The Nature of True Religion

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 29, 2017 9:38:13 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Dec 29, 2017 8:56:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Indeed, which is why I was careful to qualify point #3 "personal benefit [...] aside from that inherent in helping other people".

I'm sure you'll agree that any happiness or satisfaction one may derive from helping others doesn't obviate the selfless nature of the act.

Whether man has the "education he needs" is the key point of contention between Christians and non-Christians. Among Christians, there are disagreements about what Christians should and shouldn't do to teach others.

While you and I may disagree on what is right and what is wrong, I believe our views align to the extent that we both believe right and wrong exist, and that man must be proactively educated on what is right and what is wrong.

To point one:   Even if one receives payment of a material nature for helping others, it doesn't obviate the good done; however, there is always a return on investment, whether personal or otherwise. Such things are never totally selfless and that should be recognized and owned by those who tout their selflessness (that's not pointed at anyone, just for the record). Human nature is, and will remain what it is.

To point two:   If you and I disagree on what is right and wrong, how and by whom is it determined who should be educating whom? What makes one of us so superior to the other as to render that one the teacher and the other the student? I'm more than twice your age, Virgil, and have spent many more years refining my views on life and living it. Should I find the need for education, I'll seek it out because I'm not a fool. When I do seek it out, I look for the right source from which to learn. I don't need someone else to decide what I need and intrude on my life to bring it to me. As I said, I'm not a fool. I also don't take my beliefs to others without their request and interest. I'm not superior to them and not qualified to teach them - only qualified to answer questions asked, if and when questions are asked, and only qualified to answer for myself.

Our views do align on the mutually recognized absolutes. Perhaps, you simply have more absolutes than I. The important thing to realize, as far as I'm concerned, is that not everyone needs another's "proactive" teaching to grow their world view and principles and not all will develop those from the same source. Individuals will come to this enlightenment, for the most part, through their own efforts and life experiences. For me, that's the richness of humanity.

1. The charge at hand (posited by Weltz) is that charitable giving for the purposes of preaching the gospel is "not selfless" as opposed to other kinds of charitable giving (e.g. donations to the Red Cross) which are selfless. Do you have an opinion on this specific charge?
   
   
2. "Should I find the need for education, I'll seek it out because I'm not a fool."  As you yourself muse: How do you know? On what do you base the assumption that only the wisdom you actively seek out is part of the education you need?
   
   "I don't need someone else to decide what I need and intrude on my life to bring it to me." Again: How do you presume to know this? What universal law can you cite to justify it? Belief in the omneity of your experience and the infallibility of your personal reasoning?
   
   "I also don't take my beliefs to others without their request and interest. I'm not superior to them and not qualified to teach them - only qualified to answer questions asked, if and when questions are asked, and only qualified to answer for myself."  Hence you don't support the enforcement of laws or regulations? You're not qualified to teach a man 'FGM is harmful; don't do it'; you're only qualified to comment if he comes to you asking your advice, and your answer has no relevance to anyone but yourself?
   
   I refuse to believe you're a moral relativist to this degree, and that's to your credit.
   
   
3. "Individuals will come to this enlightenment, for the most part, through their own efforts and life experiences. For me, that's the richness of humanity."
   
   I could not possibly disagree more. I can't conceive of a statement more contrary to human nature and the entirety of human history.
   

In any case, thank you for your candor. It helps me get a better tack on the spectrum of beliefs out there.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 29, 2017 12:06:28 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 29, 2017 11:30:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You don't believe your views are the correct ones?

Perhaps you believe our views can both be right? I say stealing candy from a baby is wrong; you say stealing candy from a baby is right; hence it's simultaneously wrong and right, and simply a matter of perspective?

Some people are indeed morally relativistic to this degree, but I don't believe you're one of them. I think you believe your views are the correct ones, you're willing to assert their correctness with confidence, and you understand that we cannot both be right. I also believe that if you reflected on it, you'd acknowledge that confidence in the correctness of one's views can exist independently of hubris.

I have no idea if I'm right or wrong.  I may die and find myself heading towards the fires of hell, or i may just die and be worm dirt.  Or I can find myself surrounded by 77 virgins.  Nobody knows until the time comes. 

