A generic religion thread.

[DarkAudit]

Because my post in another thread stepped on toes that didn't need or deserve to be stepped on.

This is what set me off last night...

Woman dies after man jumps from parking garage and lands on top of her

The tragedy occurred just a week shy of the woman's 30th birthday.

www.nbcnews.com

Another random senseless deletion. And what I said still stands. "Mysterious ways," my ass. This is not the action of a "loving" god. I don't feel like praising Him. I feel like grabbing Him by the lapels and screaming WHY!?

 

[Dirona]

When I have more spoons to spend, I may say more, but for now: your reaction is entirely reasonable, and IMO "mysterious ways" is about as compelling as "a wizard did it."

 

[Ravenpoe]

Phew, now that we're in a new thread I can say how much I dislike the Mormon Church. Not individual Mormon people, most of them I have met have been nice, but the church itself is a controlling beast that tries to propogate sexist, homphobic ideology through scummy political means.

Also the watchtower society of Jehovah's witnesses, who are basically the same just not as successful.

Ok, now that that's out of my system, carry on.

 

[blotsfan]

Yay I can post in this one.

Alas, I have nothing to say.

 

[phil]

 

[Tiger Tsang]

Phew, now that we're in a new thread I can say how much I dislike the Mormon Church. Not individual Mormon people, most of them I have met have been nice, but the church itself is a controlling beast that tries to propogate sexist, homphobic ideology through scummy political means.

Also the watchtower society of Jehovah's witnesses, who are basically the same just not as successful.

Ok, now that that's out of my system, carry on.

As best as I understand it, earlier my Granddaddy was an abusive alcoholic, and judging by my Aunt's choice in people she courted and what I know of my mom's first husband, that would appear to be true. My uncle used the air force to get out and ended up joining the Mormon Church and stayed the fuck out of Western Kentucky. Problem is he traded one brand of insanity for another, and I didn't learn till years later, the "good mormon boy" they used to watch their kids was quite the Chester the Molester.

 

[Ravenpoe]

As best as I understand it, earlier my Granddaddy was an abusive alcoholic, and judging by my Aunt's choice in people she courted and what I know of my mom's first husband, that would appear to be true. My uncle used the air force to get out and ended up joining the Mormon Church and stayed the fuck out of Western Kentucky. Problem is he traded one brand of insanity for another, and I didn't learn till years later, the "good mormon boy" they used to watch their kids was quite the Chester the Molester.

My mom's side of the family has strong Jehova's Witness ties. She's not a part of the church, but her mom (my grandmother) and several of her sisters are.

My aunt was married to a fairly well known member of the church. He also beat her, to the point where she eventually fled her home to go live with relatives and filed for divorce.

She was excommunicated from the church for divorcing her husband. He's still a high ranking member.

 

[Krisken]

My wife grew up JW and can confirm, that religion is all kinds of cult fucked up.

 

[PatrThom]

Ok, now that that's out of my system, carry on.

I feel like this could be expanded to some kind of investigative study.

"Small" associative groups of people are more likely to be caring, outgoing, helpful, generous, welcoming, charitable, etc. to people not in their group. That "small town" mentality.
"Large" associative groups of people are more likely to be exclusionary, dismissive, hostile, and suspicious towards people not in their group. The stereotypical indifference displayed by people in The Big City, for instance.

Now I KNOW that tons of studies have already been done regarding things like The Monkeysphere/Dunbar's Number, the Oreo/marshmallow test, in-group v. out-group, unconscious bias, the Trolley Problem, the Prisoners' Dilemma, "underdog" behavior, and so on that (seek to) show the ways people behave when deciding how to behave around (and towards) other people, and it's no secret that, as the population of a group grows, their charity and acceptance of other "not-us" groups tends to proportionally wane.

But what _I_ want to know is how does this work when the group in question has formally codified generosity/charity/etc into their founding ethos? What happens to the members of a political party, a religion, an organization, a corporation, a governing body, or any other group which could be represented by a circle on a Venn diagram as its population grows? What happens when the growing innate desire to shun outsiders starts to grind up against their conspicuously documented contractual obligation to be nice? How does this conflict get reconciled?

I want to see an exploration of why devout religious people thought indulgences and the Crusades did not conflict with established tenets, why democratically elected leaders turned around and sought to suppress certain voters, and why people seem to think that 300% turnover at a chain fast food restaurant that is supposed to be some model of efficiency is "normal."

[tl;dr:] But most of all, I want someone to prove my postulate wrong that, 100% of the time, all this "Man's inhumanity to Man" shit happens because some high-ranking individual (or cabal of individuals) seeks to game (or tweak) an existing system in order to consolidate wealth/power/influence for themselves. So am I promoting conspiracy theory? Not exactly. What I'm really asking is at what point/size does an associative group begin to either attract (or else spontaneously generate) members who work to steer the direction/actions of that group in order to achieve/enact their own personal goals EVEN WHEN those goals are demonstrably harmful/destructive to other members of the group?

