I'll take your thread and go somewhere else with it. Many religious people take God's name in vain incessantly. They say God wants you to do this or that, good hates this or that with no fear of sinning. Taking God's name in vain has devolved into saying "jeasus fucking Christ" when you hit your thumb with a hammer but it really centers around pretending you know God's will. It's the sin of pride. It's immodesties pinnacle. Anyone who wears a polyester blend, eats shrimp and is also willing to tell me I'm going to hell because I use drugs or had sex before marriage or have gay friends based in a few vague Bible quotes can pretty much suck it. They are are using God's name in vain and are pretty much on the outside of biblical teaching. If they were to say "I think you are going to hell," I'd be perfectly fine with it.
This is a concept that has always puzzled me... I don't know which I find funnier: the atheist who exclaims the name of diety when they smack their thumb with a hammer... or the "devout" christian who does the same thing. For the atheist - why not just yell out "Richard Dwakins" or "Daniel Dennett". Or just some random name. If God isn't real and Jesus was just some dude... why exclaim their name ever? Why not simply yell "Justin!" or "Avocado!"? For the devout... well... it's just funny.Taking God's name in vain
Yeah, and this turned me off of even reading the Bible for a long time. Now that I've started to do so, though, I find a lot of beauty and wisdom in there. Plus, I find it significant that like 99% of the bullshit moralizing comes from Paul's various epistles. I don't feel particularly obligated to follow those.
Shoot. A good portion of The Sermon of the Mount is Jesus saying "Don't be a dick." I'm always a bit nervous talking about scripture and such, but Matthew 7:1-5 kind of directly addresses this whole thing. There's a writing by Baha'u'llah that touches on some very similar themes that I read from time to time, because I like it. What's really interesting is that the concept of "Don't be a dick" can sometimes be a bit overwhelming when you think of everything that philosophy entails. No one can do it. Period. But the desire to be as little of a dick as possible should be there and I think for most people, it really is. Personally, sometimes I think people have the wrong view of religion. When people think of religion as "Don't do this. Don't do that. This is bad. This is wrong," all they'll focus on is how people, including them, fall short. I'd like to think that maybe if people think of religion as "Look at all of these wonderful things we're encouraged and empowered to do," there'd be a lot more positive focus and definitely more acceptance and inclusion, though it still wouldn't always be easy.
I think the problem most people have with religion is not religion per se but religion's externalization. Anybody whose faith focuses primarily on their place in the world and their practice as a method and means to beatification is likely to incur little wrath. Anybody whose faith focuses primarily on altering the behavior of others is gonna face controversy. The Jews have been persecuted since the 8th century BC but because the majority of their religion is inward-facing, they've adapted and largely found a place in many non-Jewish societies. I suspect that if their religion had a proselytization component like the Mormons they'd have been wiped out before the Peloponnesian War.
Depends on your definition of "dick". You can be a very agreeable person, and to you, "being a dick" would mean simply disagreeing with someone, since it is in your nature to act in harmony rather than (constructive) disarray. If you are, on the other hand, very disagreeable, it might mean "don't be actively involved in harming another person you've never crossed paths with". That's a broad spectrum of allowed ground: it would mean you are allowed to slight someone who did you wrong, including bloody revenge (if you're so inclined, but other factors - like aggressiveness and certain natural sadism - would have to play into it). There seems to be no natural, objective line whereupon crossing which you'd be considered universally evil. Making others follow your definition is a disrespect to the natural differences between our worldviews and character traits. Any one person is not legible for setting that line for everybody else. Not disagreeing with the quote, but adding a dimension to it that seems often missing. That's a good way to think of it. The problem, I believe, is how religions portray our flawedness. If you keep telling me that I must eternally repent for the sins of an imaginary character simply because I am related to that character by blood, I would naturally not feel well about this idea. It's an application of an antiquated idea (that I am my ancestors, therefore I must pay their debts - vengeance gone awry) to establish what is, fundamentally, a reasonable idea (that we must improve upon our imperfect being) in an authoritarian way. If, instead, you tell me why I'm flawed and what can I do about it, I'd be inclined to go ahead and do it. Now, I understand the rationale behind my nature and know that I'm not trapped in this terrible state of deep flawedness. I am enlightened as to my being and empowered to change it, as is in my nature as a human. We're all flawed. There's nothing perfect lest we perceive it as such (thus, a perfect moment with the person you love is attainable). We can't act out our fantasies of power and control without consequence. I feel like the difference between psychology and religion is that psychology acknowledges and teaches us to be better. It doesn't seem possible for religion