I do know that stealing candy from a baby hurts the child, so it's wrong.   That's a simplistic right or wrong.   Life does have some moral relativity.   Is ending a life wrong?  Generally, yes, but if the person is wracked with pain from bone cancer, maybe it's right.   I think for me it would be right.  

It would seem your grievance is my asserting morals, etc. with certainty, and you'd prefer I equivocate.

I understand your frustration. Regardless, as I've opined in the OP, anyone who professes to follow the doctrines of Christ must "bet the farm"--stake their entire lives, with nothing held back--on discipleship.

I have two choices: I can commit wholly, in which case I'll either be right or spectacularly wrong. Or I can hold back, hedge my bets, and equivocate, in which case it doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong, my religion profits me nothing according to Christ's own word.

As for whether my beliefs comport with Christ's teachings, this would be a debate based on scripture. I've had countless such debates and (believe it or not) there are many doctrines I'm uncertain about. They tend to concern more minor, nuanced things.

I've never had a scriptural debate on YMAM.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 29, 2017 11:52:27 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I believe these discussions are more enjoyable and productive if posters don't resort to bringing up comparisons that are teetering on the end of a high limb. Rather than using taking candy from a baby (which nobody would find the right decision unless the baby was choking on the candy), why not use something more common to the actual living of life but on which people might disagree? If we don't immediately jump to the absurd to defend our arguments, we'll all get more out of the discussion.

There are plenty of  things in life that are, in good part, equivocal. While something might be very right for you considering your belief set, life experience, location, etc.,  that same thing might be quite wrong for me, or someone else. Who's to say what's the absolute right way under those conditions? In my opinion, one can only be absolutely confident in one's views from one's own perspective. From another's perspective, it may not look the same and we cannot always see through another's eyes. We can but endeavor to understand and avoid condemnation of that we do not truly know.

From here on, I'll probably stay out of this discussion, for the most part, as I generally do on this board. I do feel the need, at times, to insert a bit of logic and proportion to the discussion but am fully capable of quelling that desire.

We jump to the "absurd", which is simply an extreme, to hopefully establish that on at least one thing--taking candy from a baby--swamp agrees with me that there is a definite right and wrong that can be asserted with certainty. Hence we establish that on at least one thing, swamp consider hers views to be "the correct ones" and presumably not hubristic.

Once we've established this common ground, we can move on to the issue of degree, justification, etc., knowing that asserting one's beliefs to be correct to the exclusion of all others is not hubristic ipso facto.

[mmhmm]

I answered your first question in my post, Virgil. There is no totally selfless giving. Secondary gain is a reality.

With regard to your second point, you've again jumped to the extreme.  I stated there are some absolutes. I'm not a moral relativist. I may, however, have fewer (or different) absolutes than you hold true.

As to your third point, we'll agree to disagree. As I understand it, you take your direction from scripture. That's what tells you how it's best to live your life. I, on the other hand, have built my philosophy of life from the teachings of my parents (two atheists) and countless relatives who read to child-me from the Bible (and other books) and nurtured my curiosity and initiative. That very early learning coupled with the knowledge gained from experiences and the seeking of knowledge throughout my life is what has brought me to who I am. I'm grateful for all of it, the wonderful and the less-than-wonderful. I was a blank slate on which the world has written. I firmly believe there are many out there just like me, as I believe there are many out there just like you. I find richness in having both.

You're welcome. Thanks, too, to you and others who might share here. It's marvelous fodder for the curious mind and gives us something to think about.

[swamp]

Dec 29, 2017 12:35:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 29, 2017 12:06:28 GMT -5 swamp said:

I have no idea if I'm right or wrong.  I may die and find myself heading towards the fires of hell, or i may just die and be worm dirt.  Or I can find myself surrounded by 77 virgins.  Nobody knows until the time comes. 

I do know that stealing candy from a baby hurts the child, so it's wrong.   That's a simplistic right or wrong.   Life does have some moral relativity.   Is ending a life wrong?  Generally, yes, but if the person is wracked with pain from bone cancer, maybe it's right.   I think for me it would be right.  

It would seem your grievance is my asserting morals, etc. with certainty, and you'd prefer I equivocate.

I understand your frustration. Regardless, as I've opined in the OP, anyone who professes to follow the doctrines of Christ must "bet the farm"--stake their entire lives, with nothing held back--on discipleship.

