|
Inevitably religion threads here seem to end up a mess. First a few antitheists show up and quote scripture, interpreting it more literally than most fundamentalists. Some idiot will cite Richard Carrier and make a stupid argument that Jesus was a myth. Than CoC and Kyrie will show up, and people start debating their strange idiosyncratic views, which will be taken as somehow representing a position that is worth rebutting. At the very least if we are going to engage in a debate lets pick some interesting religious voices as counterpoints, Terry Eagleton's "Reason, Faith and Revolution" nad his review of the "God Delusion" (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching) was a pretty interesting defense of Christianity for instance.
Barlow fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Feb 6, 2015 |
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Most of the abolitionists in the United States tended to be Christians on the religious left. There were a ton of Quakers and Unitarians. Quakers were the first group to abolish slavery and they were the initial promoters of women's rights. The followers of William Lloyd Garrison, the leading abolitionist in the nation, were nonviolent and derived their principles mostly from the Sermon on the Mount and the idea that everyone was made in the image of God. That said many southerners did quote the Bible to justify slavery. The problem seems less "Christianity" and more how you interpret Christianity.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Your argument being that you have to be Christian to be an abolitionist. Which is demonstrably false. It still took legal viewpoints to completely dismantle slavery, and there is too many Christians on both sides of the pro/con field of slavery to say that your religion was the sole reponsible motivator. Christianity does seem to have the virtue that it occasionally makes people act in ways that conflict with their self interest in favor of loving their neighbor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
It's worth pointing out that there is no uniform "Christian" perspective on gay marriage. We tend to be familiar with the religious rights and Catholic Churches take on the issue but most folks overlook the religious support of gay rights. The work of historian John Boswell does a good job of indicating that the medieval church may have preformed ceremonies that look remarkably like gay marriages. In modern times The Episcopal Church and Quakers were heavily involved in pushing for the decriminalization of sodomy in 1960s Britain. The first gay marriages I'm aware of were done by Unitarian Universalists. A host of denominations have been doing religious marriages for gay couples, even in violation of the law, since the 1990s. Many of the first academic defenses of homosexuality came from liberal theologians. There were and are conflicting Christian views on homosexuality, contrary to the stereotype it's not just a bunch of people supporting Fred Phelps.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Should we also require that the robot would need a nano augmented human fused into it to work? "Jesus Christ, Denton!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
vessbot posted:This makes it seem to me like there is a disconnect between two broad areas of belief: religion as viewed by academic theology (as supported by Eagleton) and religion as actually practiced by the religious. Nor does the fact that "popular" religiosity is often less sophisticated really diminish the need to address these "academic" voices. Hell, Aquinas is the center of reasoning for the entire Catholic church and Dawkins repeats some gross over simplifications of his ideas and declares him beaten after three pages. If religious people directed their criticism solely at arguments made by r/atheism users we should likewise be critical.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
vessbot posted:You say Catholicism stands on the shoulders of Aquinas' work, but it's still false prima facie. It's a belief that the universe was created by a magical all-powerful African ape that once wanted us to cut off pieces of our penises, and has a regular magical ceremony where we make bread and wine Yet in giving such caricatures you often fail to understand the subject you are criticizing. Take transubstantiation, which you mentioned here, the wine and bread in Catholicism change Aristotelian categories of "essence" but they don't change physical properties. The Catholic Church doesn't believe that if you looked at consecrated communion wine under a microscope that it would look like the body of Christ. It's perfectly possible to consider religions carefully and reject them, but if you're going to talk about the subject you should at least be informed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Miltank posted:"Protestant Christianity" as shorthand for participation in the Cult of State. Now that is a valid concern about Christianity, and a far more interesting one than scientific plausibility.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I found Mr. Wiggles' long source post about communion to be incredibly off putting in a way that is almost revelatory to me, even though it is all stuff I already knew. It seems so out of touch and formalized. Anything of value that could conceivably come from this process is surely a diminution of the value that could come from stripping it away and approaching the sense of wonder and shared humanity it alludes to more directly. Which is why for most Protestant groups it's purely a ceremonial act.