Religious Tolerance & Religious Moderation Are a Joke

[Guest panthermatt7]

On the last two - well that's kind of the point of bringing it up. Non-believers are going to hell and deserve to be punished with violence? That is the height of intolerance, to kill people for not thinking the same way as others. And again, I'm sure the majority of Christians don't believe that, or at least act on it, but it does seem to be a central theme in the bible.

 

You're misunderstanding the meaning. The intent of the passage is NOT to say that all nonbelievers deserve to be punished with violence. The meaning is "they will get theirs from God." When God came to Lot, the one remaining believer in Sodom, his message was not "kill as many people as possible," it was "get out of here so I can deal with them justly." And that's what happened.

 

Have you READ the Bible? Just curious.

[Mike wanna be 0]

On the last two - well that's kind of the point of bringing it up. Non-believers are going to hell and deserve to be punished with violence? That is the height of intolerance, to kill people for not thinking the same way as others. And again, I'm sure the majority of Christians don't believe that, or at least act on it, but it does seem to be a central theme in the bible.

 

You're misunderstanding the meaning. The intent of the passage is NOT to say that all nonbelievers deserve to be punished with violence. The meaning is "they will get theirs from God." When God came to Lot, the one remaining believer in Sodom, his message was not "kill as many people as possible," it was "get out of here so I can deal with them justly." And that's what happened.

 

Have you READ the Bible? Just curious.

I'm sure God gave them a stern talking-to once Job was out of the way. That's why he had to leave so God could "deal with them", because Job gets offended when God drops the F-bomb.

[Ripper 0]

And the context of the man shall not lay with a man. They were walking in a fucking desert for years. They could not afford for people to not procreate. That was pretty much the point. Every man had to bear a child or children for the race to survive. If anyone started gaying it up, then there would be no children. No children means death of a race. There is a obvious reason that is written as such.

So now that the race isn't about to die off, it's ok to ignore God's word and queer it up?

 

(As for the statement itself, I admit to being slightly confused; does it mean you should kill someone who's gay, or that "gay sex kills" in a propaganda-like attempt to keep them from doing it?)

 

In any case, if it's all the word of God, I don't understand how you or anybody else can just pick and choose which passages are acceptable to follow in the here and now and which ones "need modifying due to contextual changes".

 

In the bible, put to death and blood upon them means after physical death and judgement before God, it has nothing to do with killing someone.

 

And no one is picking and chosing and no one is modifying anything. Jesus clearly says that the old laws no longer apply in the in the New Testament and gave the laws to live by in the New Testament. The things written in the old testament, while you can still use them as a guide to live by, are just that. They are the things that were needed for the people of that time. You don't have to sacrafice animals to give a proper offering to God anymore. There are countless other things that are CLEARLY stated as no longer being true in the Bible, but you would actually have to read it to know that.

 

And while there are somethings open to interpretation (I mean seriously, Jesus talked about pretty much every sin and law that they had at the time but never once mentioned homosexuality? Seems a little odd to me.) you aren't going to find the bible telling people to go out and kill the non believers unless that is what you really want to see, remove context and teaching from roughly 15-16 apostles in the same book. That is what extremist do. They take one passage or two, focus on it, remove all context and twist the words to make it play into whatever it is they want to it to do.

 

The Bible covers CENTURIES. That is why part of it is valid to that time and the other part, you don't have to wonder what to keep and what not to keep because Jesus tells you what to hold on to. Interpretation is one thing, but to pretend that the bible is just this book of hate and murder is a tell tell sign of someone who has never read it.

[World's Worst Man 0]

On the last two - well that's kind of the point of bringing it up. Non-believers are going to hell and deserve to be punished with violence? That is the height of intolerance, to kill people for not thinking the same way as others. And again, I'm sure the majority of Christians don't believe that, or at least act on it, but it does seem to be a central theme in the bible.

 

You're misunderstanding the meaning. The intent of the passage is NOT to say that all nonbelievers deserve to be punished with violence. The meaning is "they will get theirs from God." When God came to Lot, the one remaining believer in Sodom, his message was not "kill as many people as possible," it was "get out of here so I can deal with them justly." And that's what happened.

