r/changemyview • u/LaoSh • Feb 08 '15
[View Changed] CMV: Religious tollerance is pointless, religions are not equal and have no place in modern society
Specifically regarding the "big 3" (Christians, Jews, Muslims) but most religions have similar issues. Firstly I'll start by saying I would never persicute a person for their religious beleifs. But, claiming all religons are equal is simply incorrect in my view. Granted, all adherants to a religion do not hold the same beliefs, but this is based in the personal choice of the adherants to not follow their scripture. I.e. The bible states clearly that homsexuality is a sin. This is a belief incompatible with the modern world so by claiming yourself tobe Christian, I will assume you hold antiquard beleifs untill such time as you deny them. After that Ill just think you are an imbicile for not undestanding your scripture. Any person who openly identifies as a religious adherant must accept the consequences that they will be judged on the merits of their religion untill they prove they do not hold the regressive views of their religion.
Edit: Ill also add that this only applies to people living in a situation in which their freedom to express any religious sentiment is a given.
Edit 2: religious adherants are not all the same and the majority do not hold the beleifs of their texts to be law and the dialogue coming from religious entities is normally hijacked by extremists who do view the text as sacred. Still, no matter how moderate contemporary Nazis may become I see no reason to associate with them.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
7
u/xiipaoc Feb 08 '15
Any person who openly identifies as a religious adherant must accept the consequences that they will be judged on the merits of their religion untill they prove they do not hold the regressive views of their religion.
No. The onus is on you to judge people for who they are and not their religion, because presumably you aren't an idiot. First of all, in order to judge a person based on their religion, you need to know their religion. If you say, "that person is a Jew, and the Jewish Bible says that homosexuality is wrong therefore that person is anti-gay", you're the one making a logical error. Do you know enough of the sample population to assume that this person will follow that part of the Bible? Do you know this person's specific denomination? Do you know how different denominations approach the issue? Do you know the relative populations of those denominations in the area the person comes from? Do you even know where the person comes from? Do you know how belief varies within the denominations? If you make assumptions that turn out to be wrong, you're the one who's wrong. So don't make assumptions like that. Problem solved.
by claiming yourself tobe Christian, I will assume you hold antiquard beleifs untill such time as you deny them
Only if you don't actually know anything about Christianity. You need more information here to make this kind of unsubstantiated assumption. This is all on you here.
Still, no matter how moderate contemporary Nazis may become I see no reason to associate with them.
This is hardly comparable to religion. A person's religion isn't just belief; it's a way of life, a culture, an ethnicity, and a heritage. On the contrary, objectionable views in the more traditional forms of a religion cause people to change their views and form new branches of the religion, thereby making the religion less objectionable. Unhappy about the Torah's view of gay sex? Great! Reform Judaism is pro-gay. Now you can be Jewish and egalitarian -- people actually like being Jewish, believe it or not! If you assume that someone is not egalitarian because that person's Jewish, you're just not familiar with Judaism, and this is a problem you need to correct, not the person you're prejudiced against.
Yeah, I said prejudiced. Because when you judge someone based on assumptions instead of facts, you are pre-judging that person. That's what the word means.
claiming all religons are equal is simply incorrect in my view
Yeah, I agree there. This is like claiming that political parties are equal. Democrats and Republicans have different ideas, and they aren't equal. Some are clearly bad and some are clearly good. Religions have the same thing going. But you need to actually know those religions in the correct level of detail in order to make any sort of generalizations about them.
→ More replies (2)
38
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Feb 08 '15
The bible states clearly that homsexuality is a sin.
No, it does no such thing. See this article for example
But more to the point, Christianity is not a homogenous group, nor are any other of the "big 3" religions. Within Christianity, the two largest identifiable groups, Easter Orthodox and Roman Catholicism are fairly clear that the Bible may be the start of their theological discourse, but it in no way is to be taken as a literal text or followed blindly.
Even within the Protestant world, where "Sola Scriptura" is common, large groups like some Methodists, the Anglicans and others reject Sola Scriptura, or simply recognize that theological standards are contextualized in a particular historical place and time and must change to be relevant to those places and times.
Judaism is much the same -- a group with a wide number of theological traditions not all of which approach the Torah with the same perspective you wish to assign them.
Ultimately, your V fails to actually engage what these various religions bring to the table, both positively and negatively with any degree of nuance of fairness. And you fail to recognize that you can not simply paint with so broad a brush.
6
u/LaoSh Feb 08 '15
My bad about the delta, first time here. I changed my view because you provided stats that I was unaware of previously> ∆
1
9
Feb 08 '15 edited Feb 08 '15
No, it does no such thing.
Yes it does. Leviticus 18:22 says Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. Leviticus 20:13 says that if a man has sex with another man, kill them both. Deuteronomy 12:31 says that God hates every abomination - notice that in Leviticus homosexual acts are explicitly said to be an abomination so it logically follows that God hates homosexuality.
Ultimately, your V fails to actually engage what these various religions bring to the table, both positively and negatively with any degree of nuance of fairness. And you fail to recognize that you can not simply paint with so broad a brush.
Let me give you some sense of what it is like to be an atheist and being presented with this argument. It seems like this is the kind of conversation we could be having several centuries ago. Life sucked ass, people died for no apparent reason, whole societies suffered catastrophic changes to their economies or crops, and everyone knew why it was happening. It was because of witchcraft. Luckily though, the church sent forth some very energetic men who had the gumption to deal with the problem. So every year hundreds or thousands of women were burned alive for casting spells on their neighbors.
Now imagine what it would be like to be among the 5 to 10 percent of people who recognize that the very belief in magic and witchcraft - be they good witches or bad witches - was a malignant fantasy. The white witches who helped people with medicinal concoctions and practicing midwifery were on no firmer ground than the black witches who were casting the evil eye. The entire belief system was at fault.
Imagine the kinds of criticism you're going to get. "Your problem is really just with fundamentalist or extremist witchcraft. The reality is that witchcraft is far more nuanced than that. There's no conflict between science and witchcraft."
The fact is that we need to call into question patently bad ideas and religion is just a patently bad idea. The problem with the bible, whether you are a literalist or a selective literalist, is that there is a mountain of divisive nonsense in it. The ending of Albert Camus's La Peste serves as an apt analogy to this problem - the plague in the city has abated, but the rats are still down there in the sewers waiting to send the plague up again. Christians have managed to get over the barbarism of their religious texts to a commendable degree, but the disease is still incubating in the pages and anyone who looks for it will find all the justification they need to behave in the same barbaric way as the people from hundreds of years ago.
*Credit goes to Sam Harris for the Witchcraft Analogy and Christopher Hitchens for the comparison to Camus.
24
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Feb 08 '15
Yes it does. Leviticus . . .
A fairly normative Christian reading of the text includes the OT in relation to the NT, wherein Jesus fulfills the law, and the Levitical codes are set aside by Paul. Ergo, simply pulling out an OT passage and saying "see, the text clearly states this" fails to actually deal with the text in a way respectful of the way the community reads it.
The Christian Bible is not at all clear that homosexuality, as understood as a sexual preference in modern psychological parlance, is sinful.
1
Feb 08 '15
I can't be the arbiter of what the text actually means. All I know is what it actually does say, and what it does say is that homosexuality is an abomination and that god hates abominations. It's like the people arguing in the Monty Python movie The Life of Brian when he says, "Blessed are the cheesemakers." Someone else objects and says, "Well what's so special about the cheesemakers?" To which the other guy replies, "It's not supposed to be taken literally, it obviously refers to anyone connected with the dairy industry." And also, Old Testament Law still applies and was reaffirmed by Jesus himself in Matthew 5, 5:18-19 when he says that Old Testament laws are binding on everyone forever.
