I acknowledged a religion and believed in it, yes I would still think them psychotic for acting like that because I would be believing in the morality and core themes of the faith over anything, not what some mad prophet or self proclaimed listener to a god would say.
And as for the truth of things Yitzi- evidence is the only way to determine the truth.
The Earth was not formed in 7 days, the Earth is older then 10,000 years.
Ok, that makes sense. But does that mean that if the prophet could actually prove that God spoke to him, it would be a different story?
QuoteOk, that makes sense. But does that mean that if the prophet could actually prove that God spoke to him, it would be a different story?Let me give you an example. In the Torah/ Old Testament there is the story of Abraham being "told by YHWH" to take his son off to sacrifice him. Now, of course, he ended not going through with it because apparently he heard the voice again telling him that "his faith" was being tested.
Now, I have a daughter. Next time I see her, what if I said "God spoke to me" and cart her off into the swamps to sacrifice her? Then I get out there with the mosquitoes biting and Mr. Alligator grinning at me and "God" speaks again and changes his mind?
I would be locked up in the Louisiana State penitentiary at Angola if I tried that or at least have Child Protective Services on my rear and a kid who would hate my guts for pretty good reason.
Who is to say that God spoke to me? Or if I was just nuts then changed my mind?
So, I could just say that God told me to do something and if I had significant standing in the community (in Abraham's case, a tribal patriarch) and a history of visions and such, no one should question me?
So, I could just say that God told me to do something and if I had significant standing in the community (in Abraham's case, a tribal patriarch) and a history of visions and such, no one should question me?
Not unless you had a history of those visions accurately predicting the future (in which case the standing in the community is irrelevant). Not sure if the "false prediction gets you killed" rule would need to be in place and enforceable too, at this point in time. (It obviously wasn't for Abraham, but the situation were different then.)
The status to break the normal rules because God told you to is something not easily or safely attained (to put it mildly) without God's help.
...in by meaning "God's help and influence", you mean achieving a position of power that is unquestionable?
Which allows con artists to thrive, because if I make predictions or prophecies of stuff that I can guarantee happening, or have inside information on, then I can fool masses of people into believing I am holy.
In an organized religion, though, it's not the masses you need to fool but the religious experts...and they'll usually have a better sense of how to catch fraudsters and limit it to things that cannot be predicted without supernatural means.
In an organized religion, though, it's not the masses you need to fool but the religious experts...and they'll usually have a better sense of how to catch fraudsters and limit it to things that cannot be predicted without supernatural means.
Which they themselves can predict of course.
Many make you sing 100 year old hymns, even if you have no love of singing. Oh, I am sure you can refuse, But it gets the odd look or two. In fact, most protestant services have not changed the itenery in 200 years. It is always Benediction, talk a little bit, sing, talk a bit more, sing, talk even more, offering plate, then pray. This is even "atheist friendly" places like UU. Can't we shake it up a bit?
But, the stodgy nature of many churches make it feel like a chore to go to. Unless you are a kid and get to meet other kids not in your school you would never meet otherwise in between being bombarded with Bible stuff. It is just not fun.
Only during certain, select few times in life will anyone change. And, they will only change if there is something deeply wrong, the current religion is not meeting needs, they get married to a zealot and must compromise, a gun is to their head, or they get tired of the BS and move from agnostic to atheist.
Indeed. And that's why religion scares me because, like any ideal it can be manipulated by the corrupt. Religion is even worse for it though because you are tapping into something spiritual for people, and spirituality is a VERY sensitive and to the heart subject for most people.
Religion's in my eyes are very horrid in this sense in that its trying to directly control your spirituality and interpretation of it, and if you add in those malevolent cons and "false prophets" you end up in a world of hurt.
Which to me shows that it just seems like its a tradition people uphold only for social peer pressure, really. I never found any comfort from a religion initially in my life as a child, and when I discovered it later if anything I was disturbed by its most basic views. I find an all powerful god that created the universe and all with it, and judges everyone in it (even though HE was the creator who designed us like this, according to said religions) scares and makes me uncomfortable. Not only that it slightly disgusts me in the sense that it feels like a parent who judges their child, not bothering to raise that child and teach them things and just letting them grow up on their own, and then when they are adults who had to survive on the streets they scold them for what they developed into.
Also, on another note my daughter sent me this a while back: made me laugh and I think its relevant...
Yeah Jarlwolf....
Telling kids stuff like this is scary. Forget the "shadow people", forget the boogie man... want to scare the hell out of a kid? Tell them the story below...
Welcome to this World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrqLV4yeiw#ws)
Yeah, that is the reason they push for kids. Adults who are rational would have issues with the reality of the above tale unless they had it drilled in at a young age. Listen to it. It is messed up.
But, I think that has more to do with "freedom of choice" than an example of biblical truth.
I think the real and most powerful gist of the video is pushing religion on kids. A kid is too young to make up a mind about religion. Yes, it is good to teach a kid good behavior and you should warn them of the obviously bad choices. But, this whole referring to kids as "Baptist kids", "Jewish kids", "atheist kids", and "muslim kids" is kind of bad. I think the child should be encouraged to read up and make up their own mind as they get older.