Print

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

[Starver]

There was apparently this guy in Galilee who preached peace...

(And, literally, his own people didn't at all take too well to that, by all reports. Though you might need to allow for various unreliable narrators.)

[McTraveller]

Ah I guess I was inferring more than just speech behind "tell them they are out of line", like when you are raising kids, you can't just tell them things, you have to actually put actions behind it too.

Also yes there is a point where things "have gone too far" and it takes more profound action.

[Strongpoint]

To say "we need to oppose Christianity" is also too broad - it's like saying we need to oppose cereal.

It is not too broad for me. Let's say you believe that a certain book (let's say Mein Kampf) promotes wrong or outright evil ideas. Should you oppose all versions of ideology coming from this book or should you focus your attention only on the worst ones, pretending that the book is OK to not insult moderates and ones who dabble in it?

The Bible is such a book for me. Not only does it promote falsehoods, it also promotes evil ideas. Its main character is an evil, abusive, cruel being who is presented as perfect. Good is what your master thinks is good. If your superior orders you to kill your son - you shut up and do this. If your superior orders you to genocide some nation - you shut up and do this.

It is corrupted at its core. The very basic idea of Abrahamic religions - that there is an all-mighty being we should obey\serve and that there is an absolute authority - promotes authoritarianism.

[McTraveller]

So are you opposed to recommending people take poison to cure a disease?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What if I called it "chemotherapy" instead of poison? What, did you think I was talking about ivermectin and COVID? 

What about cutting off a limb due to frostbite or gangrene?

That is to say, anyone who thinks the Old Testament God is simply an egotistical genocidal tyrant is filtering the book through a lens that doesn't even consider that there are times that sometimes you need to take what seems like atrocious action which is actually beneficial in the long run.

For Christianity specifically - those Old Testament "genocides" were because those people groups were essentially the Evil Forces you talk about eliminating.

Even talk about Nazi regimes or whatever - tell me how the world is going to stop that philosophy and its proponents without violence? Does that get called genocidal, because that is indeed wiping out a population due to their culture?

Talk about opposing (or ultimately eradicating) something like Christianity because it is "harmful" or whatever - how is that different from the complaint about the Old Testament God eradicating some group because it was "harmful"?  Put another way: if you complain about God (or religions or political groups) calling for the eradication of some group and its philosophies, then you don't have a leg to stand on when calling for the eradication of that group.  There's no fundamental difference in a post-modern world with no absolute morality.  The trap closes if there's an argument that there is an absolute morality, because who is to say one of the old religious texts didn't actually have the "absolute" one all along?

- - -

Ultimately - this is why politics and religion should be kept separate.  Government should just be ensuring people don't abuse each other. It should not be making statements about morality or empowering people to use "morality" to harm each other.

[Folly]

Even talk about Nazi regimes or whatever - tell me how the world is going to stop that philosophy and its proponents without violence? Does that get called genocidal, because that is indeed wiping out a population due to their culture?
Talk about opposing (or ultimately eradicating) something like Christianity because it is "harmful" or whatever - how is that different from the complaint about the Old Testament God eradicating some group because it was "harmful"?  Put another way: if you complain about God (or religions or political groups) calling for the eradication of some group and its philosophies, then you don't have a leg to stand on when calling for the eradication of that group.  There's no fundamental difference in a post-modern world with no absolute morality.  The trap closes if there's an argument that there is an absolute morality, because who is to say one of the old religious texts didn't actually have the "absolute" one all along?

Even if an omnipotent God knows what is the Greater Good, that is not justification for his followers to demand the same authority by association. It is the Acts of Men which are being criticised here, not Acts of God.

[anewaname]

...
And very authoritarian Christians are getting power in the US and the whole world will be screwed should they get enough to destroy American democracy. This is why Christianity must be opposed instead of going "Those are not real Christians, everything is fine"

Besides the authoritarian Christians, one of the USA-based Jewish/Zionist/Israeli podcasters was telling his listeners to move into the "red states" where the "right-minded" people live to protect their wealth, etc. He was saying this with all the vitriol that the Maga folk use. Of all those podcasts I have listened to, it is aggravating I didn't tag that one so I could find it later.