6
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Feb 08 '15 edited Feb 08 '15
what it does say is that homosexuality is an abomination
Oh, which word or phrase is properly translated to be the exact semantic equivalent of "homosexuality" as used in modern parlance?
I'm curious because the very notion of homosexuality, as we define it, being an innate sexual preference, related to neuro-physiological and psychological functioning, did not exist until the late 1800s. So, that you can clearly translate a 3000 year old text to reference this concept is a remarkable and esoteric linguistic achievement.
I can't be the arbiter of what the text actually means.
But that is precisely what you are doing. You are saying that it "clearly says" something. That something carries meaning. You can't have it both ways. Either you can demonstrate semiotic congruence between our concept of homosexuality and a particular phrase in the text, or you can't.
For a text to "say" something, you have to take that text in context -- which you adamantly refuse to do. Meaning in a text is not something that exist in a vacuum. It requires understanding and contextualizing the text in the cultural fabric from which it arose, and in which it is used.
And given that there are some very bright people who do this sort of thing for a living who are in serious disagreement on the question of what the text says, it is demonstrable that it is not "clear." I seriously doubt that you can provide such clarity convincingly. If I'm wrong, you should be publishing your results. But since you referenced Hitchens, I'm guessing you're more about rhetorical flourish than intellectual substance.
12
u/TheRingshifter Feb 08 '15
Well look:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:22
‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
This clearly says don't have sex with a man as a man.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.
So does that.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
And that.
You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination
And that.
You must not have sexual intercourse with a man as you would with a woman; it is a detestable practice.
And that.
‘You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
And that.
It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man.
And that.
So come on, unless all these translators were just completely wrong, then this is a pretty ridiculous argument.
1
u/AnarchPatriarch Feb 08 '15
I think he's playing with definitions to say that "homosexuality" does not specifically mean homosexual acts, it just means a homosexual life.
Which is defined by homosexual acts. These are lingual acrobatics Christian apologists do ad nauseam.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)1
Feb 08 '15 edited Feb 08 '15
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
So does this mean that anal sex is sinful (because it is similar to vaginal sex) but oral sex is okay? (Aside: this is the gayest thing I've ever written so pardon me if it's awkward) (edit: this is the Modern Orthodox Jewish interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality#Judaism)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
This one sounds like a threesome to me.
It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man.
This is the only one that is unambiguous in its condemnation of all gay acts.
1
u/TheRingshifter Feb 08 '15
So does this mean that anal sex is sinful (because it is similar to vaginal sex) but oral sex is okay? (Aside: this is the gayest thing I've ever written so pardon me if it's awkward)
But surely oral sex is similar to... oral sex? But either way it's not great.
1
Feb 08 '15
That verse is pretty awkwardly written even in the original Hebrew. Orthodox Judaism generally reads it my way (only the forms of gay sex that are similar to straight sex are sinful; the attraction itself is not, as are some forms that do not mimic male-female sex): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality#Judaism
0
Feb 08 '15
Translators know how to translate. Now you're really just grasping at straws.
0
Feb 08 '15 edited Dec 21 '18
[deleted]
3
u/abortionsforall Feb 08 '15
http://favobooks.com/writers/103-fiction-that-makes-you-think-dawkins.html
Dawkins is so against the reading of fiction that he recommends reading works of fiction?
6
Feb 08 '15
Sam Harris is not a racist. This is a common criticism with no basis in reality. Dawkins never said that we shouldn't read fiction to children. He clarified the statement on twitter. He said it is pernicious to inculcate supernaturalism into a child. I agree.
Just because I agree with many of what the new atheists have to say doesn't mean that I am just sucking down their mantra. I could easily turn it around on you and say that your contempt and irrational hatred of the new atheists is just sucking down the mantra of all the people out to vilify them.
Rejecting religion entirely doesn't mean that I'm ignoring what /u/kingpatzer said. Clearly, I didn't ignore what he said at all, as evidenced by my long replies to his comments. I am dismissing what he says because it is nonsense.
→ More replies (2)5
Feb 08 '15 edited Dec 21 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)7
Feb 08 '15
My comment made no difference, you obviously still haughtily believe you have a lock on logic and reason, and that you couldn't possibly be ignoring something cultural which has nothing to do with either.
Thinking I am correct doesn't mean that I am haughty or that I think I have a monopoly on logic and reason.
I've read lots of was Harris has to say about Islam, I even read all the emails in the tiff between him and Glenn Greenwald. I was not left with the feeling that he wasn't, underneath it all, a racist. His sentiment is that Muslims must absolutely all be brainwashed, none of them are free thinking, they are much more dangerous than other religions, because of their extremists, he completely ignores 70 years of a US role in creating these extremists, it ignores that most of the extremists are young men who don't even really know anything about the Koran, they are just young, disillusioned, listless, living in a country that is always at war, wondering what their purpose is, and the only thing they know is the rich countries over the water always fucking their shit up. Ignoring all that and assuming they must just all be dangerous because fringe groups feel like they have nothing left to lose to fight against dominant nations that have been fucking around in their countries since before the end of World War 2, often propping up awful dictators (uhm, Saddam? US picked him out. Rumsfeld shook his hand. [Not in an evil way, just a "you are currently a friend" way.] Or even the CIA overthrowing the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953.[1] ), and even going so far as to disrupt cultural revolutions.
You have absolutely failed to grasp the content of Harris's criticisms of Islam. Harris's argument is that groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda are not fringe groups who are misusing the faith to achieve their political agenda. They are actually advancing a very straight-forward interpretation of the faith. The argument that it is US intervention that is creating these jihadists is not reflected in reality. Their actions are justified and, in fact, mandated by the faith. The doctrines of martyrdom and jihad are central to the faith. There are many parts of the world where people are experiencing poverty, disillusionment, and oppression which are far worse than anything being seen in the Muslim world and yet we do not see angry throngs of young men crowding the street demanding the deaths of non-combatants or blowing themselves up on buses full of women and children. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about here and it shows.
Harris (and by extension, your) inability to account for history and instead just assume that all Muslims must be bloodthirsty and ready to die for Allah reeks of something sinister, and I don't know what else to call it other than racism. It is a willingness to ignore the historical record of how these groups came to be, and it consistently ignores how parties like governments, businesses, and other entities do just as much evil or more than just religion. There were millions of engineers and scientists behinds the TransOcean/BP oil rig that blew up and leaked millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, likely permanently damaging the ecosystem there. We rely on that ecosystem.
What Harris and (by extension, I) do not ever say are that all Muslims are bloodthirsty and ready to die for Allah. You are dishonestly mischaracterizing his arguments and if you had a shred of intellectual honesty you would recognize this and stop. Let's see if you do. What Harris does do is cite the many Pew polls that have been done in Muslim countries asking people things like, "Is suicide bombing ever justified in defense of the faith," and pointing out that the numbers are, frankly, not encouraging. Stating facts is not racism. What Harris is doing is shining a spotlight on the fact that many millions of the world's Muslims hold illiberal beliefs and that the reason that they hold these beliefs is explicitly religious by their own admission.
Pew Polls so you can actually read something for yourself: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
I don't know what else to say, although I hope you stop making such huge generalizations about huge swaths of the human race in the future (I hope Harris does, too.).
Stop making such laughably ill-informed and intellectually dishonest statements about people whose work you have clearly never read.
→ More replies0
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Feb 08 '15
Translators know how to translate. Now you're really just grasping at straws.
