Lovesong's seven deadly sins of religion.

[Unveiled Artist]

This kind of relates to my other post. When I read the OP, I'm thinking of sin an action. Love your god first, do not kill, do not convert, etc are all action sins not figurative or metaphorical. So, in my impression, if a religion teaches against homosexuality, that's just a moral. There is a lot of things wrong with that moral; however, I don't see something wrong as sinful. I believe Jesus being god is wrong. That's not as in; that, just my opinion. It can influence other people, sure. If that was my intention/action. If it's just an opinion or figurative, than I see it wrong. Sin wouldn't be the right word to use unless it was defined in the OP. Since it wasn't, and I'm used to protestant view in regards to the Bible (rest of my family protestant), they focus on the Bible a lot for answers. Sola Scriptura. So, sin, in this case, would be based on the Bible.

Some of the OPs points were not geared towards religion in general. It was mostly abrahamic faiths and I assumed Christianity. We can use those "sins" to see which denomination is healthy or maybe use them to see if Christianity is healthy. However, like eating soup with a fork, some doesn't seem to apply as criteria of it being a sin. For example, "promising eternal punishment" isn't a sin. It's a statement from a specific belief. another "if you turn around you will turn into a pillar of salt" that's a figurative sin. Not reality. If god was here and he did both of those, then we can say both of these are sins.

Until then, I agree with your first have, it's all figurative. I saw it literal and as an action.

I can't speak for the OP, but I think the use of the term "sin" was intended to be more figurative. Like when someone says "it's a sin to waste your talent." From a literal, religious "sin" standpoint, it's obviously not a real true sin if you are a good singer but refuse to sing in public. But it could be thought of as a figurative "sin" more of like "isn't it a shame" that the person won't share their gift with the world.

Related to Lovesong's #5: "it shames sex or the body," I can see the figurative use of the word sin here. I think it's a shame when I see people who were raised very religiously viewing human sexuality as dirty and shameful, something not to be discussed, something dirty. I personally feel sex is a wonderful part of life to be celebrated, and I think it's a "sin" when people have the joy sucked out of sex by puritanical religious training.

I recognize someone with dysfunctional, negative ideas about sex isn't sinning against anyone...isn't causing harm to others due to their views. It's not a sin in that regard. But it's a "sin" in the sense that it's too bad for that person, it's a shame, it's unfortunate. That's my idea of what Lovesong meant by "sin" but again, I'm just giving my view.

 

[Demonslayer]

It's not a sin unless it is an actual action.

I understand your using the literal definition of sin, and I agree with your take on it.

You do understand, however, that there is another use of the word sin...a more figurative use that means something like "isn't it a shame?"

Murder is a SIN in the way you're talking about

The use of the word that I'm thinking about is like when people say "it would be a sin to waste that perfectly cooked piece of steak."

The Church does help homosexuals. They they teach that their desires are not normal

You're saying the church HELPS homosexuals by telling them that their natural attractions are abnormal? That's one of the worst things I've ever heard.

A lot of people are impressionable. If the Pope said jump up and down, probably 80 percent of Catholics if not more would probably do so. The Pope did nothing. He didn't reach out to grab them.

What the hell? So you have a spiritual leader, someone you're supposed to look up to, someone who you're expected to look to for guidance...and when someone follows that guidance, the leader who gave it isn't responsible? Are you kidding me?

If a parent tells a child to go swimming in a sewer, and the kid goes swimming in the sewer, the parent did nothing, unless they reached out and physically threw them in the sewer? That's absolutely crazy.

This idea would mean we can't credit any leaders or role models for anything. Flip it positively. Let's say the Pope says "Give to charity!" and 80% of Catholics go out and give to charity based on the Pope's example. You're saying the people did that on their own, the Pope had no influence on the spike in charitable giving, unless he physically reached out and ripped cash out of the people's pockets?

Bananas!

 

[Riverwolf]

No the Amish themselves are not harmful, but their way of life based on their religion is. They reject all science and technology

No they don't.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-common-misconceptions-about-the-Amish

This lifestyle puts their children at a huge disadvantage if they decide they want to join the rest of society two blocks over

The key part of this sentence is: "if they decide". All lifestyles, whether Amish, modernized, or hunter-gatherer, put children growing up in them at huge disadvantages if they decide to join any of the other types of groups. I could probably never live in an Amish-like community, because I was raised as a middle class kid and am too spoiled by the conveniences of current technology. But had I been raised in a community like that, I'd probably be just fine at it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand your using the literal definition of sin, and I agree with your take on it.

