Originally posted by Lestov16
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/islam-does-have-a-problem-with-homosexuality-but-so-do-western-c/This article gets into the point I'm trying to make. If we want to prevent tragedies like this, we have to make all intolerance universally unacceptable and establish an official prioritization of human rights over ideologies, religious, political, economic, or otherwise. If there is a benevolent God who gave humans free will, this is what he'd want, simply because any God who would prioritize worship to Him over human rights is clearly not benevolent.
As I pointed out with Nibedicus, there is no true religion, as every person has a different subjective cosmological belief system that may or may not be interpreted from mankind's many religions. As I pointed out with him, the only true practitioners of a faith are it's fundamentalists, as any defiance of exact written scripture, such as say defying Leviticus 20:13 to accept homosexuality, can be considered defiance of the religion itself. It is this subjective interpretation that is responsible for the different sects of religions to the infinite way the words can be interpreted by the human imagination.
But the primary goal of all religions is to objectively prove the existence of a metaphysical Supreme Being and an afterlife. Thus if we are to believe a benevolent God exists, we must first assume, above all, that he is benevolent. This means he has no malice and no pride. He would not demand the worship of beings lower than him, as that is the ultimate version of pride (it is this prideful behavior that is frequently referred to the The Devil) and would not support any oppression, injustice, or intolerance, homophobia, misogyny, elitism, or otherwise, less lone any done in his name, because, again, if so, such a God would not be benevolent. Such a God would support the concept of human rights and wisdom. Only a malevolent God (or again, the Devil; it is known he comes in the form you least expect, and many people believe at least parts of the Bible (Quran and all other holy books too) were written by men, who are susceptible to devilish influence.....just sayin) would demand worship and promote ignorance and human rights violations over wisdom and human rights.
Now of course, you'll say I don't know the will of the Abrahamic God. I'm just human, I can't comprehend it. But if that's the case, how do YOU know he's a benevolent God? If His will is incomprehensible to humans, operating on a level of logic above good and evil, then how can he be called good? He's not operating by the human definition of the word good, so if he is not benevolent by the definition we know, why refer to him using that word?
Thus, if a benevolent God does exist, and he has reached out to humanity through religious texts, and, as stated everybody has their own subjective religion, we must assume this benevolent God is pantheistic, that all of mankind's religions have a needle of the Word of God in the haystack of the words of man, and that it is through interpretation that we are able to access His True Word.
Again, if I'm wrong, if the Abrahamic God exists and he supports stoning gays to death, then is he a benevolent God, and if you say yes, we just don't understand him because He is above us, then the human definition of benevolent is not an applicable term.
This is just a rhetorical rant meant to generate thought. If you see any flaws, please state them peacefully
Originally posted by Lestov16
As I pointed out with Nibedicus, there is no true religion, as every person has a different subjective cosmological belief system that may or may not be interpreted from mankind's many religions. As I pointed out with him, the only true practitioners of a faith are it's fundamentalists, as any defiance of exact written scripture, such as say defying Leviticus 20:13 to accept homosexuality, can be considered defiance of the religion itself. It is this subjective interpretation that is responsible for the different sects of religions to the infinite way the words can be interpreted by the human imagination.
Yeahhh, might wanna rethink how you write things, sport.
Here is how you sound to me:
All "true" women should stick to the kitchen, be wives and do housework. All "true" blacks should just be athletes. All "true" homosexuals should just be fashion designers or hairstylists. While you're at it, all jews (those who are not hasidic jews anyway) should all just be lawyers/accountants to be "true" jews. All the rest? They're not "true" jews/women/gays/blacks/etc. After all, one is not allowed to subjectively apply one's individuality/preferences/personal interpretation into one's beliefs/sexuality/etc if they want to be called "true" to themselves.
You don't find any of the above offensive?
And freakin-a! The only "true" practitioners of a religion are the fundamentalists? Seriously? Are you kidding me? You don't see anything wrong with what you just typed?
How about I say that the only "true" gay person is the ones that would try to screw anything male? That sound offensive to you? Because that's how that statement sounded to me.
Don't know how you can't seem to see the offensiveness of what you type and I don't know what's sadder, what you wrote or the fact that this might well be you trying to be as decent as you can about what you say.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever been to a mass? Do you know how ppl practice religion these days? You seem to be under the false assumption that we have to follow scripture word to be considered "true" Catholics. You couldn't be more wrong.
I mean, one of the most BASIC fundamental lessons that we were taught was that it doesn't matter how well you follow scripture and how pious you are with going to Church, praying, etc. If you're a bad person then you're not going to heaven. Are you not aware of that?