I have two choices: I can commit wholly, in which case I'll either be right or spectacularly wrong. Or I can hold back, hedge my bets, and equivocate, in which case it doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong, my religion profits me nothing according to Christ's own word.

As for whether my beliefs comport with Christ's teachings, this would be a debate based on scripture. I've had countless such debates and (believe it or not) there are many doctrines I'm uncertain about. They tend to concern more minor, nuanced things.

I've never had a scriptural debate on YMAM.

exactly.  Life isn't black and white, and i don't believe moral certainty is always possible.   Some morality questions are easily answered, others, not so much.  

I'm happy you want to comport with Christ's teachings, that's great, but I don't agree you do.  I think his teachings about taking care of the poor and sick are great, and i don't think he really cares who sleeps with who.  

[swamp]

Dec 29, 2017 12:49:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 29, 2017 11:52:27 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I believe these discussions are more enjoyable and productive if posters don't resort to bringing up comparisons that are teetering on the end of a high limb. Rather than using taking candy from a baby (which nobody would find the right decision unless the baby was choking on the candy), why not use something more common to the actual living of life but on which people might disagree? If we don't immediately jump to the absurd to defend our arguments, we'll all get more out of the discussion.

There are plenty of  things in life that are, in good part, equivocal. While something might be very right for you considering your belief set, life experience, location, etc.,  that same thing might be quite wrong for me, or someone else. Who's to say what's the absolute right way under those conditions? In my opinion, one can only be absolutely confident in one's views from one's own perspective. From another's perspective, it may not look the same and we cannot always see through another's eyes. We can but endeavor to understand and avoid condemnation of that we do not truly know.

From here on, I'll probably stay out of this discussion, for the most part, as I generally do on this board. I do feel the need, at times, to insert a bit of logic and proportion to the discussion but am fully capable of quelling that desire.

We jump to the "absurd", which is simply an extreme, to hopefully establish that on at least one thing--taking candy from a baby--swamp agrees with me that there is a definite right and wrong that can be asserted with certainty. Hence we establish that on at least one thing, swamp consider hers views to be "the correct ones" and presumably not hubristic.

Once we've established this common ground, we can move on to the issue of degree, justification, etc., knowing that asserting one's beliefs to be correct to the exclusion of all others is not hubristic ipso facto.

No, my statement was more nuanced than that.   

[thyme4change]

Candy is unhealthy, especially for babies. Giving them sweets will warp their pallet against natural and healthy foods and candy shouldn't be given to a baby at all.

And, really, what are we defining as a baby. We don't even give them baby food until a certain age. Handing peanut m&m's to a 6 month old would be a stupid thing to do. And I would probably take that away from them.

So, is taking candy from a baby wrong?

[kittensaver]

Dec 29, 2017 13:10:21 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 29, 2017 12:35:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm happy you want to comport with Christ's teachings, that's great, but I don't agree you do.  I think his teachings about taking care of the poor and sick are great, and i don't think he really cares who sleeps with who.  

To quote John Fugelsang:

Jesus was a radical non-violent revolutionary who hung around with lepers, hookers and crooks; He wasn't American and He never spoke English; Was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty and anti-public prayer (M 6:5); But He was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, and never asked a leper for a co-pay; He was a long-haired, brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.

[thyme4change]

Dec 29, 2017 14:36:32 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Dec 29, 2017 13:10:21 GMT -5 swamp said:

I'm happy you want to comport with Christ's teachings, that's great, but I don't agree you do.  I think his teachings about taking care of the poor and sick are great, and i don't think he really cares who sleeps with who.  

To quote John Fugelsang:

Jesus was a radical non-violent revolutionary who hung around with lepers, hookers and crooks; He wasn't American and He never spoke English; Was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty and anti-public prayer (M 6:5); But He was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, and never asked a leper for a co-pay; He was a long-haired, brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.

To paraphrase Mike Birbiglia...

Jesus was a socialist Jew. He was the original Bernie Sanders.

(And then he says a bunch of Jesus stuff in a Woody Allen voice. If you haven't watched "Thank God for Jokes" on Netflix you are missing out. It is hilarious!)

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 29, 2017 14:36:32 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Dec 29, 2017 13:10:21 GMT -5 swamp said:

I'm happy you want to comport with Christ's teachings, that's great, but I don't agree you do.  I think his teachings about taking care of the poor and sick are great, and i don't think he really cares who sleeps with who.  