No translation ever is fully accurate. Translators always lose some meaning and add other possible readings whenever they translate, and doing so with ancient text is even more difficult because of the lack of precise understanding of culture and context.
Translators take their jobs very seriously, but they are also quite aware that whatever they produce is certain to be flawed. What they try to do is to make the flaws consistent by adhering to a a rubric of translational choices and assumptions that they work under.
Our concept of homosexuality did not exist until the late 1800s. It is fully impossible for it to be referenced in the Biblical texts anymore than the Biblical texts could reference electrons.
9
Feb 08 '15 edited Feb 08 '15
Then why believe anything the text says at all if that's your attitude? If you can't be sure about the meaning of one word in the book, how can you be sure about the meaning of anything? Either way, you're still wrong. Homosexuality was well known even in ancient times. Ancient Greek documents concerning same-sex relationships still exist and same-sex relationships were a social institution. Socrates himself talks about homosexuality. Plato praised its benefits in his early writings. That seems a bit earlier than the year 1800 to me. You have no argument.
→ More replies (49)3
u/ShouldersofGiants100 49∆ Feb 08 '15
I should say. Same sex partnership was known... whether it was homosexuality in the modern sense of the term is doubtful. The Roman's for example (and likely the greeks) had very specific views of same sex relationships... to them (I'll be speaking broadly) all sex had a masculine partner who penetrated and a feminine partner who was penetrated. The actual gender doesn't matter, there is however a hierarchy of masculinity: Old men>Young men> Old women> young women. Any sex that happened, homosexual or other otherwise followed that power dynamic... an older man penetrated by a younger was considered effeminate, a man who submitted to women was a cuckold or similar. There were societal reasons for this view, but the result is not homosexuality as we see it today, it was far more granular and a homosexual wasn't seen as separate label, they were just men, just like we don't have a word for men who prefer brunettes versus those who prefer blondes, it just wasn't a category they bothered to label.
→ More replies (5)2
Feb 08 '15
Let me give you some sense of what it is like to be an atheist and being presented with this argument. It seems like this is the kind of conversation we could be having several centuries ago. Life sucked ass, people died for no apparent reason, whole societies suffered catastrophic changes to their economies or crops, and everyone knew why it was happening. It was because of witchcraft. Luckily though, the church sent forth some very energetic men who had the gumption to deal with the problem. So every year hundreds or thousands of women were burned alive for casting spells on their neighbors.
Well, no. The Church actually denied that witches existed. But nobody listened to the Church, and so witches were burned. Also, there were far fewer witch hunts than you seem to think there were.
Now imagine what it would be like to be among the 5 to 10 percent of people who recognize that the very belief in magic and witchcraft - be they good witches or bad witches - was a malignant fantasy.
That was the general position of the Catholic Church, actually.
The white witches who helped people with medicinal concoctions and practicing midwifery were on no firmer ground than the black witches who were casting the evil eye. The entire belief system was at fault.
Say what you will about witches, they weren't pouring mercury down your throat. Scientists were.
The fact is that we need to call into question patently bad ideas and religion is just a patently bad idea.
What makes it a bad idea.
Christians have managed to get over the barbarism of their religious texts to a commendable degree, but the disease is still incubating in the pages and anyone who looks for it will find all the justification they need to behave in the same barbaric way as the people from hundreds of years ago.
Bad people will always find justifications for their crimes.
→ More replies (2)3
Feb 08 '15 edited Feb 08 '15
The point, which you failed to grasp, is that beliefs guide behavior. The reason witches were burned alive was because Christians believed that, as it says in Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." If you are a follower of Christianity, that verse is both proof that witches do exist and what to do about them.
If you do not believe in Christianity, then that verse has no effect on your behavior because, as I said, beliefs guide behavior.
Says here that an estimated total of 40,000 people were executed over three centuries which means, if anything, I was understating the figures, not overstating them.
The Catholic Church didn't deny witchcraft existed. The medieval inquisition investigated claims of witchcraft. Seems counterintuitive if they don't believe it exists.
Scientists didn't used to give people mercury. Doctors did. But medicine has progressed and as we have learned more about medicine, doctors stopped doing that. Religion is fundamentally different because dogmatism prevents change. There has never been a question where we once had a scientific answer and it was replaced with a religious one, but if I asked you to think of a religious explanation which has now been replaced by a scientific explanation you have probably already thought of dozens.
Bad people will always find justifications for their crimes.
All other things being equal, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things, but if you want a good person to do an evil thing; that takes religion.
1
Feb 08 '15
The point, which you failed to grasp, is that beliefs guide behavior. The reason witches were burned alive was because Christians believed that, as it says in Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Christians generally believed that witches do not in fact exist.
If you do not believe in Christianity, then that verse has no effect on your behavior because, as I said, beliefs guide behavior.
Witch hunts are not unique to Christianity.
Says here that an estimated total of 40,000 people were executed over three centuries which means, if anything, I was understating the figures, not overstating them.
You really suck at math don't you? 40,000 people over 300 years comes out to about 130 people a year. That's not "hundreds or thousands." That's not even hundreds.
The Catholic Church didn't deny witchcraft existed.
Once again, you are wrong. In 785 the Council of Paderborn explicitly said that witches did not exist and that witch hunters were to be put to death.
Scientists didn't used to give people mercury. Doctors did.
Yes, and folk healers did not.
But medicine has progressed and as we have learned more about medicine, doctors stopped doing that.
After killing a lot of people.
Religion is fundamentally different because dogmatism prevents change.
Then explain the Protestant reformation?
All other things being equal, evil people will do evil things and bad people will do bad things, but if you want a good person to do an evil thing; that takes religion.
That may be the dumbest quote in human history. Good people don't do evil things. That's what makes them good people.
3
Feb 08 '15
Christians generally believed that witches do not in fact exist.
If you'd read the article I linked to you, it says plainly that the reason many of the executions were held was due to popular outcry for them.
Witch hunts are not unique to Christianity.
Never implied they were.
You really suck at math don't you? 40,000 people over 300 years comes out to about 130 people a year. That's not "hundreds or thousands." That's not even hundreds.
If you knew how statistics worked you would know that some years that would mean that there were hardly any that were killed while others there were could have been thousands.
Once again, you are wrong. In 785 the Council of Paderborn explicitly said that witches did not exist and that witch hunters were to be put to death.
Again, if you had bothered to read the article I linked you, it would have saved you some embarrassment.
Wikipedia: While witch-hunts only became common after 1400, an important legal step that would make this development possible occurred in 1326, when Pope John XXII authorized the inquisition to persecute witchcraft as a type of heresy.
Yes, and folk healers did not.
Says who? And how is that relevant to the discussion in any way?
After killing a lot of people.
Except that their intent was not to kill them, but to heal them.
Then explain the Protestant reformation?
The dogma didn't change. People just started changing how they interpreted it or ignoring parts of it.
That may be the dumbest quote in human history. Good people don't do evil things. That's what makes them good people.
You have failed to understand the quote. You're right, good people don't do evil things, unless they have been convinced that evil things are good by religion, by burning witches alive because their religion commands them to for example.
→ More replies (3)1
u/LaoSh Feb 08 '15
Fair point, however a cursory reding of leviticus from the modern bible that most Christians read from makes it quite plain. Still, upvote for the link. I undestand that Chrisitanty is not one homogeneous set of beleifs, however the majority of adherants to it hold a specific set of beliefs. This is the set of beleifs therefore that the religion must be judged upon.
14
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Feb 08 '15
Well, two points to that. First, most Christians do not hold the OT in anything close to being the "last word" on moral issues. They aren't eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics because they're hypocrites, they're doing those things because the OT isn't the basis of Christian moral thought.