to turn this aspect of itself around any time soon, if at all: there's too much baggage. I'm even going to say that there's too much trash: holding onto old, antiquated ideas, making no apology for the things the church as an entity made or allowed to be (as Stephen Fry so eloquently put) and continuing preaching the same old story that existed for millenia where the rest of the world has made moral, psychological and otherwise scientific discoveries about ourselves and other people. If I were king, I would gather philosophers from all over the country - or, indeed, excellent ones from abroad - and make them use their understanding of the human nature and being to construct a system of beliefs that corresponds - and continues to correspond as time goes on - to the most accurate contemporary representation of existing as a human being. It is from that point that I would make them construct a supplimentary system of beliefs that would ensure that human beings who understand the main system could apply certain certified and tested methods to improve their own lives and, once they're rid of major flaws (like being incapable of holding a relationship due to fear of abandonment), others'. I don't religion is up for the task as it is. Not with the constant news of how the church hides and protects their child abusers from justice. Not with the way priests drive expensive cars when their believes advice them to abstain from excessive luxury. Not with the fatalistic idea that we'll never be perfect as God has supposedly made us. At the very least, I believe a fundamental restructuring would be required. At that point, it would be almost easier to simply invent something new.But the desire to be as little of a dick as possible should be there and I think for most people, it really is.
I'd like to think that maybe if people think of religion as "Look at all of these wonderful things we're encouraged and empowered to do," there'd be a lot more positive focus and definitely more acceptance and inclusion
Each society kind of has their own definitions on what they consider acceptable and unacceptable. This includes hard laws, both secular and religious, as well as less strict but still important mores and folkways. Well, there are certainly lines that people cross sooner or later that cause people to categorize them as “bad.” How do you feel about the idea though, that the lines are blurry and seem to move about? I think you’re touching at the edges of how and why religions explain suffering and bad behavior and how we go about addressing it as people. Different religions have different explanations. To me, personally, I think the focus often seems negative just because the original questions, such as “Why do we suffer” and “Why do people do bad things,” have a negative connotation to begin with. The goal of psychology is to understand why people behave the way they do as individuals. The goal of psychiatry is to help us be healthy in regards to our psychological health. Many religions similarly encourage us to be strong, rightful people, both to ourselves and to others. This encouragement is found in many forms, from theology to parables to lectures to even prayer. I honestly think that one of the main roles of religion is to form social cohesion and it’s kind of difficult to have that if you don’t do your best to encourage people to be good to each other. Religion, our relationship with it, it’s relationship with us, and its relationship to the world is constantly evolving. It’s not a static thing in the slightest. Theology as we know and understand it today is different than theology as we know and understand it five hundred years ago and the further we go back in time, the further it changes. Look at Christianity, how old it is, yet people still look towards it to find inspiration to making the world a better place. You’re convoluting things. It’s important to understand how things work together, but it’s also important to segment things and see them individualistically. There are many bad actors in the religious world. But there are many bad actors in the world period. Because individuals or institutions have a religious base, it doesn’t mean religion is necessarily to blame for their behavior. Let me ask you this, if tomorrow war broke out between Russia and America, would you blame me because I’m an American? Would you blame my constitution? Would you blame my military? Would you blame my government? Would it be some of those mixed together with some blame layed more on some than others? How would you want me to answer those questions in reverse? Here’s a whole list of something new. You’ll have everything from stuff that expands on more traditional religions, such as The Abrahamic Faiths and Hinduism, to Neo-Paganism, to UFO cults. Some of that stuff is pretty mundane. Some of that stuff is pretty out there. Some of that stuff could be downright scary. If you check it out, you'll actually see the Baha'i Faith is on there. Want an open confession? Sometimes I wonder about trying to be a good Baha'i, because it is new, because the early days of The Faith did have a rough past, and because I worry that there's actually a bit of truth to the argument that the number of adherents a particular faith has lends to its legitimacy. This stuff isn't easy to figure out, many religious people go through periods of intense doubt, and there's a good chance many of us have things all wrong. In a way, that's okay, because that's part of life, that's part of being human, and the important thing we take away from all of this is that it's important to try and be good people, to ourselves and to each other.Depends on your definition of "dick".