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Arguing about what scripture says literally is often a pretty tiresome exercise. Yes, the Bible is a product of the era it was produced in. Yes, it does have lines that both support and oppose slavery. The text was written at different times by different people so it's hardly consistent. What matters far more than what the text says is how faith communities interpret that message and their mission. Even the early Church fathers interpreted certain scriptural passages as allegorical. The Catholic Church places as much value on the teachings of tradition as the text. Many 19th century liberal Christians rejected Biblical inerrancy in favor of finding the image of God in individuals. We don't have to pretend anyone really operates by sola scriptura. Christianity is usually far more complicated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Christianity was central to abolitionists but also to the creation and perpetuation of slavery. Indeed, American white evangelicalism is characterized largely by a theology designed to support slavery and racism. This suggests that, rather than being a motivating force for abolition, Christianity held a hegemonic position in society in general and was thus used as a tool by people who were driven to support abolition by other forces (I would argue a combination of material conditions and novel ideologies). Trying to conflate the particular strains of Christian thought that were instrumental in abolition with Christianity at large is just as dishonest as if I were to use the Catholic Church to claim that Christianity in general was a huge supporter of 20th Century fascism. This argument can be turned either way, that materialist factors caused Christians in the south to support slavery while Christian ideas in the north lead to abolition against economic interests. I do think you greatly undervalue how deeply abolitionist drew from religious sources. Certainly Quaker antislavery activists like John Woolman, Anthony Benezet and Benjamin Lundy were inspired principally by their faith. I'm reading a fascinating book on abolitionist religion right now, Dan McKanan's "Identifying the Image of God," which persuasively argues that the Garrisonian stream of abolition (and people like Fredrick Douglas who came into the movement through it) drew their inspiration mostly from their understanding of the imago dei in slaves. Abolitionists weren't simply people using a religious argument as a popular appeal. They were committed Christians, as no doubt many slave holders were too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
Radbot posted:It's stupid to argue against the brilliance of Aquinas or Mendel or al-Khwarizmi, but maybe that system is holding people back today? I have seen little evidence that well thought out theistic beliefs lead to any worse conclusions with regards to morality than atheism. On some issues, like ethics surrounding war and peace, Catholic Just War traditions or Anabaptist pacifist traditions are far better thought out than their secular counterparts. Really we only have to look at the most outspoken New Atheists to confirm that morality does not conflate with "enlightened" non-belief. Hitchens supported torture for years and was gleeful about the Iraq war, Harris has argued that there are some religious beliefs that justify killing those that believe them, Dawkins is terrible on women's issues. Many religious figures likewise have abhorrent views, but its hard to claim that lack of grounding in religious traditions makes anyone a better person. The idea that atheism is some kind of moral progress on religious belief is not only self-congratulatory but dangerous. If you have a room with a diehard atheist empiricist and a devout Thomist you wouldn't know based on their philosophical starting place who was more moral. Barlow fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think we've already established Hitchens and Dawkins have some pretty abhorrent views, but if you are judging the entire Athiest/Humanist/Secular community based on them, you are going to be disappointed. Who counts as a valid enough atheist to judge the community based on if not the most known and respected people within it? Would you allow Christians to simply disassociate themselves from any figure they have condemned? CommieGIR posted:I mean, if we're going to judge the Secular community by their most vocal and controversial leaders, Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, and all the other religions are going to shock you to the core. I'd pretty easily say that Pope Francis and Dali Lama, both leaders of the largest Christian and Buddhist groups in the world, seem like fairly moral people. I won't argue they are perfect, but certainly they don't seem any less moral than these atheist leaders.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The idea that atheism is an organized movement is kind of bizarre, you are trying to organize the movement like a church and that doesn't work, there are not prophets, just vocal proponents. Carl Sagan was a fairly vocal agnostic athiest, why was he not listed? Or Neil Degrasse Tyson? Or Bill Nye? As for your list of people, to my knowledge all these people denied being atheists and proclaimed their agnosticism, I think it would be in pretty poor taste to ignore their statement on these matter. I excluded writing about Bertrand Russell and Robert G. Ingersoll for the same reason. I think it's in just as poor taste for atheists to claim people who deny the label as it is for Christians to claim secret conversions among people like Lincoln or Darwin.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I said Agnostic Atheist. Based on things Carl Sagan said, he fits that term, as he believed God was simply the laws of the universe. This is not outside that definition. I did not however call him a straight up atheist. Sagan himself and his wife refused to classify himself as an atheist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/) and (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2014/11/wait-what-carl-sagan-was-not-an-atheist/). Again I think you have to take someones own proclamations about their faith seriously. Not even atheists get to claim people after there dead. Sagan was a thoughtful guy, he knew what he believed and doesn't need your help in "correcting" him. To quote Sagan in 1996 "I am not an atheist."