 

Have you READ the Bible? Just curious.

 

The Mark passage clearly says the punishment for not receiving Jesus will be worse than Sodom and Gomorrha's treatment. The only reason I even posted the S&G passage is so people wouldn't play dumb and pretend to not know what I was trying to infer. You may choose to completely misinterpret the meaning of the objective statements in the bible or brush them off as figurative, fables or what have you, and certainly that is what most Christians do (thankfully). I just find it mind-boggling that the bible needs to be so selectively misconstrued when it is supposedly the word of God, and the entire basis of modern Christian faith.

 

And no one is picking and chosing and no one is modifying anything. Jesus clearly says that the old laws no longer apply in the in the New Testament and gave the laws to live by in the New Testament.

 

He also says that he supports the old laws and prophets, but I'm probably taking that out of context~! What's one more contradiction on top of everything else anyway?

 

I'm not going to argue anymore over the rampant misinterpretation of the bible. I believe the fact that we're having this discussion more than proves my point about the credibility, or lack thereof, of the bible.

[Ripper 0]

But you don't see how its kinda a reach for you to use passages where god says, "don't do anything, i will handle it" and equate that to the bible saying to kill people that disagrees with you?

 

Removing all infering from both sides, it doesn't say anything like that.

 

And yes he did support the old prophets, but also pointed out where they were either wrong, or their beliefs were no longer valid. Thats what got Christ in trouble so much, going against the old ways. Old testement said stone the adulterous woman. Christ said, "Dude....not cool."

 

Parts of the Old testemant were still validated and other were invalidated. Its not a contradiction. you still should steal kill or commit adultry. But that whole killing your best sheep and giving it as a blood sacrifce for gods approval...not so much.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't know why some people feel the need to attack the Bible. We could make a similar thread about Islam and the Quran, and be derided as racists.

[World's Worst Man 0]

I don't know why some people feel the need to attack the Bible. We could make a similar thread about Islam and the Quran, and be derided as racists.

 

Because we're discussing it, and if everyone agreed, there'd be no discussion, see? If you don't like it, then stay out. No one here has insinuated that criticising Islam is racist either, so enough with the hyperbole.

[Brett Favre 0]

I thought everyone agreed but you.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I've been very busy (work & wedding), so I'll have a difficult responding to everything, but I'll try.

 

My main purpose in posting this (per the request of Conspiracy Victim) was to generate discussion and get this folder hopping (like with my thread on prison rape).

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So, in other words, people who believe in God, Allah, Yahweh, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster are cretinous louts stuck in the Dark Ages. VERY progressive thinking.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I do, however, think that there are a lot of otherwise reasonable and highly intelligent, even brilliant, people who set faith aside as an area of inquiry not open to critical thought. An excellent example is the mathematician/physicist Pascal.

 

I don't think people have been limited in their ability to criticize religion at all. People have been openly critical of organized religion for quite a while. As to your assertion that people who disparage organized religion are labelled "intolerant", I suggest that you watch TV, listen to radio, or go to almost any website that encourages commentary by it's readers (such as Fark.com). It seems to me that people who espouse a belief in an entity greater than themselves are the ones who are treated as social outcasts and backwards thinkers. Someone states that they believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and they are immediately thought of as a "whacko" or "nutjob". A crucifix covered in feces or immersed in a jar of urine as seen as "art", and religious characters on TV or movies are frequently portrayed as either fanatics or militants.

 

You and I must be living in different countries. What TV & radio shows are critically examining & questioning religion? We live in a country in which public opinion polling shows that atheists are the least trusted group in the country...even less than followers of Islam, whose adherents attacked us on 9/11 and in other attacks. Evangelical Christians currently control the executive branch of the White House and the vast majority of the federal judiciary. I've already listed the polling on evolution, Israel, & other issues. The other night I watched a presidential candidate "faith" forum on CNN where the candidates for leader of the free world were asked oh-so-pressing public policy questions like, "what do you say when you pray," and, "Mrs. Clinton, how did your faith help you deal with your husband's infidelity?" The notion that secularism is on the march in the US and that organized religion is under siege is not belied by real evidence.

 

Ha! One of the little ads at the top of the page says "Bible Homosexual."