--Patrick

 

[Dave]

My view on the whole religion thing:

As ridiculous as I believe it to be, if you are religious or a believer, more power to you. My daughter is religious, most of my family is, my father in law has rediscovered religion since the death of his wife - mostly for the social aspect. Believing in something bigger than yourself is not inherently a bad thing. ORGANIZED religion, on the other hand, is in my opinion an anathema to society as a whole and a danger to advancing society past the dark ages.

This is NOT a condemnation of a specific religion and some offshoots actually try and be worthy, but for the most part organized religions exist more to control and consolidate power rather to be a driving force of good in the world. And I've found people who identify with organized religions TEND to be awful people who smugly believe that they are better and that anyone not exactly like them are beneath them, probably because they think different people are going to hell. No, @Dirona , this is not an attack on you. I think you'd probably agree with me about MOST organized religions. Political pressuring, sexual abuse, hypocritical double standards, rampant racism, etc. There are little churches here and there who try and serve their communities, but they are few and far in between.

For the record, I also feel militant atheists can fuck off as well. Talk about smug superiority. Atheists have it in spades. Someone says, "Bless you." you don't go berserk and denigrate them for being polite according to societal norms. You're not being clever or smart, you're just being a dick.

 

[blotsfan]

For the record, I also feel militant atheists can fuck off as well.

Someone says, "Bless you." you don't go berserk and denigrate them for being polite according to societal norms. You're not being clever or smart, you're just being a dick.

 

[Dave]

I can't argue with xkcd.

But note I did say militant atheists. Religious people or atheists who just shut their mouths and exist are cool.

 

[PatrThom]

Religious people or atheists who just shut their mouths and exist are cool.

That just brings us back to the Paradox of Tolerance again.

--Patrick

 

[Dirona]

... And I've found people who identify with organized religions TEND to be awful people who smugly believe that they are better and that anyone not exactly like them are beneath them, probably because they think different people are going to hell. No, @Dirona , this is not an attack on you....

If you hadn't tagged me, I wouldn't have assumed I was related to this at all. But since you did, my reaction is more:


For what it's worth, I've tended to find that folk who overly link their identity to any group tend to be obnoxious about it.

 

[PatrThom]

I've tended to find that folk who overly link their identity to any group tend to be obnoxious about it.

This RIGHT HERE, ladies and gentlemen.
The idea that ANYONE would voluntarily surrender their entire individual identity/existence over to another is anathema to me.

--Patrick

 

[Dave]

If you hadn't tagged me, I wouldn't have assumed I was related to this at all. But since you did, my reaction is more:


For what it's worth, I've tended to find that folk who overly link their identity to any group tend to be obnoxious about it.

I just know of your vocation and wanted you to know that my rather blanket condemnation of organized religions had some caveats. I mean, if you came in and said all IT analysts were idiots who fuck around online all day I'd certainly think you were including me. Which you would be.

 

[Dirona]

I just know of your vocation and wanted you to know that my rather blanket condemnation of organized religions had some caveats. I mean, if you came in and said all IT analysts were idiots who fuck around online all day I'd certainly think you were including me. Which you would be.

Aaaah, I gotcha. (Also, I used to be an IT Analyst, that was literally my job title!)

Nah - I know that a lot of folk (especially US-ians) have extremely negative perceptions of religion, especially Christianity. And are often particularly critical of the shitty "leaders" in those groups. Not without good reason. But I also know that I ain't about that life.

For me, it's kind of like white people jokes - yes, I am part of that group; but I also try damn hard to not fall into the common pitfalls.

 

[grub]

I've been a member of a few churches that look inward and seem to exist for only their (and their members) benefit. My current church spends their time helping in appreciable ways in the community.

The youth group fundraises for a women's shelter, not for a feel good missions trip. Over covid we have built a tiny house for a recovery center in Mexico. Every Christmas we hold a banquet for the homeless and give them blankets and other supplies.

The strange thing is that both my current church and the one I grew up in are the same denomination, but the focus is different. The one I grew up at in Kelowna was very condescending (just like the rest of the town) and just tried to be a Canadian megachurch. My current one in Abbotsford's focus is helping the community.

Tldr, the issue is humility of the leadership and whether they feel they should help the community (wwjd) or grow their own power.

 

[grub]

As for the loving God wouldn't let bad things happen. I don't have good answers, anyone who does is probably wrong.

