Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard were real but that doesn't mean that People's Temple and Scientology are true.

When the heck did I say that the religions were true?

I said I believe the people were real and what they preached did happen and some of it was correct or at least something to learn a lesson from and that some events in the religion actually did happen not all of it

[Frumple]

And I don't see what everyone has against it, for the most part they teach people to be less violent and selfish

The biggest problem (or at least one of them) is that the strong majority of them are inherently divisive. It leads to believers looking down on non-believers, fostering in-group/out-group division... all sorts of stuff like that. They are means by which people tell others, "You are not like me."* Functionally, that's an inherently dehumanizing element -- it's saying that those others are somewhat less human than you, for they do not know the "truth" and will not convert to it, making something about them "wrong". And that's the sort of thing that assists in leading to all sorts of nastiness, even when it's not the explicit cause.

Basically, while their words may teach peacefulness and selflessness, their structure inculcates the exact opposite -- divisiveness, conflict, and a lack of consideration for other people (non-believers, particularly). That's where the problem arises.

*Of course, religion is not the only mean through which that message is passed, but they've historically been one of the strongest and most immediately obvious, as well as the most common excuse even when the underlaying reasons are different. They're also one of the least tractable and least capable of reaching compromise with other ideologies.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Now of course in hope you're not saying that all religious people are like that

Do you think I am like that?

[Frumple]

Of course I'm not. I've met plenty of people who either don't have or have overcome those influences from their religious beliefs. I've unfortunately met considerably more that haven't, and from what I've seen in history religion has definitely been one of the stronger geopolitically divisive forces. One of those traditional things that ends up separating neighbor from neighbor, even in the face of otherwise substantial commonalities.

As for you, I don't really know you well enough to say. It does seem like you're trying to avoid that sort of inclination in your understanding of both your own, and other's beliefs, which is good.

But at the same time, I've also seen you condemn actions for no reason but your religious beliefs. So the effect is there, even if on the net you're avoiding that kind of behavior.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Of course I'm not. I've met plenty of people who either don't have or have overcome those influences from their religious beliefs. I've unfortunately met considerably more that haven't, and from what I've seen in history religion has definitely been one of the stronger geopolitically divisive forces. One of those traditional things that ends up separating neighbor from neighbor, even in the face of otherwise substantial commonalities.

As for you, I don't really know you well enough to say. It does seem like you're trying to avoid that sort of inclination in your understanding of both your own, and other's beliefs, which is good.

But at the same time, I've also seen you condemn actions for no reason but your religious beliefs. So the effect is there, even if on the net you're avoiding that kind of behavior.

I would like to make the note that I try to be an open and accepting person
I try not to condemn people or persecute people for not being of the same faith or any at all
And just out of personal curiosity what was it that you saw me condemn?

[Frumple]

It's treading old grounds, but unless you 180'd at some point, you do hold to the belief that homosexual acts are sinful, yes? More or less explicitly and only because of biblical passages related to the subject. You've noted as much a couple of times, if my memory's not failing. Try not to let that belief influence your actions towards those inclined such way, iirc, but... the condemnation is still there. The act is still a sin, even if the only reason you've offered is a holy text. It's one of the arguably lesser examples -- general stateside christian reaction to Islam would be a greater one -- but it's an example of how religious beliefs* lead people to separate themselves from others on an ideological level. Even -- often, especially -- when there is little functional reason to do so.

And... even when it's not intentional, or sought to be actively avoided, that sort of separation has an entirely too strong track record of influencing action. Almost always negatively, even if only in small ways. Many individuals do manage to avoid such separation, but... many also don't. Many, indeed, do not.

It's not the whole picture, of course -- things like in-group/out-group differentiation is a tremendously multivariant subject, of which religious beliefs are only a particular subset of influences -- but... contributing cause, y'know?

Spoiler: vaguely melancholy personal tangent (click to show/hide)

What I've seen church and religious organization do to people, communities, countries, both in my life and in history... is one of the major reasons that while I'm quite accepting of spirituality, I have a fairly virulent dislike of organized religion. To me, it has strongly contributed to causing tremendous damage to my species. As sins go, there are few greater ones in my eyes.

Spirituality's pretty fun, theological discussions are great, but gods save me from the church.