 

By the way, where does this "Christianity is violent" belief come from? Jesus disavowed violence and preached "turning the other cheek" and tolerance. Oh, I forgot, the Crusades. A series of wars fought in response to Islamic encroachment and violence a thousand years ago forever marks Christianity as a religion of violence and cruelty. Of course. Any nutjobs who preach violence and use excerpts from the Bible take passages out of context or outright lie about its meaning in order to sway people uneducated about the subject to their way of thinking.

 

These lists are just off the top of my head.

 

Christian Violence

Historical

Well, you named the Crusades (don't forget about the slaughter of Jews by the Crusaders on their way to the "Holy Lands."

Widespread violence against Jews throughout Europe & throughout European history.

The Spanish Inquisition--probably one of the most vile institutions in world history.

Witch hunts in colonial New England.

Baptism of native infants followed by immediate murder by (either Franciscan or Dominican) priests in the Americas.

Native Americans in general. Lots of other indigenous peoples, as well.

The 30 Years War.

All of the wars waged by the papal states.

Clashes with Mormons in the US.

Violence inflicted upon African slaves in the Americas, the Caribbean, & other European colonies.

 

Modern

Former Yugoslavia (Catholics vs. Orthodox Christians vs. Muslims)

Nigeria & many other places in Africa (Christians vs. Muslims)

Russia (Orthodox Christians vs. Muslims)

Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics)

Should we include Christian dictators like Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, & (arguably) Hitler?

 

Even those who decry intolerance of religion do so in a very selective manner. Someone draws a picture of Allah with a bomb for a turban? That's insensitive. Kanye West is on the cover of Rolling Stone with a crown of thorns? Well, that's just freedom of expression. What's the difference? Islam is seen by many of the intelligensia and "cultural elites" as a religion for the poor brown folks while Christianity is a religion for the rich white folk. Therefore, Islam needs to be protected while Christianity needs to be exposed as intolerant, hypocritical, or whatever fits the view of the people involved.

 

You need to argue with someone else here. See my first post. Islam should be criticized way more than Christianity right now, considering it (in its purest form) is a grave danger to human civilization right now. That being said, Christianity is not benign (more on this later).

 

As to your belief that there needs to be a "war against religious dogma", what dogma should we be at war against? The Ten Commandments? Those form the basis for much of the moral and legal thinking in Western Civilization, and include such controversial statements as, "Thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal". Yeah, I can see why those sorts of things should be thrown right out the window.

 

You don't need the Ten Commandments to know that killing or stealing is bad. These are fundamental moral principles the world around. There are better places from which we could borrow these principles without all of the accompanying baggage of Moses' tablets. They are not especially profound or unique to Christianity, and 4 of them are pretty much useless to many of us. You & I could write a set of ten laws more useful to society than these off the top of our heads.

 

Religion could be used as a common bond to bind people from all cultural groups together.

 

But, here's the thing...it never has been. Religion has served as a huge, if not THE hugest, divider of people all over the world. This seems to follow logically from the proposition of most religions that:

 

1.) they are the one truth

and

2.) everyone who doesn't believe is doomed to hell or is an infidel

 

Moderation is key, not extremism (in any direction).

 

As I said, moderation is a vast improvement over fundamentalism, but moderate conceptions of tolerance shield extremists from criticism.

 

Also, if you examine "religious moderation," it is really just faith making allowances reason & modernity. Religious moderation usually leads adherents to abandon many of their principles & ignore entire segments of their religious texts & holy books.

 

To simplify, moderation=less faith.

[Guest panthermatt7]

I don't know why some people feel the need to attack the Bible. We could make a similar thread about Islam and the Quran, and be derided as racists.

 

Because we're discussing it, and if everyone agreed, there'd be no discussion, see? If you don't like it, then stay out. No one here has insinuated that criticising Islam is racist either, so enough with the hyperbole.

 

I'm a fan of this kind of discussion. Too often this topic results in 'angry arguing' rather than 'spirited debate.' I like stuff that causes me to dig into my brain, and use critical thinking. For that I thank you, WWM. Not so much for old skool, though.