[McTraveller]

Even if an omnipotent God knows what is the Greater Good, that is not justification for his followers to demand the same authority by association. It is the Acts of Men which are being criticised here, not Acts of God.

Agreed.  I guess maybe I'm splitting hairs - but not at you guys. Mostly about the people changing the behaviors ("acts of men") associated with the label Christianity.

Besides the authoritarian Christians, one of the USA-based Jewish/Zionist/Israeli podcasters was telling his listeners to move into the "red states" where the "right-minded" people live to protect their wealth, etc. He was saying this with all the vitriol that the Maga folk use. Of all those podcasts I have listened to, it is aggravating I didn't tag that one so I could find it later.

This is the kind of stuff that is annoying about the Internet in general. How can you hold people like that podcaster to account for what they say?  Not just directly - but also in the public eye?  That's the hard part - when so much of the public loves the rush of being told they are right, even when they are objectively wrong or misleading at best (e.g., moving states is really orthogonal to "protecting your wealth" or whatever...)  I don't have a solution for populism.

[hector13]

Teach critical thinking in schools. Populists don’t tend to offer realistic ideas, just things that sound nice.

Fakeedit: in saying that, intelligent people are more likely to fall for either conspiracies or cults, I can’t remember which.

[MaxTheFox]

Wait which roman empire? 

Presumably he meant the OG one.

The Byzantine one (aka Eastern Rome, it's the same entity and arguably a direct continuation of it) was Christian from the start-- and was a beacon of science and even social progress all while Western Europe was in shambles. They had better rights for the peasants than most of the other nations in Europe.

. No offense but that sounds a bit like a 'Third Rome' myth spinoff. After the 6th-7th century the Byzantines were crashing down culturally as fast as anyone else. For a while they had more Alexandrine leftovers and cultural osmosis goodies of stuff the Arabs brought from the East, I grant you that..

iirc it was in 1204 (the Fourth Crusade) when it really decayed culturally. Been a while since I really studied it though.

The claim was that Christianity can't be authoritarian because of some words in the Bible. It can. It was authoritarian many times. "Not all Christians" or "Those are not true Christians" or "Christianity changes over time" don't change the observation that "teachings of Jesus" and authoritarianism are perfectly compatible.

And very authoritarian Christians are getting power in the US and the whole world will be screwed should they get enough to destroy American democracy. This is why Christianity must be opposed instead of going "Those are not real Christians, everything is fine"

Why can't you oppose one interpretation of a thing? Imagine if I said "we should eliminate all liberals because anarcho-capitalists exist". Would you like that? Fundamentalists are prevalent, yes. That does not mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

To say "we need to oppose Christianity" is also too broad - it's like saying we need to oppose cereal.

It is not too broad for me. Let's say you believe that a certain book (let's say Mein Kampf) promotes wrong or outright evil ideas. Should you oppose all versions of ideology coming from this book or should you focus your attention only on the worst ones, pretending that the book is OK to not insult moderates and ones who dabble in it?

The Bible is such a book for me. Not only does it promote falsehoods, it also promotes evil ideas. Its main character is an evil, abusive, cruel being who is presented as perfect. Good is what your master thinks is good. If your superior orders you to kill your son - you shut up and do this. If your superior orders you to genocide some nation - you shut up and do this.

It is corrupted at its core. The very basic idea of Abrahamic religions - that there is an all-mighty being we should obey\serve and that there is an absolute authority - promotes authoritarianism.

The Old Testament, where the bulk of such things, is widely regarded by progressive Christians, and many if not most actual theologians, as basically allegory. Those fundamentalist preachers in the deep south in America? They don't actually know shit.

Yes I do think fundamentalist Christianity should be stamped out, but to do so by taking out all of Christianity is equivalent to genocide for me and I would literally riot if it happened (in a freer country than Russia, I like not being in jail).

[Folly]

All of the good charitable things Christians do are just inadequate Band-Aid fixes for systemic problems which critically need to be addressed by a competent governing body who can provide consistent and reliable support for those in need without preaching at them about ancient fairy tales in the process.

Yes there would be a rough adjustment process, but in the long run we would be much more stable and rational without faith-based organizations corrupting the minds of our population.

