Religion and minding your own business

4,140 Views | 63 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Ag_of_08
I Sold DeSantis Lifts
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It seems to me that the main religious faiths that focus on conversion and eternal damnation are Christianity (and its offshoots) and Islam. I do not believe we see such efforts in other world religions. They seem happy to have you, but they arent going to cut your head off or say you're damned to hell if you don't buy in to their beliefs.

I wonder why. Obviously Jesus was quoted as instructing his disciples to go out and be fishers of men. The Catholic Church pushed it hard during the conquests of the third world. We don't need a recap of the atrocities. Televangelists and other evangelists are there to tell us all what awaits us.

The Muslims are well known to eradicate non-believers. Backsliders are punished severely.

Do these religions really vest the individual with righteousness that encourages this?

What spurred my interest in this was Matt Walsh saying people are going to burn in hell for practicing yoga.

Thoughts?
Dilettante
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do they really vest the individual with righteousness that encourages this?

What does that mean?
I Sold DeSantis Lifts
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stated another way: does practicing such religion give you a landline to God and everyone that disagrees is wrong.
Dilettante
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CM Trump Voter said:

Stated another way: does practicing such religion give you a landline to God and everyone that disagrees is wrong.
So you're asking if those religions are correct?

I Sold DeSantis Lifts
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's unknowable. I was wondering if thinking you're right is the cause of this.
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Your post presupposes that Religion is harmful, unless it is relativistic.

The Catholic Church pushed it hard during the conquests of the third world. We don't need a recap of the atrocities. Televangelists and other evangelists are there to tell us all what awaits us.

This shows a lot ignorance brought on by a secular world view and education.
I would challenge you to name one organization that has done more good for the world, especially the 3rd world than the Catholic Church.

Finally,
Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth* and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Your OP said it we are bound by duty to spread the Gospel and try to bring others to the grace of God for their benefit not ours.

I know there are some striking examples of Christians failing and people can't wait to bring them up, but Ultimately the world would be a lot darker, evil, uneducated, and places like orphanages and hospitals would be nonexistent without Christ, and the Catholic Church.


schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There's a lot of religious people that seem to think that because their religion disallows them from an action that that means everyone else is disallowed that action.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How about we start with your intentional deception? It took less than a minute to research your accusation of Matt Walsh. He wasn't even talking to non-Christians.

Matt Walsh says:

Quote:

I don't think you'll automatically be possessed if you do yoga. I don't think all yoga practitioners go to Hell. But neither do I see how a pagan ritual could ever help someone get to Heaven, and maybe that's reason enough to leave it alone.


in this article about yoga.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-matt-walsh-5


I don't even like Matt Walsh that much, but I do agree with him on this.
AndesAg92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jrico2727 said:


Your post presupposes that Religion is harmful, unless it is relativistic.

The Catholic Church pushed it hard during the conquests of the third world. We don't need a recap of the atrocities. Televangelists and other evangelists are there to tell us all what awaits us.

This shows a lot ignorance brought on by a secular world view and education.
I would challenge you to name one organization that has done more good for the world, especially the 3rd world than the Catholic Church.

Finally,
Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth* and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Your OP said it we are bound by duty to spread the Gospel and try to bring others to the grace of God for their benefit not ours.

I know there are some striking examples of Christians failing and people can't wait to bring them up, but Ultimately the world would be a lot darker, evil, uneducated, and places like orphanages and hospitals would be nonexistent without Christ, and the Catholic Church.




So the Catholic Church has not committed many atrocities over the years?
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oh no you got me....

Yes, there have been Catholics who have sinned. Who have gravely sinned, and who have committed atrocities.

No, the Catholic Church did not commit those acts because a member or members did.

The Church opens her doors to sinners and some continue to sin after joining. We never claimed to be perfect.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CM Trump Voter said:

Stated another way: does practicing such religion give you a landline to God and everyone that disagrees is wrong.

I'm not sure how well this answers your question, but an answer from this religious outsider's perspective seems to be 'its complicated'.

Or at least, its impossible to say one thing that encompasses all Christians or all Muslims or all religious people. Plenty of religious people believe that non-believers are wrong and that they are called upon by God to not 'mind their own business'. That can take the form of passing judgement or passing laws prohibiting actions that contradict their doctrine. And sometimes it take the form of righteous violence.

And then there are religious people that believe they should act with humility and understanding and compassion toward non believers. That non belief and different beliefs should be respected and treated with civility. I think there are 'degrees' of proselytizing and not all religious people believe that it should be done forcefully.

Who is right? How the hell should I know? As someone who has read the Bible, I can tell you that my position is that both positions are supported in Christianity. As someone that has not read the same mountains of theology and philosophy that others on this board have, you should know I'm probably 'not qualified' to have a position at all. . . but that is a whole other problem with religion.