 

I have no problem with people attacking the Bible, because if it truly was an indefensible book, I wouldn't want to rely on it anymore. When I start to have an issue is when people resort to sarcastic generalizations, which thankfully it hasn't here.

 

 

The Mark passage clearly says the punishment for not receiving Jesus will be worse than Sodom and Gomorrha's treatment. The only reason I even posted the S&G passage is so people wouldn't play dumb and pretend to not know what I was trying to infer. You may choose to completely misinterpret the meaning of the objective statements in the bible or brush them off as figurative, fables or what have you, and certainly that is what most Christians do (thankfully). I just find it mind-boggling that the bible needs to be so selectively misconstrued when it is supposedly the word of God, and the entire basis of modern Christian faith.

 

I would put forth the idea that modern Christianity, meaning people in my generation (18-25), have a BETTER understanding of how to apply the Bible to real life. The baby boomer generation, and above, are the ones that have a really f'ed up view from time to time -- it's usually them that you hear talking about killing the gays. My generation has a generally peaceful and progressive view of faith, except for the bad apples of course.

 

And Catholics don't count, because let's be honest... they worship the Pope & Virgin Mary, NOT Christ. Okay, that's a generalization, but I like it.

[Guest panthermatt7]

I've been very busy (work & wedding), so I'll have a difficult responding to everything, but I'll try.

 

My main purpose in posting this (per the request of Conspiracy Victim) was to generate discussion and get this folder hopping (like with my thread on prison rape).

 

You've succeeded, thanks for doing it -- I like topics on politics & religion, as long as they don't get overly personal and derogatory. Intellectual debate is one of the things that keeps me awake.

[Brett Favre 0]

And Catholics don't count, because let's be honest... they worship the Pope & Virgin Mary, NOT Christ. Okay, that's a generalization, but I like it.

 

We worship Christ. That's the sense I get when I go to Church.

[World's Worst Man 0]

I thought everyone agreed but you.

 

What a stunning and relevant insight. I guess that makes me wrong!!!!

 

I would put forth the idea that modern Christianity, meaning people in my generation (18-25), have a BETTER understanding of how to apply the Bible to real life. The baby boomer generation, and above, are the ones that have a really f'ed up view from time to time -- it's usually them that you hear talking about killing the gays. My generation has a generally peaceful and progressive view of faith, except for the bad apples of course.

 

And Catholics don't count, because let's be honest... they worship the Pope & Virgin Mary, NOT Christ. Okay, that's a generalization, but I like it.

 

Oh absolutely. Some of Christendom seems to be becoming more liberal and less intrusive, with people realizing that spirituality doesn't need to be some overbearing, intensely serious thing.

 

Also, your avatar is outstanding for this sort of discussion.

 

Nah, I was just saying if there isn't at least one party on each side of the spectrum, there wouldn't be much discussion.

|

v

[Brett Favre 0]

You just made it sound like it was like a 3 on 3 thing going on here. But I was just saying. Continue.

[Henry Spencer 0]

mainstream Christian

 

Assuming for one second that there is a God, how can one be certain that the "mainstream" Christians have it right? How can one ascertain that Fred Phelps ISN'T actually talking to God? Because he's mean? I find a lot of religious teachings to be very mean spirited, but that's not the foundation of my disbelief.

 

It seems to me that once one takes the leap to believe in Christianity, all of the sects, including the extremists, have just as much likelyhood of teaching the correct ways of Jesus.

[Henry Spencer 0]

I'm in your corner, World's Worst Man!

[World's Worst Man 0]

The history of Christianity is actually fascinating in that regard, especially concerning the gradual separation between the major sects of Christianity, that being the Roman-Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. There's also stuff like the Spanish Inquisition, which was not in fact a plan to root out non-Christians, but rather was designed to root out Christian heretics who didn't subscribe to the same doctrine as the Roman-Catholic Church. Then you have the Albigensian Crusade, the Reformation, etc. Not that I believe things that happened hundreds of years ago should have any bearing on how we judge modern religion, but it's very interesting nonetheless.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I swore I wasn't going to post here anymore, but it just drags me back in...