Edit. I know you're trying. But damn man, there seems to be some DEEP seeded prejudices that you can't seem to get rid of. But I appreciate the attempt (tho it fell woefully short).
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yeahhh, might wanna rethink how you write things, sport.Here is how you sound to me:
All "true" women should stick to the kitchen, be wives and do housework. All "true" blacks should just be athletes. All "true" homosexuals should just be fashion designers or hairstylists. While you're at it, all jews (those who are not hasidic jews anyway) should all just be lawyers/accountants to be "true" jews. All the rest? They're not "true" jews/women/gays/blacks/etc. After all, one is not allowed to subjectively apply one's individuality/preferences/personal interpretation into one's beliefs/sexuality/etc if they want to be called "true" to themselves.
You don't find any of the above offensive?
And freakin-a! The only "true" practitioners of a religion are the fundamentalists? Seriously? Are you kidding me? You don't see anything wrong with what you just typed?
How about I say that the only "true" gay person is the ones that would try to screw anything male? That sound offensive to you? Because that's how that statement sounded to me.
Don't know how you can't seem to see the offensiveness of what you type and I don't know what's sadder, what you wrote or the fact that this might well be you trying to be as decent as you can about what you say.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever been to a mass? Do you know how ppl practice religion these days? You seem to be under the false assumption that we have to follow scripture word to be considered "true" Catholics. You couldn't be more wrong.
I mean, one of the most BASIC fundamental lessons that we were taught was that it doesn't matter how well you follow scripture and how pious you are with going to Church, praying, etc. If you're a bad person then you're not going to heaven. Are you not aware of that?
Edit. I know you're trying. But damn man, there seems to be some DEEP seeded prejudices that you can't seem to get rid of. But I appreciate the attempt (tho it fell woefully short).
Actually you make my point. Clearly a religion is not dependent on its scripture, so I ask: why not make your own religion? Is that not you already did anyways (Again, rhetorical question)
Originally posted by Lestov16
Actually you make my point. Clearly a religion is not dependent on its scripture, so I ask: why not make your own religion? Is that not you already did anyways (Again, rhetorical question)
Because my religion is not about literally following scripture (I mean, where did you even get that notion). It's living one's life in accordance to Jesus' teachings (w/c is more about loving one's neighbor and being good and unselfish to others that it dogmatically following scripture). I mean the whole purpose of the homily is interpreting Jesus' teaching relative to modern society as a whole and how we may personally/individually apply it to our daily lives.
Your entire idea of what being an actual religious person is all wrong and seems to be corrupted somehow.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
There were more guns sold during Obama's administration than any other in US History.
Interestingly to fewer people:
Originally posted by Bardock42
Interestingly to fewer people:
Obama has been at war longer then any other president in history, and has sold more guns then any other president in history. And has more mass shootings on his watch then any other president in history. I thought Obama was for world peace.
Originally posted by Lestov16
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/islam-does-have-a-problem-with-homosexuality-but-so-do-western-c/This article gets into the point I'm trying to make. If we want to prevent tragedies like this, we have to make all intolerance universally unacceptable
Dude nobody said the less violent types of intolerance are acceptable. Why do you keep acting as if people have?
It comes off like you have an agenda where you want to avoid the Islamic side of this.
Fine let's discuss the Islamic side. What is causing Muslims to be so violent? In the times of Saladin, Muslims were the advanced civilization of the world, and Christians were the barbarians. Now, the exact opposite is occurring. What caused this switch? The simplest answer is geopolitical cultural norms and resource exploitation.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Fine let's discuss the Islamic side. What is causing Muslims to be so violent? In the times of Saladin, Muslims were the advanced civilization of the world, and Christians were the barbarians. Now, the exact opposite is occurring. What caused this switch? The simplest answer is geopolitical cultural norms and resource exploitation.
The Enlightment, which didn't happen in the middle east? Muslims became less and less advanced and civilized during the Crusades while the Christians became more advanced. It didn't help that the Mamluks took over the Middle East although that's a hell of a lot better than giving it up to the Mongols. There are lots of factors really.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Lestov's problem is faith in humanity. It's nice and cute to say we should make intolerance universally unacceptable, but every single person has some kind of intolerance, whether conscious or subconscious.
I...can't disagree with this. I am an idealist. I believe that on one hand, we are animals, and are bound, caged per se, by our animalistic instincts. But because of our intelligence, we seek to be something above the animals.