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Panthiesm is identical to atheism, especially agnostic atheism, as it does not identify with any anthropomorphism or supernatural beings. No, pantheism is its own system of belief which is why it was called a different thing than atheism. Spinoza was not an atheist for instance and clearly elicidated his views on it. Many Hindus are pantheists and they are not identical to "agnostic atheism" and they don't exclude beliefs in supernatural beings. Besides Sagan said he was an agnostic, not a pantheist, and I think you have to respect his own views on his religious beliefs. Remember this chain of argument started when you said that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris didn't represent authentic atheist views. Now you are saying that Sagan, a guy who claimed not to be an atheist does. That doesn't make much sense. Barlow fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You are correct. I've reconsidered my position. Admirable, it takes intellectual courage to be flexible and thoughtful enough to reconsider ones points.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I think even Christians would agree that the "image of God" descriptor of humans indicates, at least in part, his "personality" (as defined above). Personalism, a theological outlook that came out of Boston University in the early 20th century did think God had a personality. A number of other theological views like those of Paul Tillich or Process theology would disagree. As for descriptions of body parts, they were probably written as literal descriptions but most contemporary Jewish and Christian traditions I'm aware of read those as allegorical interpretations of something beyond comprehension. Aquinas is a decent example, remember he regards even the feelings that God has as being simply approximations that the Biblical writers had to resort to.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:Christianity encompasses an incredibly broad range of beliefs. Your arguments may carry water with regards to groups that subscribe to literal readings of the Bible, such as Baptists or Pentecostals. However, the largest single denomination in the world, Catholics, do not subscribe to this idea. Arguing that God is necessarily anthropomorphic does not work with Catholics as Catholicism views significant amounts of the Bible through the lens of metaphor. I doubt that Vessbot's arguements would even apply to them. Even the most devoted Evangelicals and Pentecostals would not argue that God was literally a man. Their views have issues, but even their cosmology and manner of interpreting scriptures is more complicated than that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Check your snotty-rear end attitude (remember that, statistically speaking, I know more about the Bible and Christianity than you). I find the view that atheism somehow confers intellectual superiority to be a pretty disturbing one. No one should ever claim their views instinctively make them wiser or better. Vessbot, you are also pretty mixed up and confused on basic theology. I'd suggest reading and introduction to the subject, something like Alister E. McGrath's "Christian Theology: An Introduction" might give you a sense of the diverse views in Christian theology and give you some grounding in arguing against it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:The standard for determining which Biblical things are to be taken as metaphor does seem suspiciously aligned with "whatever would be a big problem for our theology if it weren't". On the Bible being metaphor, one great example of this is Song of Songs. This is a text that was clearly written as an erotic poem about the love of a man and women. Most Christians historically viewed it as being about the love of God and the Church, Jews likewise saw it as about divine love. In the Islamic tradition Sufi poetry is often erotic poetry, but the idea is that it's always really about the believer and God. The literal meaning of a text matters far less than a faith communities interpretation of it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I kind of feel like "how to interpret this" is maybe unique to the modern day.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Chin posted:So theology is actually about willful reinterpretation of religious texts to the end of manipulating the faithful. There seems to be this fantasy among some atheists I've met, online and in person, that religious people think their faith has never changed at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It'd be nice if you'd own up to the 500-600 years worth of various oppressive Christian and Muslim regimes before you jump on the 20th Century. Not sure that this body count discussion really leads anywhere. In the period before the rise of secular governments obviously religiously motivated regimes do most of the bad things because they are pretty much all that existed. Beginning with French Revolution you see the rise of a few "rational" regimes that prosecuted and murdered large numbers of people of faith. It's also pretty hard to argue that the post-Revolutionary suppression of the Russian Orthodox church was not motivated by state atheism. The Nazi's religious views are a bit too complicated to be easily used in this kind of debate. They did try to use Christianity to control the masses to some success, though a number of Protestants formed the anti-Nazi Confessing Church when the state tried to control the church more directly. Hitler though a nominal Catholic really was pretty anti-Christian though and harbored a desire to wipe out German Christianity. Generally he seems to have been skeptical of all religion and regarded Nazism as a rational replacement for it. Doesn't really prove what you're after here I think. It's pretty apparent from the course of the twentieth century that religious faith or lack of it seems to make little difference in whether large numbers of people get murdered by a regime. I suspect a world with more religion and no religion would be roughly equivalent when it came to state violence. Barlow fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The greatest irony here, after