 

I don't talk that much about my beliefs, since I always thought that was somewhat intrusive. I hate going through campus and hearing people ask me if I want to join their church (I always reply with a polite "no thanks"), so why would anybody want to hear somebody else want to hear my religious beliefs? I always felt that I should keep those to myself. I always hated that, and thought it was a rude thing to do to strangers.

 

Speaking of religion, O'Reilly has some issues with Secular Progressives.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Since the Old Testament was written several thousand years ago and says "donkey" instead of "car" or "plasma screen TV" as an example of what you're not supposed to covet, it should automatically be disregarded? The Commandments are supposed to be a guideline that Christians could use to lead a life that their personal God would find pleasing. Why is that wrong?

 

I just would prefer that they wouldn't be posted all over public buildings and, as a majority of Americans might support, schools.

 

As to your belief that society could benefit more from Jainism, let's take a look at it. First, it's religious, which I thought you were against in the first place. Second, they teach nonviolence, truth, chastity, aversion to stealing, and non-possessiveness. How different is that from the Commandments, which teaches that you should not steal or murder, covet your neighbor's goods (stealing) or commit adultery (chastity)? The only one that seems to be missing is non-possessiveness, but considering Jesus preached charity and tithing, I would consider that covered as well.

 

I was just suggesting that, if we are going to place religious texts all over the public square, the public could probably benefit more from Jain texts than from the Old Testament. I would prefer its insistence on nonviolence to these banal rules (for which the penalty for breaking is usually death) and all of their accompanying "Judeo-Christian" baggage (such as repression of sexuality). However, I would prefer not placing holy texts all over public walls over the placement of Jain texts.

 

You also mention Adam Smith. Adam Smith was in fact a Deist (who hold that God does in fact exist, and can be seen in the natural world). He only rejected religious extremism. He still believed that morality is the key to an effective society, which would not seem out of place with religion.

 

Um, I would put Smith's writing on economics on the walls, not on deism. Again, my point was that there are texts that could be far more useful & enlightening to the public than the 10 Commandments (that is, if you're going to go posting things all over walls).

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And while I'm on the topic of screwing with God's word, let's have us a look-see at the Crusades.

I'm not even talking about the Bible, I'm taking two things and putting them together:

Thou shalt not kill, and "Hey, Muslims took the holy land, let's get them!"

Where in these Ten Commandments does it say "Thou shalt kicketh the ass of those who taketh thine Holy Land"? Where's the escape clause of Thou shalt not kill? Hell, technically they aren't supposed to covet the things their neighbors have; isn't that about as close to God saying "Let the Muslims have the holy land" as you can get?

 

What great analysis, you must be a religious scholar of some kind? All this shows is that the problem is with human beings not the religion...

 

So the Middle East, absent Islam, would not, in all likelihood, be a much nicer, less exploding, place?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Soviet Union much? Ukraine says hello! Of course secular states can commit atrocities.

 

Hitler, Stalin, & other mass murderers did not perpetrate their crimes because of an over reliance on reason or a lack of nonsensical dogma. Nazi Germany & Stalinist Russia (& Stalinist North Korea, for that matter) were (& are) fundamentally unreasonable societies. Read the writings of Hitler or Himmler or examine the cults of personality for Hitler or Stalin. Nazism & communism became de facto quasi-religious dogmas.

 

Pol Pot, Stalin, & Kim Il Sung prove that religion does not have a monopoly on dogma.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Religion has the same problem that race issues have.

 

People can meet a million peaceful, loving good Muslims, but oneblows something up and ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF HATE. You just shoved BILLIONS of people into one group despite it being painfully obvious that it isn't true.

 

One Muslim blew something up?

 

Race is not a comparable issue here. There is no revered book for all black people that says to convert, subjugate, or kill all non-blacks. Read the Koran. The suicide bombers are following what it says in there.

 

To say too many people let the bible decide how they vote, live and things like that, fuck off, who are you to tell people how to live their lives? You have a set of moral beliefs that you obtained from somewhere, but because yours didn't come from the Christian bible doesn't make yours greater or lesser.

 

Because you and I are basing our decisions as citizens, elected officials, & on morality off of experience, reasoned observation, and, dare I say it, love for our fellow humans, not a book written written in the first or fourth century coupled with fear of punishment by/desire for reward from God. I don't think an ancient tome is a good source for public policy (or morality for that matter).