To quote John Fugelsang:

Jesus was a radical non-violent revolutionary who hung around with lepers, hookers and crooks; He wasn't American and He never spoke English; Was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty and anti-public prayer (M 6:5); But He was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, and never asked a leper for a co-pay; He was a long-haired, brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.

He was indeed radical and non-violent, intensely critical of hypocrisy, but respectful of institutions and authorities. His message to lepers, hookers, and crooks was to repent and seek the Kindgom of God. He wasn't anti-wealth, but he did require his disciples to put him before all things, including the accumulation of wealth. He also preached on the inherent dangers of trusting in wealth . He was not anti- death penalty, but he magnified the law, teaching that justice must be without hypocrisy and tempered with mercy. Nor was he anti- public prayer (he prayed publicly on many occasions), but he condemned prayer for show and other selfish reasons.

He upheld the Law he'd given to man in the Old Testament to the fullest, including prohibitions on homosexual acts and abortion. He indeed never justified torture, and concerned himself with greater things than tax policy during his ministry. He was not long-haired or homeless (although he didn't stay at home during his ministry). He never held the title of "community organizer". He admonished prostitutes to turn from sin. He was indeed of the house of Judah, as prophesied, born in what is today known as the Middle East.

I know who the Man was, madam.

ETA: Many Christians don't realize that Christ was the God of the Old Testament. The Rock that followed Israel. The One who spoke with Moses on Mt. Sinai. The Great I AM.

The Bible tells us all of this, but many churches simply don't teach it.

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2017 9:20:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 29, 2017 2:55:30 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If you wouldn't want a religion you don't agree with forced upon you... you are a hypocrite if you force your religion on others that don't want it.

This is tantamount to saying "If you wouldn't want the laws of Salafist Islam forced on you abroad, you're a hypocrite if you force your neighbour to comply with Western law."

Hypocrisy is to exempt oneself from one's own standards. If the Christian standard was "All religions are good and no one religion should interfere with any other," then indeed Christian interference in other religions would be hypocritical.

However, as we well know, this is decidedly not the Christian standard. The Christian standard is "There is one Way, one Truth, one God, one Holy Law, and no others. Objective right and wrong do exist and are well defined." There is no relativism in Christ. There are no injunctions against preaching to non-believers for sake of noninterference. The standard is asserted boldly and absolutely, no different than the laws of our society--one set of laws imposed uniformly across all people, with or without their consent (at least until the advent of affirmative action, protected classes, sanctuary cities, financial bailouts, etc., but I digress).

No, it's not.

I know very well what hypocricy is, I see it a lot on boards by moderators that are hypocrites (for the record, I am actually NOT talking about the Mods of this board, in this instance... so no need to complain or move this post to the "Complaints about Moderators can go here" thread)

And hypocrisy is exactly what you are showing if you wouldn't want other religions forced upon you, yet think that it's fine to force your religion upon others. How is that NOT "exempt[ing] oneself from one's own standards"? Your "standard" is "religion shouldn't be forced on others", yet you want an exemption to that standard of yours, so that you and your religion can do exactly that.

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2017 8:36:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

@richardintn : You're not disputing the specific arguments in the OP, and I indeed spent quite a bit of time crafting the missive, paying particular care and attention to how you personally would interpret it. If you read it in its entirety, I think you'll realize our positions aren't so far apart.

I am disputing "point 1". As the rest of the OP is based off of that, it's mostly irrelevant to me.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 29, 2017 23:11:18 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Your "standard" is "religion shouldn't be forced on others"...

This isn't my standard, at least as far as "religion" pertains to the factors listed in the OP.

For the record, neither are "laws shouldn't be forced on others", "obligations shouldn't be forced on others", or "norms, customs, and protocols shouldn't be forced on others". The appropriateness of enforcement depends on the specific laws, obligations, norms, customs, and protocols we're talking about.

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2017 9:54:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 29, 2017 23:11:18 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Your "standard" is "religion shouldn't be forced on others"...

This isn't my standard, at least as far as "religion" pertains to the factors listed in the OP.