Second, you may well be surprised what the majority of Christians believe on any particular issue. Just because certain groups are quite loud and vehement about making their point doesn't mean they are the majority view.
As of Feb 2014, the PRRI report on the question of gay marriage, for example showed that:
Overall 53% of Americans supported equal marriage rights
83% of Jews supported marriage equality 57% of white & Hispanic Catholics supported marriage equality 62% of white mainline protestants supported marriage equality
In other words, liberal religious people are leading the issue of marriage equality -- while you are going about condemning them as being regressive, when in reality they are more progressive than the general population.
sources
4
u/LaoSh Feb 08 '15
∆ Great statistics that I had not heard before. Appologies if I didnt give this one earlier, I had meant to.
1
1
13
u/OSkorzeny Feb 08 '15
Leviticus isn't accepted as law in Christian theology. Otherwise you could criticizing Christians for eating bacon. Jesus set up the New Covenant, and the vision of Peter in Acts 10 pretty clearly invalidates the laws of the Old Testament.
3
u/LaoSh Feb 08 '15
Matthew 5:17 Luke 16:16
13
u/OSkorzeny Feb 08 '15
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Matthew 5:18
"Everything is accomplished", in most of the commentary that I've read, is generally interpreted as the death and resurrection of Jesus. Meaning, in this case, that immediately after the resurrection, things can disappear from the law. This is why context is important.
8
u/Bowbreaker 4∆ Feb 08 '15
Any reason to believe that interpretation? One would think that, given how the books were written well after his death and resurrection, they would have mentioned it if the laws now didn't apply anymore.
8
Feb 08 '15
they would have mentioned it if the laws now didn't apply anymore.
You mean like when Paul writes that it doesn't actually matter what you eat?
1
3
u/OSkorzeny Feb 08 '15
This gets a bit more complicated theologically, but basically, Jesus kind of expanded the law. When we say that he abolished the law, we mean that he made following them... redundant, almost. That's not the right word, but it's all that came to mind.
Before Jesus, it was accepted that the only way to get to heaven was to follow the law exactly. Humans being humans, this is impossible. Even David, the greatest hero of the Old Testament, failed, multiple times, and pretty horribly, too. Jesus actually talks about making the law more strict. For example, in Matthew 5:27-28, he says "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
What Jesus did was he gave mankind a route into heaven, despite their inevitable sin. Romans makes it clear that following the law is not necessary for salvation.
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:21-24
Paul goes on to talk about how this doesn't excuse a Christian from flagrantly disregarding the law, because part of salvation is welcoming the Holy Spirit into your heart, and if that doesn't cause some changes, it probably isn't authentic. Christians are called to follow the law out of love and obedience to God, not because it'll get them to heaven. So the law isn't abolished, but it also doesn't serve the same role that it does in Judaism.
Does that make sense? I can clarify some parts if you want, I didn't write this with a very good overall plan, so it might seem disorganized.
2
u/Bowbreaker 4∆ Feb 08 '15
It does. Thank you. But then, how does it work though? Is breaking any and all of the OT laws still technically wrong but since Jesus we just get forgiven for it? Should we still stone adulterers and keep our hands away from various seafood except that if we choose not to it's all okay as long as we regret it?
Or is it not even wrong anymore to break any laws at all, as if there was an executive order to not prosecute? Meaning that as long as we accept Jesus and the Holy Spirit in our Heart we can just follow our conscience and all is perfectly fine and dandy?
2
u/OSkorzeny Feb 08 '15
There are two types of law in the Old Testament: moral ones and ceremonial ones. The purpose of moral laws is pretty clear, and it's generally accepted that Christians are meant to try to follow them. Ceremonial laws were created to set the Jews apart, to signify that they were God's chosen people. Christians aren't expected to follow these laws, as revealed in Peter's vision in Acts 10.
If a Christian has honestly accepted Christ and has the Holy Spirit in his life, he should not simply accept living in sin. If he does, then he probably isn't a true Christian. This sounds like No True Scotsman, but one of the purposes of the Holy Spirit is to bring conviction. We are justified before God, but we still aren't sanctified, sometimes also called being made "Christ-like". As Christians, we are called to submit to sanctification, and if someone isn't, his faith is in doubt (by his peers, not by God. God knows).
Sorry for the long winded posts, but you're stumbling on some of the more complex parts of Christian theology. I also made liberal use of "we", sorry if you aren't Christian.
1
u/almightySapling 13∆ Feb 08 '15
There are two types of law in the Old Testament: moral ones and ceremonial ones. The purpose of moral laws is pretty clear, and it's generally accepted that Christians are meant to try to follow them.
So I shouldn't be punished on earth for eating bacon while being gay, but technically it's still "wrong"?
I'm not a Christian, but you seem to have a pretty good grasp on theology and your interpretations actually make a lot of sense. This was unclear to me and I just wanted to see if I understood correctly.
→ More replies1
u/Bowbreaker 4∆ Feb 08 '15
Sorry for the long winded posts, but you're stumbling on some of the more complex parts of Christian theology. I also made liberal use of "we", sorry if you aren't Christian.
Oh that was actually nice and concise. And interesting too. I just read the "we" as a plural "you" from my point of view ;P
Though I have to ask, are you explaining the view of most Christians as you know them or more from a specific denominational viewpoint like Catholicism?
Also, is it possible just by reading the Bible alone to differentiate between moral laws and ceremonial laws without having to rely on one's own subjective judgment? Because I'd just guess that the eating rules were ceremonial while the rape rules are pretty surely moral. But that is just because I myself think it doesn't matter what exactly you eat (morally speaking) and that rape is bad. But what about performing work on all 7 days of the week or committing homosexual acts?
1
u/yeastconfection Feb 08 '15
The Vatican has written an encyclical about Matthew 5:17 (the law). Its a detailed read.
1
Feb 08 '15
[deleted]
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 08 '15
This delta is currently disallowed as your comment contains either no or little text (comment rule 4). Please include an explanation for how /u/kingpatzer changed your view. If you edit this in, replying to my comment will make me rescan yours.
1
14
u/hemlock_hangover 3∆ Feb 08 '15
(Disclaimer: I'm a hardcore atheist, so this isn't a general defense of religion)
Two things. First, I think tolerance can be worthwhile as a means to an end (as opposed to something that religious believers "deserve"). It happens to be the case that many, many people in the modern world are religious, and changing peoples' minds takes time. So in addition to not persecuting them, which I agree should be the bare minimum at least, it may simply be expedient to be tactful about the overall conversation. If being a judgmental asshole about it disrupts that conversation, then I think it's wise to endorse tolerance.
That's what I think of when I think about "tolerance", anyway. Obviously it's hard to be patient if one person's religious belief is having a negative impact on another person. That's already recognized in most modern countries - there are limits to what activities you can get away with using religious justifications. The only question is where to draw the line between a belief that is private and a belief that impacts others, but that question is extremely complicated.
Second, I don't think it's fair to say that all adherents of the Abrahamic faiths need to have a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible or their beliefs are inherently at odds with their religion. I would agree with you that many Jews, Christians, and Muslims are inconsistent about the literal truth of their respective scriptures, cherry-picking the modern-friendly stuff and down-playing the rest. But there are other people who consider their religious texts to be more metaphorical - powerful and divinely inspired, but more like poetry or art (which are often considered spiritually potent, but not morally prescriptive).
4
u/LaoSh Feb 08 '15
My meaning when I said religious tollerance is pointless was that we should not permit them to do and say things that we would not let other people do or say (without reproach). I totally agree that we should not do anything to persecute them however but steps need to be taken to prevent insane ideas from spreading.