 

And Eric...MANY Christians thought that pollution was a good thing because it brought us closer to the Rapture? REALLY? You can't spout weird, borderline extremist views and say "many". Once again, we are talking about a group of people that is in the billions. There are going to be diffenent views.

 

How about many Christians in the US thought that slavery was justified by the Bible (and they didn't have to stretch very far to argue that)?

 

Or that many Christians would take heart in the event of a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East because it would be a sign that the rapture was imminent (no, this is not outside of the mainstream: see the last Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, for example)?

 

Or that Mother Freaking Theresa (is she out of the Catholic mainstream?) admonished rape victims not to get abortions?

[World's Worst Man 0]

Soviet Russia under Stalin was a cult of personality, which could be argued as a religion itself. The only thing I'll say about Secular States is that there really haven't been many, so the verdict is still out on them.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I would put forth the idea that modern Christianity, meaning people in my generation (18-25), have a BETTER understanding of how to apply the Bible to real life.

 

So, 18-25 year olds have a better conception of how to apply the Bible than the fathers of the Christian Church & religious scholars, like Thomas Aquinas & Augustine (both of whom advocated violence against non-Christians)?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

As far as I’m concerned, why not believe in God? If you don’t and you’re wrong, that’s very bad. If you do and you’re right, great! If you do and you’re wrong, what’s the harm? Better safe than sorry.

 

See East, Middle.

 

Or my little list up above.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Leviticus is old testament, which also contains references to Jewish law regarding the slaughter of animals, specifics on sacrifices, not eating specific meals on specific days, etc. Many Christians I know disregard the whole thing except for as a tool to learn what was going on historically at the time.

 

The New Testament is contradictory on the validity/value of the Old.

 

But the fact of the matter is that many Christians still believe in the validity of the Old Testament, so it would still seem to be applicable. See, for instance, the intolerance toward gays among even some moderate Christians when Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

No, but he did preach against sexual immorality and made references to marriage (implicitly marriage between men and women) so it's not to hard to draw a line.

[Ripper 0]

No, but he did preach against sexual immorality and made references to marriage (implicitly marriage between men and women) so it's not to hard to draw a line.

 

 

No he didn't.

 

And you know, homosexuality seems to be the only thing when it comes to Jesus when you have to draw the line.

[Cherry Blossom Viscount 0]

You know, one of the main arguments against religion is that it is the root cause of violence, intolerence, and a litany of atrocities unmatched in human history. However, when proponents of this argument bring it to the forefront, they temporarily toss out another of their main arguments; religion is a man made tool created to control the masses.

 

Well, by saying religion is the root cause of seemingly all the bad things in the universe, your average atheist is saying that religion is the cause of the corruption and not the human who uses it as a tool or shield to promote or act on intolerant views. Atheists use the logical fallacy of "well, since religion caused of all of these atrocties in the past, if it never existed, this would have never happened and the world would be better off for it." Well, not exactly.

 

You see, that's using the same logic people use when decrying firearms. If guns didn't exist, there wouldn't be so many people dying and maimed. Well, perhaps, but it's more logical to think that another weapon would have taken it's place in the killing fields. Also, they are sparing the human the responsibility of creating and using the weapon. It's merely a tool.

 

If you're not a person of faith, you most likely view religion as a tool. Man was obviously here first and he created that tool based on his human nature. If you were to go back in time to stop man from creating various religions, the world would not be better for it, something else that would divide us would be put into play to start the cycle all over.

 

Look at Hitler; the atrocities he committed were not based on religion, but science, eugenics to be exact. He did not care about the religion of Judaism, he was disgusted by the Jews as a people, a species. His regime committed one of the largest genocides in recorded history in the name of science.

 

Animals are devoid of religion, and you don't see them holding hands and singing Kum-ba-yah. From a purely scientific standpoint, it's in our nature to be divided and oppresive to those who we deem different. You take religion out of the equation and there will just be something else to divide us. Atheists need to cease with promoting the illogical theory that religion is the cause of human suffering. Human nature is the cause of human suffering. Would we better if we did not exist?