all of this debate is that slavery still exists. There are people, right now, in India working as slaves, in brick kilns. They're just debt slaves, instead of chattel slaves. Is it there because they're hindu, not christian? No, that's racist garbage. Working conditions would be just as bad in the west were it not for working class people sticking together, and not just 'being christian'. So if you're looking forward to the weekend, don't loving thank christians or thank god it's friday, you can bloody well thank a union. Walter Rauschenbusch, the famous Social Gospel thinker posted:We must come by public ownership some time, and any one whose thinking parts are in order ought to see it is by this time. Christianity and the struggle for workers rights tend to go well together. Barlow fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Vermain posted:That Christians involved themselves in the labour movement is incidental, not correlative, just as there were Christians fighting vehemently on both sides of the chattel slavery debate. "Class antagonism" doesn't magically generate organized opposition to inequality or bad working conditions. Christianity has often served as a catalyst for mobilizing people. Now a valid critique is that this cuts both ways, other forms of Christianity can serve to placate workers or drive them harder. Weber's idea that the Protestant ethic was a driving force in the development of capitalism is certainly a provocative thesis in this regard. But it seems hard to argue that Christianity itself can't be a historical driving force.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Well, so far no one's put up a reply that shows that most religious don't believe he is. (They've tried, but I've shown flaws in those arguments) The fact that you've stumbled upon such a weak argument is actually kind of remarkable, in debates on the existence of God the atheist position is normally so much easier to defend.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Theologian: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/january-web-only/god-watches-big-game-william-lane-craig.html?paging=off vessbot posted:Random Christian from the internet: http://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-have-emotions.html http://www.gotquestions.org/attributes-God.html posted:God is eternal, meaning He had no beginning and His existence will never end. He is immortal and infinite (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17). God is immutable, meaning He is unchanging; this in turn means that God is absolutely reliable and trustworthy (Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19; Psalm 102:26, 27). God is incomparable; there is no one like Him in works or being. He is unequaled and perfect (2 Samuel 7:22; Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:25; Matthew 5:48). God is inscrutable, unfathomable, unsearchable, and past finding out as far as understanding Him completely (Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 145:3; Romans 11:33, 34). Vessbot, you are arguing against a straw man of Christianity you have constructed here. Craig and the fundamentalist website you quote generally make bad arguments, that they think God is a dude and fail to realize he needs a body is not one of them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:That being said, I would hope theologians avoid using any gender pronouns to refer to God, because if God isn't a person, then God cannot have a gender, and thus should not be referred to as if It does. This has been a major issue of contention on some Bible translation projects and is a big divisive issue in Christian theology. I heard a story once of one particular radical professor at Harvard Divinity School in the early 1960s used to give female students kazoos to blow in class anytime someone referred to God as "he." Generally liberal theologians and denominations are open to what pronoun to describe God while Fundamentalists and conservative Evangelicals are not. In the Bible itself God is generally depicted as male, but some verses complicate this and compare God to a mother. "Wisdom" or Sophia, one of the aspects of God, is usually personified as female. In the Jewish tradition the Shekinah, God's presence, is feminine. Feminist Biblical scholarship in the past few decades by theologians like Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza has done a lot to make these ideas more widely known. Valiantman's point about he incarnation (Jesus as a man) is interesting, and the case for the Roman Catholic Church not having female priests is based on this. On the other hand the divine part of Jesus in most traditions was separate from his human part. Further in most traditions God chose a women, Mary, to bear the Christ which some have taken to indicate a particularly exalted place for women in God's creation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Especially with that whole Genesis 3:16 thing, right? It's really odd to me when people who are atheist or agnostics insist that people who think Christianity requires equal treatment of genders, kindness towards homosexuals or even forbids slavery are somehow interpreting scripture wrong. You are far more likely to persuade people that Christianity requires oppressing others doing that than you are to break people of their faith. This gets really weird when people pull this on Muslims and try to argue to them that their religion requires killing unbelievers, wouldn't it be better to let them think Islam is a religion of peace? Barlow fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I uh...it would have been really weird if he had chosen a man to bear him? I mean he being born a man is pretty significant as to what gender is important, him being born out of a woman is literally how every human being ever has been brought out. Are we really pretending the Bible isn't misogynistic as poo poo? Athena sprouted out of Zeus's head so it's not like divine beings really are handicapped by physical limitations, it's perfectly possible to think that the Bible could have had Christ arrive fully formed or born via some supernatural means. As for the Bible being "misogynistic as poo poo" you're right that it certainly right that a text compiled almost 2000 years ago unsurprisingly does not adhere to contemporary egalitarian gender norms. That said the early Christian community described in the book of Acts seems to have been pretty progressive and included women in leadership roles (much to Paul's chagrin). The Bible is a bunch of books and comes from many perspectives, they don't always agree on these points.