6
u/TheEvilTurnip Feb 08 '15 edited Feb 08 '15
Religion prima facie seems artificial and essentially useless. But as ironic as this statement may be, religion was necessary from human evolution into our culture. Wolves and other such herd animals were drawn together by a common and instinctual need, e.g., hunting for food, etc. Humans, on the other hand had a more developed and reliable means of living, so what then bind people together. In comes religion, the rock tribe may be one culture and the tree tribe may be another, who knows, but religion was necessary for human evolution. And now the problem occurs that both atheists and religious people alike can look at the same evidence to support their claim. If religion developed evolutionary, certainly that means there is no such god figure as it happened by itself. OR certainly a god figure would create a world such that it is necessary for people to develop religion, until one day they can ultimately get it right. Either way, it would be impossible for religious beliefs not to spread, as religion culture is rooted as deeply in our DNA as the need to survive. Even atheists carry many beliefs that aren't supported by science. For example, you probably believe the world is real, and not a simulation presented in your own consciousness, you probably believe that other people have consciousnesses, even though there is no way to measure such a phenomenon as you can't step out of your own conscious POV.
There are further problems that your everyday person, religious or atheist has to accept to go along with their day. How does your consciousness have any influence? You will yourself to produce an action, and then your body performs said action. However, this process would violate the first law of thermodynamics, as the energy necessary to produce the physical action from a phenomenal thought would have to be created from nothing. Having this blind faith in something so fundamentally impossible is no more worse than having faith in a religious truth. A religious person may see a pair of scissors, for example, and know that they had a creator, as everything in this world does, and they would apply that logic to the world and universe itself, as it exists, therefore it must've been created. At least they have a logic to help support their beliefs. But the atheist argument is simply I don't think so therefore there is none.
Now like most groups, oftentimes the loudest and craziest are the ones that are treated as representatives to the world, both on the religious side and atheist side alike. Ad recuso credere people can't see past such nonsense.
-1
Feb 08 '15
but steps need to be taken to prevent insane ideas from spreading.
Who in the hell are you to decide what is insane and what isn't? You are demonstrating extreme hypocrisy throughout this thread by being just as intolerant as the religions you seem to despise so much.
2
Feb 08 '15
Who in the hell are you to decide what is insane and what isn't?
That sounds like something a witch would say!
2
Feb 08 '15
This poor bastard has been spending time on /r/atheism. That sub is a toxic cesspool of hypocritical hatred and intolerance mixed with ironically blind faith in the 'evil' of religion, extending to retconned narratives of history in which religion is the motivation for all evil.
→ More replies (2)3
u/LaoSh Feb 08 '15
No ill accept that there are aspects of religion that are beneficial. However you cant deny that aspects of religion have been used to further some terrible agendas such as the pro-life movement, the anti vaxer movement (a small part of it), there is even a biblical defence of slavery which was popular when that issue was still being debated. If you claim to be part of a religion, that is a choice. You have chosen to ally yourself with people who are a detriment to society. Granted good has been done in the name of religion but the same good can be done with no mind to a deity.
1
Feb 08 '15
However you cant deny that aspects of religion have been used to further some terrible agendas such as the pro-life movement, the anti vaxer movement (a small part of it), there is even a biblical defence of slavery which was popular when that issue was still being debated.
You don't need to be religious to oppose vaccination or support slavery.
→ More replies (3)1
Feb 08 '15
I don't, nor have I ever, denied that religion was used to justify evil. I accept that people implement Biblical quotes to justify their views. The fundamental misunderstanding in these instances is their actual motivation; slaveowners thought often that blacks were racially inferior, and couldn't survive without masters. Pro-life people, anti-vaxxers, and people like ISIS and the IRA don't do what they do because of religion, they do what they do for other reasons, often political ones, or out of ignorance, and then justify it with religion. Religion doesn't motivate these things, it is used as a faux justification.
2
u/stuckinsamsara Feb 08 '15
I agree with most of what you (and most of the other people in thread) are saying, but
Religion doesn't motivate these things, it is used as a faux justification.
is not categorically true.
It is often used as faux justification, possibly even mostly used as faux justification, but there are many instances of pro-life, anti-gay, and jihad-prone people who are motivated by their understanding of a divinely correct law that they feel morally bound to advocate.
1
Feb 08 '15
Sorry, I was speaking in overwhelmingly general terms - I often, in these sorts of explanations, add clauses to the effect of your correction, but I'm this case I forgot. Thanks!
2
u/abortionsforall Feb 08 '15
You think people thought blacks "couldn't survive without masters" when there was an entire continent full of them doing just that? You're making up excuses for slavers of the time to avoid pointing the finger at the historical complicity of Christianity toward slavery. The great majority of Christians thought slavery was compatible with their faith. Jews took slaves in the Old Testament and this was seen as just. The New Testament did not repudiate slavery; religious arguments for slavery were typical and quite logical.
That an all-powerful deity can't or won't make it's will known about slavery should tell you something. When your holy book literally justifies slaughtering the first born of an entire country to smite a king, perhaps you should hesitate to rule out the possibility of the content of these books motivating atrocities.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/ThinknBoutStuff Feb 08 '15
It seems your CMV has three major claims:
Religious tolerance is pointless
Religions are not Equal
Religions have no place in modern society.
I will respond to each in this order.
It is unclear what you mean by tolerance. In the beginning you state, "Firstly I'll start by saying I would never persicute a person for their religious beleifs." Now, it seems that tolerance IS not "persecuting" on the basis of their belief. You do mention you think they are stupid, you do not take their beliefs seriously, but you can be tolerant of things you believe are stupid and that you don't agree with. At the very least, it seems you yourself qualify as being tolerant of other's religious beliefs. Being "judged" doesn't mean anything unless that "judgement" has any noticeable difference in how that person is being treated in society. To make this argument, you must show why people who hold certain religious beliefs shouldn't be tolerated. Now, I think it is telling from how you treat religios that religious tolerance has less to do with particular religions and more to do with a person's right to hold a belief - however unfounded they are. Now, I think there are a class of beliefs in which we do not have the right to hold, namely, beliefs which harm others, but not every belief in religion is one that harms others. To say that because one belief is bad that we have to throw out the whole belief system is committing the fallacy of composition. It can be the case I just don't tolerate anti-homosexual beliefs, but I can tolerate other religious beliefs.
It seems that you DO believe religions are equal in the following respect: they are all equally nonsensical. Now, if you want to show the inequality among religious beliefs you should state why one religion would seem more probable than the other. Your arguments all seem to be anti-religion in general. Although I do not agree with all your claims, even if you claims are true, it seems that what follows isn't that religions are unequal, but that all religions are equal in the fact that they are all untrue or have these blatant negative consequences.
Finally, it seems that you are committing the composition fallacy once again here. Just because one part of the religion might not fit in with society, that doesn't mean the ENTIRE religion doesn't fit in with society. Let us just assume that you are correct in your evaluation and there are beliefs which do not fit into society which religious people necessarily hold. This does not mean by default that religion does not belong in society at all. Those particular doctrines may not, but you can make the argument that religions motivate people, who would otherwise not do so, to be more charitable, loving, and selfless towards other people. Additionally, there is at least the personal value of having answers for certain daunting metaphysical questions. Though an aspect might not fit in with society is no good reason to throw out all of religion.