There is language in a lot of religious texts that I think are dangerous. Some of that language is explicitly violent. A lot of it is woefully ambiguous. Some of it is just outdated. And most of it encourages what I consider to be an healthy level of certainty and hubris. Its funny how everyone outside of a religious sees this and how most of the people inside a religion, when told this, look at you like you have a **** growing out of your forehead.



kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jrico2727 said:

No, the Catholic Church did not commit those acts because a member or members did.

Would it then stand to reason that The Catholic Church is not capable of committing a 'wrong' act? If you are going to define the Church as perfect, then we will be speaking past one another and should re-frame the discussion.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:


But neither do I see how a pagan ritual could ever help someone get to Heaven, and maybe that's reason enough to leave it alone

There are 2 ways I could take this:
1) doing things that don't get you into heaven are a waste of time. He should definitely stop doing anything that doesn't help him get into heaven. Like his show and writings.

2)this seems to imply that he believes that works are what get you into heaven. In which case, I would recommend you ignore him as a source of spiritual or religious guidance.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Duncan Idaho said:

Quote:


But neither do I see how a pagan ritual could ever help someone get to Heaven, and maybe that's reason enough to leave it alone

There are 2 ways I could take this:
1) doing things that don't get you into heaven are a waste of time. He should definitely stop doing anything that doesn't help him get into heaven. Like his show and writings.

2)this seems to imply that he believes that works are what get you into heaven. In which case, I would recommend you ignore him as a source of spiritual or religious guidance.

1) two thoughts on this one
a) I think that it might have been better written to say that if it is possibly a hindrance, then it should be left alone, but wholesome recreational activities can be good for our spiritual health, even if they aren't directly connected to prayer/worship/study
b) "like his show and writings" .. I would say fulfilling your vocation is still good for your spiritual health. A waste management worker, an accountant, anyone can be fulfilling their vocation to the glory of God.

2) Well, he is Roman Catholic.
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

jrico2727 said:

No, the Catholic Church did not commit those acts because a member or members did.

Would it then stand to reason that The Catholic Church is not capable of committing a 'wrong' act? If you are going to define the Church as perfect, then we will be speaking past one another and should re-frame the discussion.
Well we would first have to agree on the what the Catholic Church is.

So yes I would say the Church is the Indefectible Mystical Body of Christ. That is the definition given to us by Christ and has been the case since he confronted Paul on the road to Damascus

Most would want to define it as a early organization led by men.

I would agree that the men who are in the Church and often in positions of influence have caused a lot of pain and suffering through the years up to this day. There hasn't been a time throughout salvation history from Adam to Bergoglio where that wasn't the case.

The perfection comes only from Christ not from us flawed men.

Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CM Trump Voter said:

That's unknowable. I was wondering if thinking you're right is the cause of this.
If a person thinks they're right to evangelize, they're going to evangelize.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
if a person thinks they are wrong, they should probably try to figure out what's right.
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Duncan Idaho said:

Quote:


But neither do I see how a pagan ritual could ever help someone get to Heaven, and maybe that's reason enough to leave it alone

There are 2 ways I could take this:
1) doing things that don't get you into heaven are a waste of time. He should definitely stop doing anything that doesn't help him get into heaven. Like his show and writings.

2)this seems to imply that he believes that works are what get you into heaven. In which case, I would recommend you ignore him as a source of spiritual or religious guidance.
There are actually more ways to look at what he said, unless you have a specific lens you are trying to view it through. None of it has to do with works getting into heaven (which as a Catholic he doesnt believe. Faith that works is. His point is kind of like the old quote about staring into the abyss long enough that it begins to stare back. Meaning if you preoccupy your mind/actions with something, it soon becomes a part of you. Incidentally there are Christian meditation classes that are essentially yoga. The focus is just different
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
my main point was that the OP starts from a place that is disingenuous. Walsh said the exact opposite of what OP claims.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

my main point was that the OP starts from a place that is disingenuous. Walsh said the exact opposite of what OP claims.


A thing I've learned in the last few years, always read the original source to see if the shocking headline is actually true. So often it's not.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How I've seen it; (not mine, shamelessy stolen)

Secular Person: "I want to do 'x'"
Christian: "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes."

Secular Person: "Because you want to control me."
Christian: "No, You're free to do whatever you wish."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes, but only because I want what's best for you."

Secular Person: "But I want to do 'x'."
Christian" "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But I want you to say that 'x' is good."
Christian: "I can't say that."

Secular Person: "Why are you such a hateful intolerant bigot?"