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:So in other words the OP is correct and biblical scripture is irrelevant, since it just tells you whatever you want it to? I get this same feeling with a lot of apologist arguments - yeah you can entirely dodge consistency and evidence based criticisms by making your position more vague, but it serves to completely undermine the purpose of making your argument in the first place. The mistake here is to believe that the core of the Christian faith is its scripture alone, for most the core is about Christ. This isn't Islam where a central text was sent directly by God, some communities will interpret the text through continuing revelation, others do so through a church hierarchy.. The text is hardly irrelevant, it is the central touchstone that enables communities to discern their course. That may sound evasive, and indeed it serves the needs of communities and not apologetics. I would hope ideas would change over several thousand years, especially if revelation is ongoing. A Terrible Person posted:how awesome it is how a person doesn't have to know jack all about anything to debate theology and still be on equal footing with people who've devoted their lives to study. Theology is a lot like art, literature or philosophy, where sometimes you can have an intelligent conversation when people don't have much formal study of the subject. It is indeed awesome that it can be made accessible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:This explains why communities find the scriptures important, sure, but I put it to you that it's not useful as a source of teaching if it's vague enough that any interpretation is possible. Communities will simply arrive at an interpretation that suits them through whatever means they choose. A Terrible Person posted:"Whoever can make up the best-sounding, most-believable bullshit free of evidence wins." Barlow fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:In the majority of cases, yeah. But if you put up a barrier and say "you can't question someone's unfalsifiable beliefs, it's true to them!" then you're helping to protect people with harmful unfalsifiable beliefs, be they religious or otherwise. To use a more real-world example, how about those who think their children should not receive blood transfusions because they think it goes against god's will? The sooner we stop assuming that because someone is religious or an atheist we know they are a moral or immoral person the better. What is truly disturbing in contemporary atheism is the rise of thoughts like this: Who What Now posted:So personal beliefs that aren't demonstrated to be true shouldn't be respected, thank you. Barlow fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Oops, meant to edit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Alexander posted:Then you reject the Bible after all. Chin posted:He didn't say the individuals shouldn't be respected. You're being disingenuous. If Who What Now was supporting the right to go to an internet forum and criticize religion I may disagree but have only limited concerns. My thought was they were going down the same line of argument that suggests that a Muslim women should be jailed for not removing her hijab or sees Quakers denied jobs for not signing loyalty oaths. Qubec's ban on public employees wearing religious symbols for instance proves that there are people that do want to limit religion in this way, but if this wasn't the kind of thinking Who What Now was endorsing I did not mean to mischaracterize them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What the gently caress?! Jesus, no. I would never do anything like what you're talking about. Seriously, what the gently caress did I say to make you think I would do such a thing?! Christ almighty... My thought was that legal protections for religious freedom often protect the right to exercise beliefs and require the state to "respect" a persons beliefs as beliefs. The laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and it's state equivalents requires that laws not be made the least burdensome possible to religious practice. This is when that Quaker got fired for not signing a loyalty oath in California the school that fired her hired her back rather than face trial, it is why native Americans are not imprisoned for having eagle feather headdresses or using peyote in religious ceremonies. If you're fine with religion being specially protected by law than that's positive. Disinterested posted:Hate the sin, love the sinner!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Can we safely agree that some degree of respectful conduct should be given towards religion? That this applies on a personal level and it would be wrong to yell at Jews who wear yarmulkes in the street or scream "Mohammad was a pedophile" at Muslims, like what's depicted here. That honoring others traditions by joining them for Passover or Christmas dinner might be polite and even enjoyable.
Barlow fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There's also an argument to be made that even having homosexual predilections is just as bad as actually acting on them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Chin posted:Not sure why you bring up traditional meals. How is respecting tradition (which sometimes has obvious social value) an argument for respecting associated religious ideas? What makes an idea a "religious" idea? Is theism the only idea you object to?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 18:13
|
|