*Though, again, religious beliefs are far from the only cause of such, just to make that excessively clear.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I would like to clarify that holy text is not the only reason that I do not like homosexuality
Do note I have nothing against them since one sin is no worse than another and it would be hypocritical to condemn someone for sins that are just as bad as my own
The other reasons for my (I don't want to say dislike) my.... Hmmm... Ummmm..... Feelings? Towards homosexuality are also that it kinda serves a purpose against the reason on why you have the parts you have (without going over detailed) I mean naturally two critters of the same gender (not including species that are both genders) can't generally reproduce, yes I know a few can.
That and it just doesn't seem like a natural thing to me


Don't let my opinions on the matter make you think I hate them or think they are disgustion or else I wouldn't have a couple homosexual and several bisexual friends
I don't try to judge people just because judging people for sins just as bad as my own has no purpose
(Sorry if I got repetitive)

[Cheeetar]

If you argue along those lines Cryxis, it comes back to viewing infertile people who have sexual relationships as 'weird'. We've discussed this before, I believe.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

If you argue along those lines Cryxis, it comes back to viewing infertile people who have sexual relationships as 'weird'. We've discussed this before, I believe.

Yes and you've stumped me with the infertile people and I've yet to talk to anyone about it


I will say infertility is something that you can't control
Now I'm not saying homosexuality is something that is easy to stop but you do have the choice to do it
Just like any other sin, it may not be even close to stop but it is humanly possible

Though as I've said before I will not judge homosexuals for what they choose to do, as it would be hypocritical to do so


Edit: I hope I didn't offend anyone and I'm sorry if my views do offend anyone. My intention is not to offend anyone

[Cheeetar]

Sure. A homosexual person can choose to not engage in homosexual sex. As can an infertile person choose not to engage in nonprocreational sex.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Sure. A homosexual person can choose to not engage in homosexual sex. As can an infertile person choose not to engage in nonprocreational sex.

Ya like I said you've stumped me with that one and I will be seeking advise
Though I can say (and this may go against what I have said before so ya I'm changing my mind on something and say what you will of that) in recent quandary into the subject I have thought "why is sex so enjoyable for people and not animals? (Any a couple animals have sex for pleasure)"
And I thought maybe it's so enjoyable because (and take this one with a grain of salt or a ton) it is basically one of the huge parts of Christian marriage, it's so enjoyable because it can help keep a couple together (have you ever seen a husband and wife that have no sex life? They usually aren't all that happy with each other)
A Christian marriage is supposed to make up for that physical relationship you can't have with god (the one on one relationship, not the sex) and yes part of it is that god wants us to share in being able to create (in this case children/more people) and yes infertile people can't do that but they can still have the sex and have that relationship

So I have changed my mind that sex is soely for procreation, it's enjoyable for a reson

((I really hope this didn't cross the line, I tried my best to not go into detail about sex but I feel I used that word a bit too much, if it's too graphic I can delete this post. But I'm 90% sure I've seen worse in the dream thread))

[Frumple]

That and it just doesn't seem like a natural thing to me

Topic probably isn't quite the right place for more general discussion on the subject, but for your illumination homosexuality, of various sorts, is actually pretty well known behavior in non-human animals. Mammalian and otherwise. By all appearances, the behavior actually is quite natural, to the extent that that matters.

That said, a behavior being natural is entirely irrelevant to most any discussion involving ethics or value judgments. Many entirely abhorrent behaviors are quite natural -- that does not make them acceptable or desirable. Naturalistic fallacy and whatnot. How natural a behavior is means one thing, and a very little else, and that is how natural it is.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I know that homosexuality is a normal thing for animals
But should we compare ourselves to animals?

No, what I meant when I said natural is that it doesn't serve a purpose (ok that came across wayyyy more mean and blunt than I want it to) that and it just doesn't settle with me
It's not the religious side of me either it's something else about it I just don't especially like
That being said I have no problem with the people just the act
I dunno, it just doesn't settle with me

[Bohandas]

The other reasons for my (I don't want to say dislike) my.... Hmmm... Ummmm..... Feelings? Towards homosexuality are also that it kinda serves a purpose against the reason on why you have the parts you have (without going over detailed) I mean naturally two critters of the same gender (not including species that are both genders) can't generally reproduce, yes I know a few can.
That and it just doesn't seem like a natural thing to me

Ultimately however it is of little relevance to anybody outside of their close friends and relatives whether a couple reproduces or not, and what little relevance it does have to people outside of that small circle comes from the drain in resources generated by any children that they may have and thus favors the situation in which the couple does not procreate.

[Cheeetar]

(and this may go against what I have said before so ya I'm changing my mind on something and say what you will of that)

This is super good. Changing your mind about things when you come across things that challenge your beliefs is a great thing to do.