(Note: This conversation is much different regarding things that directly affect the life, health, or well-being of a child; born or unborn)
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

How I've seen it; (not mine, shamelessy stolen)

Secular Person: "I want to do 'x'"
Christian: "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes."

Secular Person: "Because you want to control me."
Christian: "No, You're free to do whatever you wish."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes, but only because I want what's best for you."

Secular Person: "But I want to do 'x'."
Christian" "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But I want you to say that 'x' is good."
Christian: "I can't say that."

Secular Person: "Why are you such a hateful intolerant bigot?"

(Note: This conversation is much different regarding things that directly affect the life, health, or well-being of a child; born or unborn)

Good grief, do Christians in this country honestly think this is how it has gone down? Lets say 'x' is gay marriage for the first 239 years of this country's history and for the entirety of Christian world history when Christians have held political power. How well does your post hold up?

Christianity (like lots of religions) has a mountain of history of oppressing different believers, non-believers, witches, women, so called 'savages' and 'barbarians', and 'sinners'. Christians, when they have political power, have implemented their own version of religious theocracy time and time again in history. In the US, Christians have forced God into public schools, onto my money, into our laws, into our bedrooms, in front of courthouses, and anywhere they can squeeze Him in.

How does your post hold up in the context of a centuries of colonialism by Christians when Christian Europe occupied . . . .owned and subjugated half the planet, murdered tens of millions, raped, plundered, and annihilated 'wrong' religions and cultures? Christians in this country act like because they do not still hold the social ideological monopoly they once did, that they get to forget how they acted when they did have it. This notion that Christianity is some uber-benevolent force always the victim and never the aggressor is insane.

We can have a conversation about how there are definitely elements of the left have gone way too far in modern times and the validity of the post above . . . . but that post has to be about the most history-deaf thing I can imagine.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Give it back to whoever you stole it from, they are historically illiterate
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

How I've seen it; (not mine, shamelessy stolen)

Secular Person: "I want to do 'x'"
Christian: "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes."

Secular Person: "Because you want to control me."
Christian: "No, You're free to do whatever you wish."

Secular Person: "But you think 'x' is wrong."
Christian: "Yes, but only because I want what's best for you."

Secular Person: "But I want to do 'x'."
Christian" "You're free to do it."

Secular Person: "But I want you to say that 'x' is good."
Christian: "I can't say that."

Secular Person: "Why are you such a hateful intolerant bigot?"

(Note: This conversation is much different regarding things that directly affect the life, health, or well-being of a child; born or unborn)



Precious
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmendeler said:

There's a lot of religious people that seem to think that because their religion disallows them from an action that that means everyone else is disallowed that action.
My religion says that honor killing of supposed promiscuous young women is disallowed. I think it should be disallowed for everyone, even if none of my family would ever be honor killed.

To be more blunt, of course people want to outlaw things they see as wrong, sinful or evil. Everyone is that way. It is a universal characteristic of every human group ever. So it's sort of a weird thing to try and call out one group for this
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

schmendeler said:

There's a lot of religious people that seem to think that because their religion disallows them from an action that that means everyone else is disallowed that action.
My religion says that honor killing of supposed promiscuous young women is disallowed. I think it should be disallowed for everyone, even if none of my family would ever be honor killed.

To be more blunt, of course people want to outlaw things they see as wrong, sinful or evil. Everyone is that way. It is a universal characteristic of every human group ever. So it's sort of a weird thing to try and call out one group for this


To be blunt, no everyone isn't that way. Some of us can see the distinction between something we personally find wrong harmful misguided or offensive and what we can insist upon from others at the point of a gun. Usually through a lens of infringement of liberties we collectively have decided are essential. Even if that's something totally crazy like trying to buy a beer on Sunday morning.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

schmendeler said:

There's a lot of religious people that seem to think that because their religion disallows them from an action that that means everyone else is disallowed that action.
My religion says that honor killing of supposed promiscuous young women is disallowed. I think it should be disallowed for everyone, even if none of my family would ever be honor killed.

To be more blunt, of course people want to outlaw things they see as wrong, sinful or evil. Everyone is that way. It is a universal characteristic of every human group ever. So it's sort of a weird thing to try and call out one group for this


Doesn't the Bible say that adulterers should be killed?
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Your post is off too. Christians didn't 'force' many of those things in the way you're conceiving of it. There weren't a bunch of secular materialists or Muslims being shouted down when it was done. We had state churches and a de facto religion in the public square. Your understanding of these things is projecting contemporary ideas backwards in a way that isn't appropriate; it's like watching downton abbey and thinking it's historically accurate.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
schmendeler said:

ramblin_ag02 said:

schmendeler said:

There's a lot of religious people that seem to think that because their religion disallows them from an action that that means everyone else is disallowed that action.
My religion says that honor killing of supposed promiscuous young women is disallowed. I think it should be disallowed for everyone, even if none of my family would ever be honor killed.

