Originally posted by Deadline
Westboro baptist church is probably controlled opposition probably funded just to make Christians look bad.
Nice conspiracy theory, but no.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
YouTube video
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I have yet to talk to a single Christian who doesn't wholeheartedly condemn the westboro baptist church.
What is it that you think that's supposed to prove?
My own family and thousands of others here in the Bible Belt believe a lot of similar things to the WBC. They may not get picket signs and stand on street corners shouting "God Hates F@gs" and various other superstitious nonsense, but their line of thinking is similar and they get it from the Bible. And presumably you, too, hold the Bible in high esteem, am I correct?
The question is, "Why?"
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What is it that you think that's supposed to prove?
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And presumably you, too, hold the Bible in high esteem, am I correct?The question is, "Why?"
Despite our disagreements and your obvious contempt for religion, you aren't a troll who would use anything I say to club me over the head with something obviously important to me for the sake of getting under my skin, and you aren't someone who would... I don't know... stalk me around the internet trying to provoke me to get a rise out of me. So I'd be willing to give you a short explanation when I'm less busy than I currently am at the moment.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nothing more than the point that you would not accept me citing the most virtuous example of Christians as a fair and accurate representation of what Christians as a whole are like, so I don't see any reason for you to reasonably expect anyone to do the same here with your example.If you're honestly curious, I could give you a tldr in PMs when I have the time. I tend to be rather guarded about who I delve into the specifics of something so personal to me in a place as toxic than the internet be.
Despite our disagreements and your obvious contempt for religion, you aren't a troll who would use anything I say to club me over the head with something obviously important to me for the sake of getting under my skin, and you aren't someone who would... I don't know... stalk me around the internet trying to provoke me to get a rise out of me. So I'd be willing to give you a short explanation when I'm less busy than I currently am at the moment.
You're usually an eloquent poster, so I am genuinely curious to know why. And if your ideas are good enough you shouldn't be afraid to share them. Maybe you should see if they withstand scrutiny? So I'd rather you do it here in the marketplace of ideas, but if you must yeah, I guess you can PM me.
Originally posted by Deadline
Westboro baptist church is probably controlled opposition probably funded just to make Christians look bad.
Could be.
I'm suspicious that over half of rage producing content is just Twitter trolls, who the media cover seriously. A good chunk of the rest on both sides probably is some form of controlled opposition.
Of course, plenty of rank and files really are that bad, but they're on the fringes imo..
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I have yet to talk to a single Christian who doesn't wholeheartedly condemn the westboro baptist church.
There is a real profile in courage. They do not disagree with them on theology, they just do not like that they are so open about their beliefs, because it makes Christians look bad.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What is it that you think that's supposed to prove?My own family and thousands of others here in the Bible Belt believe a lot of similar things to the WBC. They may not get picket signs and stand on street corners shouting "God Hates F@gs" and various other superstitious nonsense, but their line of thinking is similar and they get it from the Bible. And presumably you, too, hold the Bible in high esteem, am I correct?
The question is, "Why?"
I get your angle, but I think you're being a bit unfair here. Religion is in the end what the individual takes out of it. For some they choose to focus on something ugly like "God hates f**s", some others choose to focus on something beautiful like "love thy neighbor"; even if he is gay or Muslim or a gay Muslim. The WBC chooses to focus on all the ugly and they take it to the nth.
It's nigh impossible to live your life according to everything in the bible, especially in a modern society where antiquated laws like stoning your daughter just won't fly; nor should you want to.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So why not shed the Mormon label all together?
Religion and theism is nuanced and personal (you definitely know this so don't . To shed the LDS label is unnecessary because I believe that all theists, from a theosophical perspective, MUST be agnostic because the requirement of "faith" implies agnosticism. I find simple and long-time issues to be readily addressed in the LDS religion such as the Problem of Evil and the concepts of eternity. It also fits better into a multiverse, imo, than other religions. It has its problems, though.
In order to move from agnosticism to gnosticism, you must possess Objective Truth on the level of omniscience. The same is true for strong atheism which most atheists frown on (very few atheists besides ignorant edgelords will take this position because it is philosophically untenable). If you're omniscient, you're indistinguishable, functionally, from a deity and it becomes silly at that point to have that level of Knowledge requirement to take a solid state on a gnostic position. It's better to avoid this and just deal in levels of knowledge and uncertainty. Some prefer the ignostic label, most are on the atheist to theist scale (with a dash of agnosticism or two heaping scoops of it).
Weak atheism is agnostic atheism. Most atheists prefer just the atheist labels but labels are bullshit or too general unless you explore what the label means.
The best label for me is agnostic theist. The simple label is agnostic.
If I ever made the leap to plain atheism (weak atheism), I'd probably still practice religion of some sort for the psychological benefits behind it. I do know a man at work who does that.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What is it that you think that's supposed to prove?My own family and thousands of others here in the Bible Belt believe a lot of similar things to the WBC. They may not get picket signs and stand on street corners shouting "God Hates F@gs" and various other superstitious nonsense, but their line of thinking is similar and they get it from the Bible. And presumably you, too, hold the Bible in high esteem, am I correct?