For the record, neither are "laws shouldn't be forced on others", "obligations shouldn't be forced on others", or "norms, customs, and protocols shouldn't be forced on others". The appropriateness of enforcement depends on the specific laws, obligations, norms, customs, and protocols we're talking about.

By definition "standard" is how something applies in the average case. As there's only ONE religion (yours) that you feel should be allowed undue pressure upon non-adherents, and ALL OTHER religions you feel shouldn't be allowed any pressure... by default your "standard" (by definition of the word) is disallowment of pressure.

Thanks for playing.

And yes, I agree that "the appropriateness" depends... your religion is just as equally "made up" as everyone else's is. So the "appropriateness" of them NOT being forced on those that don't want them is equal.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 30, 2017 21:32:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 30, 2017 9:54:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

This isn't my standard, at least as far as "religion" pertains to the factors listed in the OP.

For the record, neither are "laws shouldn't be forced on others", "obligations shouldn't be forced on others", or "norms, customs, and protocols shouldn't be forced on others". The appropriateness of enforcement depends on the specific laws, obligations, norms, customs, and protocols we're talking about.

By definition "standard" is how something applies in the average case. As there's only ONER religion (yours) that you feel should be allowed undue pressure upon non-adherents, and ALL OTHER religions you feel shouldn't be allowed any pressure... by default your "standard" (by definition of the word) is disallowment of pressure.

Thanks for playing.

And yes, I agree that "the appropriateness" depends... your religion is just as equally "made up" as everyone else's is. So the "appropriateness" of them NOT being forced on those that don't want them is equal.

Hence if you say "No shooting at stop signs for anybody, but everyone can hunt rabbits," and I say "No hunting of rabbits for anybody, but everyone can shoot stop signs," and your law becomes the law of the land (necessarily to the exclusion of mine), your standard is hypocritical and you'd be a hypocrite to support it?

Of course not.

I think where you're stumbling is as follows: upon observing that my (religious) standard is fundamentally incompatible with other religious standards, you err in assuming that for a standard to be free of hypocrisy, it must be compatible with other standards of the same type. But this isn't a requirement unless the standards themselves make it a requirement, and many religions--Christianity and Islam among them--don't. Among other things, this means the two can never comingle without one or both violating their own standards to some degree.

Some would say this kind of compromise is a good thing. A fundamentalist would not. Not all compromise is inherently good, which a fundamentalist acknowledges.

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2017 21:55:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 30, 2017 21:32:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

By definition "standard" is how something applies in the average case. As there's only ONER religion (yours) that you feel should be allowed undue pressure upon non-adherents, and ALL OTHER religions you feel shouldn't be allowed any pressure... by default your "standard" (by definition of the word) is disallowment of pressure.

Thanks for playing.

And yes, I agree that "the appropriateness" depends... your religion is just as equally "made up" as everyone else's is. So the "appropriateness" of them NOT being forced on those that don't want them is equal.

Hence if you say "No shooting at stop signs for anybody, but everyone can hunt rabbits," and I say "No hunting of rabbits for anybody, but everyone can shoot stop signs," and your law becomes the law of the land (necessarily to the exclusion of mine), your standard is hypocritical and you'd be a hypocrite to support it?

Of course not.

I think where you're stumbling is as follows: upon observing that my (religious) standard is fundamentally incompatible with other religious standards, you err in assuming that for a standard to be free of hypocrisy, it must be compatible with other standards of the same type. But this isn't a requirement unless the standards themselves make it a requirement, and many religions--Christianity and Islam among them--don't. Among other things, this means the two can never comingle without one or both violating their own standards to some degree.

Some would say this kind of compromise is a good thing. A fundamentalist would not. Not all compromise is inherently good, which a fundamentalist acknowledges.

And again you go off into flights of fancy.

It's not about me and what I say. It's about the community STANDARD. As it applies to ALL of a similar thing. If the STANDARD is "no shooting at Stop Signs" then it applies to ALL stop signs. Not just the red ones (they also come in yellow... for those that didn't know this... so you couldn't shoot the yellow ones either if the rule was "no stop signs" without designating color, to be fair and protect ALL the stop signs).

Not allowing the religious (of ALL religions) to push their beliefs upon others is ALWAYS a good thing. It protects everyone from undue pressure... even the religious from pressure by other religions and the areligious.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 30, 2017 22:03:59 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Not allowing the religious (of ALL religions) to push their beliefs upon others is ALWAYS a good thing.