 

[Shawn]

I'm agnostic. I don't readily deny the existence of God but I don't practice any religions. I grew up Catholic but all I remember is the longest and most boring hours of my life were on Sundays.
I think my parents, who were also raised Catholic, felt obligated to raise me Catholic too. Pretty much the moment I was out of the house they stopped going to church themselves. My perspective of God is completely based on logic and reason. While I can't logically denounce the existence of God I do feel pretty strongly on the following points IF God does in fact exist. I will refer to God as a he in the points just for simplicity.

• He is a man of science. The Galaxy is consistent (mostly). If God did create everything he was pretty clear on the rules of how it would all come together.
• He does not get involved. There is nothing to suggest that God has done something that could only be described as "an act of God". He's not a kid shaking the ant farm. Heck, he's not even a kid feeding the fish in a bowl. He set up a self-reliant system and seems perfectly content with watching us without interfering. Only hand written stories remain of "acts of God" with no physical proof that those events ever occurred.
• Similar to the last point there is no "God acts in mysterious ways" elements. Things that have happened happen because of either forces of nature or the free will of man. Maybe there is some sort of cosmic irony to the thing that happens, or maybe "karma" or whatever, but the even larger number of occurrences that don't fall under these simply just says that the ones that do are just coincidences.
• God likely doesn't care what religion you worship. So many religions seem to imply they are the right one and that God will punish those who do not worship him in that way. Well you have to consider the number of people born in places untouched by that religion. They may not even have a choice in how to worship. If there is a God, and he does punish those who do not worship him correctly regardless of their situation, then God is an asshole.

Speaking of Religions. Religions as a concept are great in my opinion. Because in concept the idea of a religion is to unify people. A common theme in most religions is "be kind to one another" and that's fantastic.
The problem is that some of these religions also seem to narrow that theme to "be kind to one another... so long as they meet our requirements". So again this either means that God is an asshole, OR, and more likely, people in charge of religions can be assholes.

 

[Cog]

I also consider myself agnostic, or at least technicly christian. I don't follow any catholic ritual, which is kinda hard because Vero is very catholic. She is teaching Gaby about God as Jesus. I told Gaby that praying is ok, also it's ok not to pray. The thing it's not ok is to pretend to pray, and pretend to be religious. The reason I can't consider myself atheist it's that I'm sure that the only not hypocrital alternatives to believing in a higher power are hedonism or nihilism.

 

[jwhouk]

The church I attend got picketed by Westboro Baptist. On Super Bowl Sunday.

No one saw them, as a fog descended on the road the church is located in, in Gilbert.

 

[Bubble181]

The reason I can't consider myself atheist it's that I'm sure that the only not hypocrital alternatives to believing in a higher power are hedonism or nihilism.

I disagree. I don't have time to go too deep into this, but do you mean that, without a God/Heaven/Hell/whatnot you cannot see a good way to build a personal moral compass, and develop a society based on mutual understanding, acceptance, etc? The idea of the external, pushed-down, enforced "morality" based on comparing actions to texts from 2000 years ago, interpreted by a bunch of rules lawyers and medieval sharpshooters to bend and twist every posible rule is one of the big reasons I'm against organized religions on a large scale.
Not everyone has the same moral guidelines or strength, but teaching people to think for themselves and understand how or why to behave in a society is a far better foundation for cooperation and cohavitation than seemingly-arbitrary rules enforced by an all-male hierarchic system of inquisition and power.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I disagree. I don't have time to go too deep into this, but do you mean that, without a God/Heaven/Hell/whatnot you cannot see a good way to build a personal moral compass, and develop a society based on mutual understanding, acceptance, etc? The idea of the external, pushed-down, enforced "morality" based on comparing actions to texts from 2000 years ago, interpreted by a bunch of rules lawyers and medieval sharpshooters to bend and twist every posible rule is one of the big reasons I'm against organized religions on a large scale.
Not everyone has the same moral guidelines or strength, but teaching people to think for themselves and understand how or why to behave in a society is a far better foundation for cooperation and cohavitation than seemingly-arbitrary rules enforced by an all-male hierarchic system of inquisition and power.

I'd also like to point out that nihilism doesn't mean you don't believe in morality

 

[Bubble181]

I'd also like to point out that nihilism doesn't mean you don't believe in morality

Nor hedonism, strictly speaking. But if I'm not interpreting them as moral styles, then I'm at a loss of how believing in a God yes or no would change your position on the social structure.

 

[Cog]

I disagree. I don't have time to go too deep into this, but do you mean that, without a God/Heaven/Hell/whatnot you cannot see a good way to build a personal moral compass, and develop a society based on mutual understanding, acceptance, etc? The idea of the external, pushed-down, enforced "morality" based on comparing actions to texts from 2000 years ago, interpreted by a bunch of rules lawyers and medieval sharpshooters to bend and twist every posible rule is one of the big reasons I'm against organized religions on a large scale.
Not everyone has the same moral guidelines or strength, but teaching people to think for themselves and understand how or why to behave in a society is a far better foundation for cooperation and cohavitation than seemingly-arbitrary rules enforced by an all-male hierarchic system of inquisition and power.