There seems to be no natural, objective line whereupon crossing which you'd be considered universally evil.
That's a good way to think of it. The problem, I believe, is how religions portray our flawedness.
I feel like the difference between psychology and religion is that psychology acknowledges and teaches us to be better.
It doesn't seem possible for religion to turn this aspect of itself around any time soon, if at all: there's too much baggage. I'm even going to say that there's too much trash: holding onto old, antiquated ideas, making no apology for the things the church as an entity made or allowed to be (as Stephen Fry so eloquently put) and continuing preaching the same old story that existed for millenia where the rest of the world has made moral, psychological and otherwise scientific discoveries about ourselves and other people.
I don't religion is up for the task as it is. Not with the constant news of how the church hides and protects their child abusers from justice. Not with the way priests drive expensive cars when their believes advice them to abstain from excessive luxury.
At the very least, I believe a fundamental restructuring would be required. At that point, it would be almost easier to simply invent something new.
First of all, I'd like to apologize if I come off as unnecessarily antagonistic. I mean to pick no fight with anyone. I've been feeling rather willing to engage with antagonistic thinking today, so it might leak into the text. After that, I'd like to acknowledge that I have nothing against individuals following any kind of scripture. I have heavy problems with the scriptures themselves. I don't mean harm unto anyone one following the scriptures per se. "It's not okay to hate people for their beliefs". That being said, I'm not above blaming people for the bad things they've done, whether in accordance with or in misuse of their holy texts and theological decisions. We, individually, have each a will to use our power to exert influence onto the world in the way we deem most appropriate. If you decide to exert it in a manner that's harmful to anyone, even yourself, I will judge you for your behavior, whether you're acting on your religion's morality or your own. Here goes. Those aren't instated to encourage one not to be a dick. Those are instated for one not to upset the social order. Each operates on a different level. Their reconcilability depends not on the person not willing to be a dick but on one's social orientation: towards self (highly individual) or towards society (highly social). You may choose to define your worldview based on the morals you grew up with, or you may be naturally attuned to one particular set of values, but the existence of laws and folkways in themselves doesn't discourage dickotry. Those aren't universal. The best you can get out of them is "the majority agrees that". Then, you get into the territory of autists, psychopaths, narcissists and others whose sets of values differ from the majority of the population. You may, with a high degree of success, argue that only the majority's will matters anyway because of the sheer social and, heck, physical mass of such a group. Doesn't preclude that it's not universal to begin with. Blurry? From the statistical point of view, definitely - at least from the reasons stated above. From the personal point of view, though? I'd argue that a line is blurry until the person decides whether crossing it is acceptable - and from those personal decisions a big-picture view on the morals of the given group arises. Move about? If history teaches us anything, it's that they most definitely do. Slavery was once okay with many cultures, including religions. Women's rights were practically unheard of in the West until the suffragette movement. Monarchy was once the preferred form of government. Discoveries with time shift our perspective on things. Not if you fucking beat people into submission to achieve it. If you're acting on given positive values - generosity, helping the poor etc. - on the notion of going to Hell if you don't, you're not being kind: you're acting in self-defence. It's a necessary action if you truly believe in posthumous damnation, but acting on a fictional construct we have no way of proving the existence of will, at best, hamper the believer's performance: you probably know on your own how people act worse under pressure. I imagine the existential pressure like that would cause a lot of background noise. Social order is important, but it only ever works as a social order (as opposed to an oppressive, authoritarian order) when people agree to it. If you're shamed into submitting to a given set of values, you better leave the nearest second later, because the only thing you're going to extract from such an order in a civil society is damage to the self, which will only make you less mentally healthy as a result. Authoritarian order is only ever important in crises, when you need people to get their shit together and operate on scarce resources to survive. Even there is a place for reason: "I'm taking control of this group so that we could live long enough to tell the bloody tale. This is non-negotiable. Act according to the rules or risk lonely death outside the camp". Now, harsh as the conditions are, at least people know what they're getting. They have a goal, and they have the hope of cohesion. But there's also the promise of Heaven if you behave, isn't there? If you live a good life, if