Ipsa dixit. A point we'll never agree on.

As for the rest, my analogy seems to have deepened your confusion. I think fundamentally what you're trying to say is that I'm wrong (i.e. in error) to reject the quoted statement, not that I'm hypocritical to reject it.

If this isn't what you're trying to say then, hey!, at least we haven't broken our 0-28 losing streak on reaching consensus.

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2017 22:26:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 30, 2017 22:03:59 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Not allowing the religious (of ALL religions) to push their beliefs upon others is ALWAYS a good thing.

Ipsa dixit. A point we'll never agree on.

As for the rest, my analogy seems to have deepened your confusion. I think fundamentally what you're trying to say is that I'm wrong (i.e. in error) to reject the quoted statement, not that I'm hypocritical to reject it.

If this isn't what you're trying to say then, hey!, at least we haven't broken our 0-28 losing streak on reaching consensus.

It's true we probably will never agree on this because you are, as are most religious people, a hypocrite when it comes to forcing beliefs upon others. It's fine for YOU and YOUR religion... but should be forbidden for EVERYONE ELSE.

Well... guess what... to everyone NOT of your religion, the people of YOUR religion shouldn't be allowed to force yours on anyone either. Muslims believe that only THEIR religion should be the only one forced upon others. Jews believe that THEIR religion should be the only one forced upon others. Scientologists believe that their religion should be the only one forced upon others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I'm not the one that's confused, Virgil... 

[weltschmerz]

Dec 31, 2017 0:45:37 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 30, 2017 22:26:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Ipsa dixit. A point we'll never agree on.

As for the rest, my analogy seems to have deepened your confusion. I think fundamentally what you're trying to say is that I'm wrong (i.e. in error) to reject the quoted statement, not that I'm hypocritical to reject it.

If this isn't what you're trying to say then, hey!, at least we haven't broken our 0-28 losing streak on reaching consensus.

It's true we probably will never agree on this because you are, as are most religious people, a hypocrite when it comes to forcing beliefs upon others. It's fine for YOU and YOUR religion... but should be forbidden for EVERYONE ELSE.

Well... guess what... to everyone NOT of your religion, the people of YOUR religion shouldn't be allowed to force yours on anyone either. Muslims believe that only THEIR religion should be the only one forced upon others. Jews believe that THEIR religion should be the only one forced upon others. Scientologists believe that their religion should be the only one forced upon others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I'm not the one that's confused, Virgil... 

Actually, they don't. Jews don't proselytise.

[weltschmerz]

www.aish.com/atr/Jewish_Proselytizing.html


www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ask-the-expert-proselytism/

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2017 1:05:59 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Dec 31, 2017 0:45:37 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's true we probably will never agree on this because you are, as are most religious people, a hypocrite when it comes to forcing beliefs upon others. It's fine for YOU and YOUR religion... but should be forbidden for EVERYONE ELSE.

Well... guess what... to everyone NOT of your religion, the people of YOUR religion shouldn't be allowed to force yours on anyone either. Muslims believe that only THEIR religion should be the only one forced upon others. Jews believe that THEIR religion should be the only one forced upon others. Scientologists believe that their religion should be the only one forced upon others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I'm not the one that's confused, Virgil... 

Actually, they don't. Jews don't proselytise.

I've run into quite a few that would disagree with you.

ETA: I take that back... they weren't prosetlyizing. They weren't trying to get converts, so technically you are correct but not rebutting what I actually said. What I said was "Jews believe that THEIR religion should be the only one forced upon others". we are speaking about laws based upon the religious beliefs... not becoming followers OF that religion.

I have known many a Jew that was "pro-life" that attended rallies against abortion rights... because "the Torah says..."

I've also run into a few that have attended town council meetings trying to get Saturday (The Sabbath) declared a "blue law" day for religious reasons in a specific town (it was long ago, well before the internet took off mid to late 80's, and didn't pass, so I doubt if there's a record of it on-line).

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2017 9:20:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 29, 2017 2:55:30 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If you wouldn't want a religion you don't agree with forced upon you... you are a hypocrite if you force your religion on others that don't want it.