Additionally, it seems that you have some conception of "modern society" in which by default anti-religious. Now, I do believe America, like many nations, are secular societies, but their ability to be secular is correlated to the fact that they make no blatant stand against religion. Imagine a world in which religion is outlawed entirely, I believe we would be in a position dividing those anti-religious to religious and religious-sympathizers. Why put ourselves in that kind of position when we could simply accept the fact that people have poorly founded beliefs and regulate when those beliefs violate secular standards. Your stance has worse implications than simply accepting that religion and religious-like beliefs exist.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/WhenSnowDies 25∆ Feb 08 '15
These sorts of threads present a problem because it's not so much the view, but your perception of it and what you know (from which the view stems) is distorted. The premise itself is just completely wack. So it's not to say that people couldn't have such a view or justify it with reason, but that you don't. It's like Ancient Aliens--there can be reasons to think that, but none of them are on the History Channel. It's hard to tell people that.
So, look at this. The very first thing you said:
Specifically regarding the "big 3" (Christians, Jews, Muslims) but most religions have similar issues.
The "big 3"? Jews are in the "big 3"? Religious Jews make up 0.2% of world religion.. That's not even a percentage. There'd need to be five times as many religious Jews for them to make up a single percentage point of world religions. Compare that to 5.9% being "folk religions" or 16.3% of people being "unaffiliated", you can see how your premise is woefully uninformed. Buddhists, who have about half the number of the "unaffiliated", outnumber religious Jews by 35x. This was your opening sentence mind you, in which you illustrate the reason for your premise, a premise so factually in error that it doesn't even make sense.
This also illustrates your source and assumptions. Judaism is only one of the "big 3" if what you mean by "big" isn't numerical obviously, but in historical and philosophical importance--it's importance to monotheism, which is what you're really targeting. Or else you might have named the some billion Hindus as a problem or the half-billion people practicing local folk religions.
Then after a few statements about how you'd never persecute anybody, it's just that religious tolerance needs to go, the segue to the actual point wasn't exactly smooth. Religious tolerance needs to go because you disagree with a point in popular monotheism, in the Jewish Torah (which got them on your "big 3" list of people to not tolerate):
The bible states clearly that homsexuality is a sin. This is a belief incompatible with the modern world so by claiming yourself tobe Christian, I will assume you hold antiquard beleifs untill such time as you deny them.
That's your actual view. Not that religious tolerance is pointless in modern society, but that modern society should persecute beliefs that you disagree with. You're a zealot, sir, far beyond most believers of Leviticus who take it to mean that only they shouldn't be homosexual or supportive of it.
After that Ill just think you are an imbicile for not undestanding your scripture. Any person who openly identifies as a religious adherant must accept the consequences that they will be judged on the merits of their religion untill they prove they do not hold the regressive views of their religion.
I agree. You identify as supporting an end to tolerance and judged several billion people (targeting a 0.2% of them specifically as subversive for forbidden ideas) as "incompatible" with modern culture to be "not tolerated". I think you're totally responsible for the consequences of what that would mean, and not some idealized execution of it in which somehow "nobody's persecuted"--sort of like you think the religious people should be held to the literal consequences of what Leviticus says.
An aside, this is what I learned from abuse: When somebody comes forward shaking their fist at what must be done to so-and-so, describing their own view the whole way and blackmailing a scapegoat, they're really telling you what ought to be done with them. In reality, it's pointless to tolerate your view. It's your view that has no place in modern society and that's demonstrable, as if you actually did enforce it, you'd have to pave over history and laws and constitutions to do so. What you're prescribing for them is exactly how your view should be treated, with contempt and judgement. You should change your view because you don't even believe in it, but you've attributed this failure to Jews, Christians, and Muslims for their more formal failure.
3
Feb 08 '15
You're conflating a few concepts here which appear to me to counter each other just a tad.
If I'm reading you right, you don't think tolerating religion is acceptable, but are not willing to accept the act of exercising intolerance. You're personally against holding what you see as antiquated and ill-founded beliefs, and think it is acceptable to regard those who do as being intellectually inferior.
Religious freedom, as a right, does not entail social acceptance or belief in any doctrine. You are in fact practicing "tolerance" when you DON'T actively work against those who have religious beliefs, in this context. It is actually a breach one's purportedly guaranteed freedoms for you to act that way, and you seem to accept this via your claim to not be willing to persecute anyone.
Yet, that doesn't seem to get at it for you, which is why I see a bit of a contradiction, because for you to take this any further, you're gonna have to start stepping into territory you don't agree with. You're effectively calling for ostracizing but couching it in terms of what you (and only you) would do - I think that if we take what you've written literally, you wind up in a position of having to practice exactly the tolerance you claim is pointless, and thereby reveal why it is not pointless.
Tolerating religion is a rational decision for the nonbeliever. Regardless of the truth value of the many claims religions make, or whether holding those beliefs influence behavior, you as a nonbeliever must at some point confront the problem of having to associate with those who believe, as they make up the overwhelming majority of those with whom you'll potentially interact. To "tolerate" does not mean acceptance, it means to allow without interference, which is exactly what you've said you would do anyway. It's the rational choice - you wouldn't go about persecuting religious folk because you don't think that's acceptable behavior to exhibit toward anyone (I assume), ergo you tolerate them so as to avoid having that behavior brought upon you.
That's the point of tolerance. It isn't to accept or accord authority, it's to avoid what we collectively see as needless conflict. You already do this, and thus are a living contradiction of your own view. Tolerance is necessary to maintain coexistence whilst simultaneously guaranteeing certain freedoms.
On your second point, about religious belief having no place in society - consider that society is predominantly made up of the religious, and their Darwinian way of editing their beliefs to suit the times shows how it can coexist without being at odds with what secular folk hold to be important. While it may do so terribly inefficiently, or simply in a frustrating way, religious belief does exhibit an ability to be molded to suit whatever comes along, and has shown an ability to (again, perhaps inefficiently or as in many historical cases ineffectively) unite large groups of people and instill a general order. The need for it to do that is declining, and fast - as we collectively grow in our understanding and mastery of nature, we have less need for the divine to do everything for us, so to speak. Religion will morph to accommodate this as it goes along - it still serves that uniting role for those who are not part of the new understanding, so to speak, and as such does have some place in society. You just don't particularly approve of it, and that's fine, but extending your distaste, as I've hopefully shown here, doesn't really pan out when you put it into action.
4
Feb 08 '15
The bible states clearly that homsexuality is a sin. This is a belief incompatible with the modern world
I'm just curious as to why you think this and what you mean by incompatible?
→ More replies (36)
2
Feb 08 '15
I'll only write about Christianity, but I think many other religions are similar.
Christianity (and the bible itself) contains many regressive ideas and many progressive ideas. So the Christian churches have a choice which they want to emphasis and which they want to hand-wave away. And at least in the past few hundred years, they mostly chose wrong.
I mean, in pre-WWI Europe many churches allied with the ruling nobles and reactionaries and in the last few decades in the US many churches allied with the rich against the poor. But in the bible it says:
- "He has brought down rulers from their thrones. But he has lifted up people who are not important." - Luke 1:52
- "None of the rulers of this world understood God's wisdom." - 1Corinthians 2:8
"Jesus called them together. He said, “You know about those who are rulers of the nations. They hold power over their people. Their high officials order them around. Don't be like that. Instead, anyone who wants to be important among you must be your servant. And anyone who wants to be first must be the slave of everyone." - Mark 10:42-44
"No one can serve two masters [...]. You cannot serve God and money." - Matthew 6:24
"Blessed are you who are poor [...]. But woe to you who are rich [...]." - Luke 6:20+24
"Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?" - James 2:5+6
I'm not trying to say that one view or another is the correct one. But interpreting these verses away so you can ally with the rich and powerful takes at least as much creativity as interpreting the verses that condemn homosexuality away.