[MaxTheFox]

I do think the church and state should be separated... but humans are incapable of being truly rational, so religion can never be wiped out. They have to have something faith-based to latch on to. If it's not religion then it's strong ideology or philosophy. Which I am not sure is always better...

And besides, I don't believe just for charity, I believe because I want to believe, and I don't truly care about rationality except as a tool to be used in fields where it is warranted, like STEM. What are you gonna do about that?

Edit: I was in a hurry typing that, basically a core point of my philosophy is that the world cannot actually be divined through pure logic and reasoning, so we have to use heuristics, be they religious, philosophical, or ideological. And all of them have blind spots. I do think logic has an use-- for things one is familiar with already.

[Folly]

humans are incapable of being truly rational, so religion can never be wiped out. They have to have something faith-based to latch on to
...
a core point of my philosophy is that the world cannot actually be divined through pure logic and reasoning, so we have to use heuristics, be they religious, philosophical, or ideological. And all of them have blind spots. I do think logic has an use-- for things one is familiar with already.

You're just spouting ideals which are not based in any facts in a desperate attempt to justify the mindset in which you've grown comfortable. Many people live free of religious influence, and they are better off without it.

Nobody is trying to claim that science has answered every question, nor that it is practical for any individual to process 100% of the answers that have been provided without taking some of it on faith. But using faith to give substance to answers which are not backed by any research or facts is a very different and dangerous practice, as history has shown many times over.

[MaxTheFox]

humans are incapable of being truly rational, so religion can never be wiped out. They have to have something faith-based to latch on to
...
a core point of my philosophy is that the world cannot actually be divined through pure logic and reasoning, so we have to use heuristics, be they religious, philosophical, or ideological. And all of them have blind spots. I do think logic has an use-- for things one is familiar with already.

You're just spouting ideals which are not based in any facts in a desperate attempt to justify the mindset in which you've grown comfortable. Many people live free of religious influence, and they are better off without it.

Nobody is trying to claim that science has answered every question, nor that it is practical for any individual to process 100% of the answers that have been provided without taking some of it on faith. But using faith to give substance to answers which are not backed by any research or facts is a very different and dangerous practice, as history has shown many times over.

I don't think ideals are useful in every aspect of thinking. In fact yes they are worse than useless in science. But I have seen little evidence that pure reasoning can actually give a coherent guideline for how to live, in the mundane world. Belief systems like "effective altruism" are frankly worse.

I believe humans can be better than the hellworld we are in. I do not have any evidence for it, but I believe it anyways because the alternative is to lay down and die. That's faith-- incidentally it is separate but related to my religious faith. There are no facts or research to be done regarding this. And I know that faith can be used to justify atrocities too. What matters is the goals of the person using faith, not their mindset... if someone is bigoted they can twist scientific fact to justify their bigotry. Ends over means.

And sure, many people are raised without religious influence. They still take lots of other things on faith which was my point. Take out spiritual religion and secular "religion" takes its place. It's just how the human brain works.

I had a rationalist phase. Then I cut all ties and burned all bridges with the movement, because they act like a cult. So I ended up just... embracing irrationality in terms of society, and life got easier. What is YOUR evidence that humans are even capable of acting without biases that manifest as faith?

[Strongpoint]

is that the world cannot actually be divined through pure logic and reasoning, so we have to use heuristics

I read it as: "We can't know everything... So we will pretend that we know." And this is exactly one of my main problems when we talk about religion in politics. They look at a complex problem, "know" a solution from the holy text, revelation, or whatever, and start "fixing it" according to this "knowledge".

What is even worse, they try fixing stuff that is not a problem at all because their religion says that it is a problem.

[MaxTheFox]

is that the world cannot actually be divined through pure logic and reasoning, so we have to use heuristics

I read it as: "We can't know everything... So we will pretend that we know." And this is exactly one of my main problems when we talk about religion in politics. They look at a complex problem, "know" a solution from the holy text, revelation, or whatever, and start "fixing it" according to this "knowledge".

What is even worse, they try fixing stuff that is not a problem at all because their religion says that it is a problem.

I never said that's the right way either. Unlike them I recognize that these holy texts were written in a different time for a different culture... what worked for Mesopotamian farmers or Romans won't work for America or anywhere else on 21st-century Earth.

That is where secular, ideological faith should come in.