The question is, "Why?"
I agree with the point you're making, here. Southern Baptists really really love to say you're going to hell for the gayism stuff.
Many Mormons, contrary to their own damn religious teachings, get on their self-righteous soapboxes, too. It's insufferable and cringey, imo.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If I ever made the leap to plain atheism (weak atheism), I'd probably still practice religion of some sort for the psychological benefits behind it. I do know a man at work who does that.
Meditation (mindfulness, loving-kindness, etc.). 👆 The only "religious" practice that doesn't require the practitioner to accept any ridiculous claims on "faith." Plus (and this is a big plus), its psychological benefits are backed up by science.
Originally posted by Robtard
I get your angle, but I think you're being a bit unfair here. Religion is in the end what the individual takes out of it. For some they choose to focus on something ugly like "God hates f**s", some others choose to focus on something beautiful like "love thy neighbor"; even if he is gay or Muslim or a gay Muslim. The WBC chooses to focus on all the ugly and they take it to the nth.
It's actually not being unfair, Rob. And you yourself even pointed out why...
Originally posted by Robtard
...antiquated laws like stoning your daughter just won't fly; nor should you want to.
The point is that if we (as people and individuals) decide what's worth holding onto in the religious books, then what is the point of having them anyway? Especially when there will always be the intolerant nonsense there to be "rebooted" (so to speak) and continue to prevent moral progress? This idea of revelation is what's dangerous, that these books are somehow special and should be put on a pedestal so that they're not allowed to be altered or edited (even though ironically in their long history they were written, re-written, edited, entire books removed, excluded, etc, etc.). These awful holy book passages will always be there to establish dangerous dogma. And it is dogma that is the real enemy, unwillingness to change and improve because "God established the way it's supposed to be."
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I have yet to talk to a single Christian who doesn't wholeheartedly condemn the westboro baptist church.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is a real profile in courage. They do not disagree with them on theology, they just do not like that they are so open about their beliefs, because it makes Christians look bad.
Well, you want to know what I think WBC folks would say about moderates? They'd probably say that they're (use fiery Preacher voice here), "Lukewarm for the Lord!!"
Revelation 3:15-16
“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's actually not being unfair, Rob. And you yourself even pointed out why...The point is that if we (as people and individuals) decide what's worth holding onto in the religious books, then what is the point of having them anyway? Especially when there will always be the intolerant nonsense there to be "rebooted" (so to speak) and continue to prevent moral progress? This idea of revelation is what's dangerous, that these books are somehow special and should be put on a pedestal so that they're not allowed to be altered or edited (even though ironically in their long history they were written, re-written, edited, entire books removed, excluded, etc, etc.). These awful holy book passages will always be there to establish dangerous dogma. And it is dogma that is the real enemy, unwillingness to change and improve because "God established the way it's supposed to be."
You take the good with the bad and in the end, it's up to the religious individual what they choose to believe and what they choose to project as their views and values. <--- all imo
I’d also argue that the intolerant nonsense types will in the end find a reason to support their intolerance and nonsense views regardless of a Bible (or other religious script) or not. Religion/the Bible just makes it easier for them as they can go "it's not me, God says so", as they go on to condemn gays and quoting Leviticus 18:22 as support; while eating a shrimp cocktail without a care in the world, which god holds as an equal "abomination", Leviticus 11:12.
Originally posted by Robtard
I’d also argue that the intolerant nonsense types will in the end find a reason to support their intolerance and nonsense views regardless of a Bible (or other religious script) or not. Religion/the Bible just makes it easier for them as they can go "it's not me, God says so", as they go on to condemn gays and quoting Leviticus 18:22 as support; while eating a shrimp cocktail without a care in the world, which god holds as an equal "abomination", Leviticus 11:12.
You just proved my point. Of course there will always be intolerance without it being in "God's Word," but just like you said, it solidifies it and makes it doctrine, unalterable, even "righteous." And that's far more dangerous. Like slave owners using the Bible to justify their cruelty to slaves.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You just proved my point. Of course there will always be intolerance without it being in "God's Word," but just like you said, it solidifies it and makes it doctrine, unalterable, even "righteous." And that's far more dangerous. Like slave owners using the Bible to justify their cruelty to slaves.
But still we moved beyond slave ownership, despite the bible condoning it.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You just proved my point. Of course there will always be intolerance without it being in "God's Word," but just like you said, it solidifies it and makes it doctrine, unalterable, even "righteous." And that's far more dangerous. Like slave owners using the Bible to justify their cruelty to slaves.
Whatever. Load of rubbish, you can just create another doctrine. Communism killed ALOT of people.
Sick of this lets bash religion rubbish. No I'm not Christian and I don't think they're perfect either but they're not the problem.