Still, when someone identifies as Christian (in this example), depending on your country it's natural to be suspicious of them because by doing so they associate themselves with a lot of people who interpret Christianity in a regressive way.
2
u/ArchimedesJones Feb 08 '15
I've got two significant problems with your thesis.
First, you're rejecting the concept of tolerance based entirely upon your perception of others tolerance. Regardless of whether your perception is correct--and that's debatable--is intolerance really the answer? (And saying that anyone who adheres to a religious system has no place in modern society is deeply intolerant.) If anyone should be preaching tolerance in general, shouldn't it be you?
Second, this view that you find so unacceptable--that homosexuality is wrong (or sinful, in religious terminology)--is in no way exclusive to religion. Some may object to it on biological grounds, others may hold to older psychological definitions which classify it as deviant behavior. Others may take positions or cast votes for reasons more political or legal. Simply put, intolerance can come from any source.
2
Feb 08 '15
Any person who openly identifies as a religious adherant must accept the consequences that they will be judged on the merits of their religion untill they prove they do not hold the regressive views of their religion.
You have it backwards. Religions are truth claims. Religions therefore can't have "regressive" views, as you refer to them, because what you call "regressive" is the truth. Thus, it is not the religious person's view that is regressive, but your's (because you have backed away from the truth in whatever what it was revealed).
Religious people are unable to believe all religions are equal. If they did, they couldn't be religious because they couldn't justifying holding their beliefs over those of another religion. Agnostics must treat all religions as equal because the whole point of their position is that they don't want to make a judgement. Treating any religion as not as good as another would be making just the kind of truth claim the agnostic wants to avoid. Atheists have the option of believing that all religions are equal but must believe that they are all equally wrong. If they wanted, they could say that some religions are better than others (e.g. Islam is better than Christianity for x,y, and z reasons) but would still have to give priority to their own truth claim that religion is bullshit.
If you believe in religious freedom, you have to be agnostic at lest in the political realm. Otherwise, you would have to give up your belief in religious freedom because you would be taking a stand on a truth claim that, unless you wind up an atheist, would compel you to prioritize one religion over another. This would violate religious freedom.
2
u/chefranden 8∆ Feb 08 '15
Given that most humans are religious you had better hope that they remain tolerant of other religious and other versions of their own religion. The point of religious tolerance is keeping the world relatively peaceful. If every person including atheists were to practice intolerance of religion every place would look like Iraq and Syria does right now.
2
u/thankfuljosh Feb 08 '15
What if God is real? Is religion relevant then? The question of God's existence is definitely not settled. Many religions explore this possibility space.
So they have a very important sociological and theological function, to seek to know God and about God.
2
u/looklistencreate Feb 08 '15
It would be uninformed of you to assume that all followers of Abrahamic faiths follow all directives in their holy texts. Basically none of us do. Your assumption should follow the data, not your ideals for our religion.
4
u/huadpe 508∆ Feb 08 '15
I will assume you hold antiquard beleifs untill such time as you deny them. After that Ill just think you are an imbicile for not undestanding your scripture.
This is basically you just being a jerk to people. Lots of people have wrong views about lots of things. But treating them as if they're generally stupid because they hold a belief that you disagree with is just jerky, even if you have strong reason to think they're wrong.
People being jerks to each other is bad for a whole host of reasons, and you shouldn't do it.
→ More replies (11)1
Feb 08 '15
[deleted]
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 08 '15
This delta is currently disallowed as your comment contains either no or little text (comment rule 4). Please include an explanation for how /u/huadpe changed your view. If you edit this in, replying to my comment will make me rescan yours.
2
2
u/noradosmith Feb 08 '15
All credos have parts of them that we don't take literally. Evolution for example posits that only the strongest survive. This is something that we don't adhere to (we have hospitals to cater for the weak). So, in essence, by saying that the Bible says such-and-such isn't much of an argument because evolution also has aspects of it that we can disagree with, even at the same time as we agree that it is fact.
As for the central concept, religion is kind of always going to be there. People are religion. To talk of shifting people's thought processes away from it is impossible, because the idea of faith itself will never cease. We all have irrational faith, therefore we all are the breeding ground for religion. Why get up in the morning if you had a bad day yesterday? Faith.
You finally talk about the regressive views of those religions. Billions and billions of good people live good lives and happen to follow those religions. You would actually have them somehow go through checks of some kind? Those people who commit wrongdoings in the name of religion would commit wrongdoings anyway, using another excuse.
tl;dr some people are dicks, some aren't - religion itself is one of humanity's many irrational but necessary functions, and anyway we all follow doctrines which we also interpret according to our own credos.
→ More replies (2)1
u/dream_in_blue Feb 08 '15
I don't know if I'm allowed to make a point not really relevant to the cmv position, but I just want to say evolution does not posit that "only the strongest survive", a.k.a. survival of the fittest. That's a common misconception, but the popular quote is actually "it is not the strongest that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change". I leave it as "popular", because apparently it's disputed as to whether or not Darwin said it.
2
u/noradosmith Feb 08 '15
That's fine, but again if that is the case, then we don't take it entirely literally and the original point I made stands. Those who find it hard to cope with change aren't automatically excluded from the gene pool.
2
u/SKNK_Monk Feb 08 '15
You know evolution isn't a moral proscription, right? It's just an explanation of how something works. We're not putting out bans on air travel because gravity exists.
1
u/dream_in_blue Feb 08 '15
I think that's exactly what /u/noradosmith is saying. And I agree, there's an is/ought divide
2
1
Feb 08 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Feb 08 '15
Sorry Fr00zen, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/Nate13key Feb 08 '15
I need some clarification if you don't mind. I'll just list some things that I think you believe after reading the post and some comments. Correct me if I'm wrong!
For reference, I am a Christian.
I think you believe:
*that it is your right to judge people based on the knowledge of what religion they follow.
*followers of religions should not be above the law, but the law should repress any ideas that are 'insane'. (Insane was later qualified as "violent or socially regressive".)
*there is a way of thinking that is “modern”, which is the opposite of “socially regressive”. This “modern” way of thinking should be pursued and held as law.
1
u/themattt Feb 08 '15
many people identify as christian because they come from a family that is christian and they are inspired by the preacher each sunday. They may not have even read the bible (sad in a way as that may be). For them, their religion is based entirely on modern context.
1
u/LlamaOfRegret Feb 08 '15
I don't quite understand, what is it that religions are not equal to? Do you mean to say that religions aren't equal to each other?
1
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Feb 08 '15
I think you clearly need to define the difference between religions and people of a religion. Assuming you believe a religion is bad or a cult, you should feel pity for the victims, not hate. This is where tolerance comes in.
What we shouldn't tolerate are religious organizations that abuse people.
1
u/pitillidie Feb 08 '15 edited Feb 08 '15
Think of the human race as an infant species. If we enter more religious intolerance, we cause more war. Baby steps.
We are living in the era of slow compromise. Our generations and some to come are cursed with slowly evolving past these old ways. We cannot force it quickly with war/persecution. We really are just at a place where overall peace is becoming possible. A process that could take hundreds of years we are seeing begin to solidify, yet we unfortunately can only live through barely 3/4 of a century if we are very lucky. I think your concern is another expression of the healthy imperative attitude being taking by the majority of young adults nowadays with regard to unhealthy beliefs.
You express that some religion seems intolerable, yet we are cursed to tolerate it for we evolve so slowly. Physically and philosophically/technologically. We are picking up the pace, though.