My point isn't about religion. I believe that the human condition doesn't make sense. But it makes even less sense without "something to believe in" It's doesn't even have to be a god. It could be a philosophy, a political party, or whatever that makes you do what you do. Even the "social contract" can be that something to believe in. Always it's going to be something external. The people around you are always the ones that are going to say if you are a good person. If you really want to be against a set of values, you could be against any set of values. It's not that I think everybody should behave that way. I'm mostly all about helping and understanding each other, but in the end, in the back of my mind, I can't stop thinking about how it doesn't make any sense.

 

[PatrThom]

for the most part organized religions exist more to control and consolidate power rather to be a driving force of good in the world. And I've found people who identify with organized religions TEND to be awful people who smugly believe that they are better and that anyone not exactly like them are beneath them

Resurrecting this portion of your comment after seeing this story:

Hobby Lobby Places July 4 Newspaper Ad: 'One Nation Under God'

The newspaper ad Hobby Lobby bought was also shared by its official social media pages and hosted on the company's website.

www.snopes.com

Yes, really.

Now I don't care WHICH religion (if any) it is that Hobby Lobby wants to champion, but I draw a line at seeking to enshrine ANY religion as our nation's One True Religion, and am calling out this public declaration of which "side" they're on for what I see it to be, which is a call to arms, an appeal to anyone who sees Hobby Lobby as a role model* to get out there and do whatever they can to tip the scales of government representatives towards an "unofficial" Theocracy (with a fully official one to follow shortly thereafter, I'm sure). I know I've said this sort of thing before, but now Hobby Lobby needs to go on that list. They've tipped their hand, showed their face, and now they need to be shown the door.

--Patrick
*This is a separate issue, far beyond the scope of this post, but I'll just say that I believe Hobby Lobby does not conduct themselves in a manner that anyone should seek to emulate.

 

[DarkAudit]

*This is a separate issue, far beyond the scope of this post, but I'll just say that I believe Hobby Lobby does not conduct themselves in a manner that anyone should seek to emulate.

They are a known financier of terrorist organizations. They type even the fox noise crowd and cheeto cultists would call terrorist.

Hobby Lobby Purchased Thousands of Ancient Artifacts Smuggled Out of Iraq

The craft-supply giant, which will open its Museum of the Bible in D.C. this fall, will pay a $3 million settlement.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[PatrThom]

I draw a line at seeking to enshrine ANY religion as our nation's One True Religion

Oklahoma bill would fine teachers $10K for teaching anything that contradicts religion

Republican Senator Rob Standridge introduced a bill that would allow people to sue teachers for taking an anti-religious perspective.

www.deseret.com

I feel like this could develop into one of those "unintended consequences" kind of problems.
Does this mean teachers will not be allowed to say that it's wrong to cut out the hearts of an entire losing basketball team? They can't suggest that it's okay to eat pork or beef? Will they be able to commit to whether there is only one true God or whether God is actually an infinite collection of aspects, or all of the above simultaneously? Worse yet, how can they reconcile the Buddhist drive to seek knowledge and be held accountable for one's actions while simultaneously not being allowed to be critical of any world religion, past or present?

--Patrick

 

[Krisken]

How to ensure history isnt taught.

 

[Tress]

How to ensure history isnt taught.

That’s the idea! These people would love a North Korea-style theocracy.

 

[PatrThom]

How to ensure history isnt taught.

There you go. No teaching anything more than 50 years old!
…with an exception for stuff that’s copyrighted, of course, since that could conceivably go back an additional 20 (or more!) years.

—Patrick

 

[blotsfan]

Does this mean teachers will not be allowed to say that it's wrong to cut out the hearts of an entire losing basketball team? They can't suggest that it's okay to eat pork or beef? Will they be able to commit to whether there is only one true God or whether God is actually an infinite collection of aspects, or all of the above simultaneously? Worse yet, how can they reconcile the Buddhist drive to seek knowledge and be held accountable for one's actions while simultaneously not being allowed to be critical of any world religion, past or present?

It means Evangelical Christianity.

 

[PatrThom]

It means Evangelical Christianity.

I mean, I know that's their intent, but unless they come right out and say that (and thereby openly admit that they are trying to establish a single, official national religion), any law written to protect "religion" is going to absolutely bite them right in those dangling unintended consequences I alluded to earlier.

--Patrick

 

[jwhouk]

Of course, these are the same people who don't get the irony of Moses dropping the law on the Israelites when they entered the promised land, and then only a few centuries later BAM they're all in exile because they played fast and loose with that law.