you don't sin, if you're deserving all the way, you'll get to the place blessed by God, whatever it is in your particular definition. My problem with that is that people are never 100% sinless. The idea that Christianity got right is that we're all sinners. My problem with its attitude towards our imperfect nature is that we are to be constantly punished for it. This attitude's aim is to instill humility, but if we've learned anything in the past several decades, it's that forgiveness of the self leads to salvation, not being sinless to begin with. Christianity has the answer here, as well: ask forgiveness from another human being who, for some unobvious reason, is closer to God than you are, and you're good to go. But even that doesn't wipe your record clean, does it? You're still going to Hell. It's the "100% Completionist" challenge you didn't know you had to partake in in order to not suffer for eternity afterwards. Bloody harsh competition to beat, isn't it? Be all the way humile and don't disturb the order, and you may get the pass to the Wonderful Place. It's a terrible trap to set. "All or nothing" is the egoistical mentality I spent a lot of time shedding because it's sour to point of acidity for your living. If it guides any kind of moral code, it's not a code I would encourage anyone - much less my children - to follow, because it's going to break you if you aren't naturally attuned to it. (I recognize I'm taking an extreme and uneducated view of religion with those last few sentences, if not with the whole passage. I haven't had actual experience with real believers and their communities, so this is the best I can do so far) Not quickly enough. Including your own faith, by the way: Further down the article, it also says: ...but also: "many problems, both physical and psychological. Some are the result of the individual’s own behaviour, some are caused by the circumstances in which he grew up, some are congenital... homosexuality is an abnormality, is a great problem for the individual so afflicted, and... he or she should strive to overcome it." ...which does not sound to me like acceptance. When a high authority of one's faith claims that one's natural (and pretty bloody common) predisposition is a flaw to overcome when the whole educated world knows it's not, that's a claim against the faith. I would, at the very least, expect you to condemn that outcome and admit the major shortcomings that led to such a terrible turn of events, for both sides, and not go behind "But we have museums and operas!". I expect the same from my end. Of course there are bad actors anywhere. The difference is: in society, we punish them by law. Why are child molesters allowed to live their life in peace despite doing such harm to the child (or children)? (I am hereby linking to the Stephen Fry video from the previous comment) Why is the Catholic Church passively working against the lawful investigation in such a case? I don't even care if the Pope himself spoke out against it if the rest of the institution keeps on with their bullshit. This is not me ranting against religion per se. This is me ranting against the major institutions of it that condone or even passively encourage ill behavior. I recognize that some people use certain beliefs as a justification for their own sick and harmful behavior. Some of those people hide under an institution, either assumed or built as their own. Some of those institutions have "Church" in their name. That being said, I would condemn anyone doing ill a degree more if they do it in the name of God. That way, they're shifting responsibility from themselves - which they ought to bear fully if they act on their own - by saying "I'm doing God's will". At least I will have some respect for a murderer admitting they did it to satisfy their own desires: they're being honest.Each society kind of has their own definitions on what they consider acceptable and unacceptable. This includes hard laws, both secular and religious, as well as less strict but still important mores and folkways.
Well, there are certainly lines that people cross sooner or later that cause people to categorize them as “bad.”
How do you feel about the idea though, that the lines are blurry and seem to move about?
I honestly think that one of the main roles of religion is to form social cohesion and it’s kind of difficult to have that if you don’t do your best to encourage people to be good to each other.
Religion, our relationship with it, it’s relationship with us, and its relationship to the world is constantly evolving.
The Bahá'í Faith teaches that the only acceptable form of sexual expression is within marriage, and Bahá'í marriage is defined as exclusively between one man and one woman. This definition excludes premarital, extramarital, or homosexual intimacy from allowable Bahá'í practices.
Bahá'í teachings state that Bahá'ís should not treat homosexual people as condemned outcasts, nor expect people who are not Bahá'í to follow Bahá'í laws. The Bahá'í writings teach adherents to treat everyone with respect and dignity, and an attitude of discrimination and social intolerance toward homosexuals is not supported by the Bahá'í teachings.
The Universal House of Justice has responded to research that claims that homosexuality is innate and not changeable by asserting that homosexuality is one of
Let me ask you this, if tomorrow war broke out between Russia and America, would you blame me because I’m an American?