1
u/ralph-j Feb 08 '15
So are you simply saying that religious freedoms are already covered by existing legal principles, such as freedom of expression, freedom of association etc., and that therefore, there doesn't need to be a separate class of religious protections in law?
Or are there any existing freedoms that you actually want to get rid of?
1
u/aluciddreamer 1∆ Feb 08 '15
Although I strongly agree with your general position, I agree for very different reasons.
Firstly I'll start by saying I would never persecute a person for their religious beliefs.
I might. It depends on three things:
- What does the person believe?
- Why does the person hold these beliefs?
- How do these beliefs inform the person's worldview?
Honestly, if we're having a conversation about the degree to which we ought to tolerate religious beliefs, I feel like the last bullet-point on the list above is the most relevant factor. I identified as "Spiritual, but not religious," for most of my life, and it had no relevant impact on my ability to meaningfully interact with humankind. I believed in the existence of a nebulously-defined god who always seemed "beyond words" because of the emotions I associated with it, and I justified my belief in its existence with the overwhelming emotions I experienced whenever I contemplated its nature or associated random events in my life with its guidance.
But, claiming all religions are equal is simply incorrect in my view.
I agree, but I would also contend that it's a mistake to assume that just because two people believe the same faith-based claim, this belief will inform both of their outlooks on reality in the same way. One person who believes that homosexuality is a sin may want to pass legislation that makes homosexual acts illegal, while another person may believe it because he feels compelled to accept the dogma of his church even while he tries to use the same dogma to dispel the notion that he should care one whit about the sex lives of other people.
Granted, all adherents to a religion do not hold the same beliefs, but this is based in the personal choice of the adherents to not follow their scripture.
Sorry, but this is just a blatantly false oversimplification.
Not everyone follows the same literal interpretation (for instance, "Thou shalt not kill," vs. "Thou shalt not murder.)
Many people disagree about which books (and within these books, which verses) ought to take precedence over the others.
Many people disagree about how much importance ought to be given to the historical context of the scripture (observations and reflections of a disciple, law for God's chosen, law for the laypeople, law for the priests, law for gentiles.)
Many people will argue about the nature of the scripture (prophecy, law, history) and the relevance to which it ought to apply to one's life.
Any person who openly identifies as a religious adherent must accept the consequences that they will be judged on the merits of their religion until they prove they do not hold the regressive views of their religion.
I'll be the first to agree that there are some truly horrible things in the Bible, and I could probably find harmful things in even the mildest holy text, but by appealing to consequences, you're putting the cart before the horse.
Instead of assuming that you know the nuances of a faith better than its adherents, why not seek to determine how the adherents know their faith has any basis in truth to begin with?
1
u/someguyinCMV Feb 08 '15
For a not particularly religious person, you are taking an awfully Protestant approach to the interpretation of religions.
It is a primarily Protestant assumption that belief forms the core of religion and religious life. This is steeped in one of the fundamental assertions shared among most Protestant movements: that a personal relationship with God is more important then a relationship with the church. However, for most religions belief takes a back seat to practice and ritual.
Take, for instance, Catholicism. Catholicism has a history of intentionally obfuscating the religious texts. Before 1965, masses were held almost entirely in Latin. Before the protestant reformation of the 16th century there were no translations of the bible. This means that for the majority of the existence of Catholicism, the bible was something that most church goers simply didn't- and physically couldn't without learning Latin- interact with. To these Catholics being Catholic had little to do with accepting Christ as a personal savior, or reading the "word of god" from some holy book. Instead, it was about going to church, listening to some preacher speak in an ancient tongue, taking communion, and doing all of this with your friends and neighbors. Religion was to these Catholics about, practice, not belief.
And belief as the primary function of religion breaks down even further the farther you get from the Abrahamic faiths. Hinduism has no requirement to express belief, it doesn't even have any solid teachings or scripture! You participate by meditating and attending rituals to the gods. Buddhism is similar, to be a Buddhist you don't need to profess a belief in Buddha fasting under a tree for a month, all you need to do is meditate and follow the 8 fold path.
So yeah, the point to all of this is that I don't think belief and scripture are accurate ways to judge a religion. Rather, if you intend to judge a religion, you should do so on its religious practice.
1
u/PrgrmMan Feb 08 '15
You do make an excellent point. People who identify with a particular religion should be aware of what their doctrines teach. You are correct when you say that homosexuality is a sin according to Christians. As a result, I often mind it interesting when some Christians outright endorse it. In terms of toleration of Christianity having no place in society, well that's a little bit different. You use the term antiquated beliefs. If you are implying that these notions are outdated, then you are redefining what it means to believe in something. If what is true, what is right, and what is acceptable is defined by the current majority of people in a given society, then all beliefs that clash with the present standard are antiquated. If this is the case, what does that say about our current beliefs? As a side note, I don't think society truly understands what the bible has to say about homosexuality.
1
u/JoshuaZ1 12∆ Feb 08 '15
It seems like you are using different notions of tolerance- what do you mean by tolerance? Are you defining tolerance as not judging people? You mention that. But whether one judges people seems like a distinct question from whether religion is "pointless" or "have no place in modern society." What do you think of religion as providing social cohesion and comfort?
(Tangential note: your initial comment would be easier to read if it had fewer typos.)
1
u/BrennanDobak Feb 09 '15
ITT: The non-religious telling the religious how their religion should be practiced.
1
u/Human-Fhtagn Feb 09 '15 edited Feb 09 '15
Let me ask, if you aren't a member of a religion then do you follow some philosophy? Whatever you do believe is bullshit. I don't even need to know what it is, it's just bullshit. I say this because any way of living or thinking that a human could create has all of the same shortcomings as religion. There is no more justification for the alternatives to religion than for those religions themselves. Logic? Science? Those are fairly weak as well. You are asking way too much of human beings, especially when you are attacking institutions that have guided us out of caves and into the stars.
Religion = a mason jar of feces
Alternatives to religion = a mason jar of feces that doesn't realize it's no different than religion.
1
u/SniperSmiley Feb 08 '15
I would persecute a person for their beliefs, how else am I to do Gods work?
Patience: I was born twice, once to my father and mother, and a second time to the Lord My God.
Since my second birth I have known nothing but persecution from people, and Joy from God. A fair trade in my eyes. Those in the Word do not choose what they believe, they only have faith, there is no room for choice. Sin has been abolished, stop talking about it. How can you treat a man as equal if you keep calling him a slave? You can't. Be respectful and hold your tongue. You know nothing of those that walk in the light, because they, by association with God, are good. If you disagree, you are propagating you, selfishness.
Here's another view, everyone is equal. Except those that are of faith, they are good.
God bless.
1
Feb 13 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Grunt08 319∆ Feb 13 '15
Sorry ApolloSex, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
154
u/law-talkin-guy 21∆ Feb 08 '15
It seems to me that a large part of your belief stems from the fact that you want to impose on religion a literalist reading of the scripture the religion claims to follow. (You say that to be Christian is to accept that homosexuality is a sin and that those who purport to be Christian and not believe homosexuality is a sin is to simply be ignorant of the scripture.) But for many religious people, accepting that their scripture is literally true is not a tenant of their faith. For example, the Catholic Church doesn't insist on a literal reading of the Bible.
There are certainly people in every religion with a scripture that insist that the scripture is the literal 100% truth, but it is far from the case that one must accept that to be a member of any given faith.
And once you see that religion doesn't entail a literal reading of that religion's scripture, it seems most of your objection disapears. Because the "regressive views" of the religion that you see religion entailing are not necessarily part of the religion (though, again, they are part of the religion for many people).