This is tantamount to saying "If you wouldn't want the laws of Salafist Islam forced on you abroad, you're a hypocrite if you force your neighbour to comply with Western law."

Hypocrisy is to exempt oneself from one's own standards. If the Christian standard was "All religions are good and no one religion should interfere with any other," then indeed Christian interference in other religions would be hypocritical.

However, as we well know, this is decidedly not the Christian standard. The Christian standard is "There is one Way, one Truth, one God, one Holy Law, and no others. Objective right and wrong do exist and are well defined." There is no relativism in Christ. There are no injunctions against preaching to non-believers for sake of noninterference. The standard is asserted boldly and absolutely, no different than the laws of our society--one set of laws imposed uniformly across all people, with or without their consent (at least until the advent of affirmative action, protected classes, sanctuary cities, financial bailouts, etc., but I digress).

So you do embrace theocracy. 

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2017 17:56:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 29, 2017 14:36:32 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

To quote John Fugelsang:

Jesus was a radical non-violent revolutionary who hung around with lepers, hookers and crooks; He wasn't American and He never spoke English; Was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty and anti-public prayer (M 6:5); But He was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, and never asked a leper for a co-pay; He was a long-haired, brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.

He was indeed radical and non-violent, intensely critical of hypocrisy, but respectful of institutions and authorities. His message to through lepers, hookers, and crooks was to repent and seek the Kindgom of God for everyone else! To get the fuck over themselves... 

[Deleted]

OMG. Abortion and homosexuality were never mentioned in the Bible. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 31, 2017 8:06:45 GMT -5 oped said:

So you do embrace theocracy. 

I embrace its inevitability.

It's not a Christian's personal responsibility to bring it about. Christ will accomplish this at His second coming.

A Christian's responsibilities are those laid out by the Bible: to live lawfully (by the whole Law of God and the laws of society [where they don't conflict with the Law of God]), respect authority, support the work of the Church (which has numerous mandates), worship God, serve as an ambassador for Christ, grow in grace and knowledge, strive wholeheartedly for self-improvement, love justice and mercy, care for one's fellow man, any many other things besides.

[Deleted]

 No. What you describe, as Christians being able to assert their will over others behavior, is a theocracy now. 

I understand how YOU interpret the Bible. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 31, 2017 8:14:32 GMT -5 oped said:

Abortion and homosexuality were never mentioned in the Bible. 

Homosexuality is condemned in several scriptures. The definitive resource (a de facto Bible study) I usually point people to is this whitepaper by Dr. Robert Gagnon.

Abortion isn't called by a canonical term in the Bible, but several scriptures (a Bible study is viewable here) make it clear that the child in the womb is a human being, subject to the rights and protections as any other human being, including injunctions against the taking of life except in very specific circumstances (e.g. self-defense, punishment for a capital crime, etc.).

If you wish to dispute the morality of the Biblical stance on abortion, I'd ask that you please post the quote and its reply in the inferno since such discussions must take place over there. If, on the other hand, you wish to dispute the claim that the above accurately characterizes the Bible's stance on abortion, you can post your counterarguments here since it's simply an analysis of scripture. (Why create a new thread if you don't have to?)

[Deleted]

You interpret the Bible in several clobber passages to condemn something that didn’t even have a word until centuries after the Bible was written.., and you give credence to what you think is the definitive resource (in other words says exactly what you want to believe). 

Actually the Bible was pretty clear that the unborn wasn’t valued the same as a human life. I have no desire to step foot in your inferno, any more than I have to live in your theocracy. 

Did someone say hubris? 

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 31, 2017 10:53:17 GMT -5 oped said:

No. What you describe, as Christians being able to assert their will over others behavior, is a theocracy now.

Whatever floats your boat.

I wouldn't call a system where secularists are able to assert their will over others' behaviour an "atheocracy", but if I did, I'd call the Christian version a "theocracy".

The problem with the term "theocracy" is that it strongly implies governance by a worldly organization such as a church (e.g. the Catholic Church), which is a separate concept.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 31, 2017 11:22:36 GMT -5 oped said:

I have no desire to step foot in your inferno

It's not "mine". I can't post or moderate there. Moon named it after me because I insisted members ought to have a place to discuss the "PP selling organs" row from 2015.

I wish she hadn't because quite a few posters are under the mistaken impression that I administrate it, but it is what it is.