To be more blunt, of course people want to outlaw things they see as wrong, sinful or evil. Everyone is that way. It is a universal characteristic of every human group ever. So it's sort of a weird thing to try and call out one group for this


Doesn't the Bible say that adulterers should be killed?
Start with something easier like Sabbath breakers or making fun of a bald man.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

ramblin_ag02 said:

schmendeler said:

There's a lot of religious people that seem to think that because their religion disallows them from an action that that means everyone else is disallowed that action.
My religion says that honor killing of supposed promiscuous young women is disallowed. I think it should be disallowed for everyone, even if none of my family would ever be honor killed.

To be more blunt, of course people want to outlaw things they see as wrong, sinful or evil. Everyone is that way. It is a universal characteristic of every human group ever. So it's sort of a weird thing to try and call out one group for this


To be blunt, no everyone isn't that way. Some of us can see the distinction between something we personally find wrong harmful misguided or offensive and what we can insist upon from others at the point of a gun. Usually through a lens of infringement of liberties we collectively have decided are essential. Even if that's something totally crazy like trying to buy a beer on Sunday morning.


That's a very weird thing, the idea that your morality is disconnected from your actions. Turns out everyone's ok with closets, some people just prefer religion in there instead of their own arbitrary morals. That's why abortion is so ****ed up in this country.

'I personally think murder is wrong but why would I stop murder from happening if others don't think it's murder, like we collectively decided?'

Edit: i realize this can come off as hostile. It's not an attack of a person but an extension of the logic and real world application. Times have changed and society has changed. Laws that were made when there was much more philosophical and moral agreement are now examples of ignoring 49% of the population, despite their origins. Abortion is an easy topic to engage on in this way as it's directly relevant and we have people living out this exact logic
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Abortion is a different case where we disagree on personhood. And I can actually understand making that argument if you genuinely believe it's a person from conception. Your problem will be convincing people who don't share your religiously founded conviction.

A more appropriate and broader analogy for most questions of morality where another's rights aren't infringed would be making masterbation illegal. Do you think it should be if your religion tell you it's wrong?
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

Abortion is a different case where we disagree on personhood. And I can actually understand making that argument if you genuinely believe it's a person from conception. Your problem will be convincing people who don't share your religiously founded conviction.

A more appropriate and broader analogy for most questions of morality where another's rights aren't infringed would be making masterbation illegal. Do you think it should be if your religion tell you it's wrong?


I don't think collective agreement makes something moral. don't think the right to do something immoral is beneficial or inherently good. Freedom may be necessary to choose God, or a gift from Him, but that doesn't make it the highest virtue by any means.

If I were to legislate then benefits would accrue to Godly/moral living; people make their own decisions as to whether they want that or not. Who wouldn't want societal benefits structured in that way? If we know that the best home for children is with married healthy biological parents, we should prioritize that above all other household structures with incentives. If second best is a healthy married hetero couple in the family (say aunt and uncle) they should receive the next highest benefits and so on. We want people to choose God freely and choose good on their own; we need not punish it.

Your example seems predicated on levitical law but are you applying the whole law when you foresee this? Are we also requiring two witnesses in your example? What options exist for sacrifice or forgiveness? Or are we taking it piecemeal where we pick a verse and leave the rest of the context behind?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggrad08 said:

Abortion is a different case where we disagree on personhood. And I can actually understand making that argument if you genuinely believe it's a person from conception. Your problem will be convincing people who don't share your religiously founded conviction.

A more appropriate and broader analogy for most questions of morality where another's rights aren't infringed would be making masterbation illegal. Do you think it should be if your religion tell you it's wrong?
Atheists can't believe that abortion is murder?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
they sure can. biology convinces me that the unborn is a person, not Jesus.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:



I don't think collective agreement makes something moral. don't think the right to do something immoral is beneficial or inherently good. Freedom may be necessary to choose God, or a gift from Him, but that doesn't make it the highest virtue by any means.


Collective agreement isn't the measure of morality, collective agreement is the foundation upon which a society is going to enforce rules under the threat of violence.



Quote:

Your example seems predicated on levitical law but are you applying the whole law when you foresee this?

up to you. You tell me if you want the whole law applied or how you are deciding which laws that don't infringe the rights of others should be US law.


Quote:

Are we also requiring two witnesses in your example?

I think being convicted by a jury of your peers beyond reasonable doubt more than satisfies the intent of the two witness provision don't you?

Quote:


What options exist for sacrifice or forgiveness? Or are we taking it piecemeal where we pick a verse and leave the rest of the context behind?
Again, you tell me, you want a piecemeal theocracy or all out?
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.