Thank you. That's basically what's the foundation of all my posts.

You do understand, however, that there is another use of the word sin...a more figurative use that means something like "isn't it a shame?"

Murder is a SIN in the way you're talking about

The use of the word that I'm thinking about is like when people say "it would be a sin to waste that perfectly cooked piece of steak."

That type of sin, I don't see a problem with. The sins with the OP is what I was getting at.

You're saying the church HELPS homosexuals by telling them that their natural attractions are abnormal? That's one of the worst things I've ever heard.

Yes. They are hypocritical and they help people. Not every gay person is against homosexuality. A lot of gay Catholics stay abstinent because of their own choice.

What the hell? So you have a spiritual leader, someone you're supposed to look up to, someone who you're expected to look to for guidance...and when someone follows that guidance, the leader who gave it isn't responsible? Are you kidding me?

If a parent tells a child to go swimming in a sewer, and the kid goes swimming in the sewer, the parent did nothing, unless they reached out and physically threw them in the sewer? That's absolutely crazy.

This idea would mean we can't credit any leaders or role models for anything. Flip it positively. Let's say the Pope says "Give to charity!" and 80% of Catholics go out and give to charity based on the Pope's example. You're saying the people did that on their own, the Pope had no influence on the spike in charitable giving, unless he physically reached out and ripped cash out of the people's pockets?

Bananas![/quote)

With the Pope comment, I'm serious. I have a friend who is very very Catholic by her own choice and by her god's. One day, after 30 some odd years of being Catholic, we had a chance to see the pop. Then, as we were watching the news, someone tried to jump on and kiss the pops fingers. Then my friend says, "that's like jumping on Jesus." I was shocked.

People actually believe the Pope Jesus Christ.

-

If I influenced you to pick up a Banana, and you pick it up, who actually picked up the banana, you or me?

The influence is horrible, yes. I understand that. To help our world, we need to be watchful for what influences people in a negative way.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand your using the literal definition of sin, and I agree with your take on it.

Thank you.

You do understand, however, that there is another use of the word sin...a more figurative use that means something like "isn't it a shame?"

Yes. I did not get that impression from the OP.

Murder is a SIN in the way you're talking about

Yes.

The use of the word that I'm thinking about is like when people say "it would be a sin to waste that perfectly cooked piece of steak."

However, in the OP case, it's not figurative. If it were, then why take it seriously?

Really. If I believed it IS a sin to tell people god is of love and then say if they don't go to church, they'd suffer the consequences. It's what they told/action them. However, if it's just a statement "promises eternal punishment" that means nothing to me. It's not a sin, it's just a statement. If I read that, I'd be "that's the Christian faith for you". However, if the people acted on that in a bad way, then I would address the people not the book. Unless the book is like a gun.

Think about this, though. If its about the religion and not the people, tell me how god kills people. Give me evidence or some way I will know there is a god who did such a thing for me to be angry at him or even say he is in the wrong. What type of grievance should I have with this god?​

Seriously. It all comes from us. In Christianity, we are sinners not the Bible and definitely not god. It makes sense logically. A book can't do anything and god is all good that whatever he does doesn't qualify as a sin.

Then again, that's just what I read.

You're saying the church HELPS homosexuals by telling them that their natural attractions are abnormal? That's one of the worst things I've ever heard.

Yep. I said they are contradicting themselves and they help people. I think you're generalizing. Not every homosexual are for homosexuality and likewise not every heterosexual Christian is against it. The Church calls homosexuality an attraction or lust desire between two men or two women. They say it is not a sin unless a person acts on their attractions. The Church has a program that helps gay Catholics who feel their actions are keeping them away from god. So they let the Church help them. That is how they help.

Regardless if they are contradicting themselves, for some people it is helping them be closer to god. It's not damaging that person who chose to go that route. It would be damaging to me because it's tearing out who I am. However, not every person feels that way.

What the hell? So you have a spiritual leader, someone you're supposed to look up to, someone who you're expected to look to for guidance...and when someone follows that guidance, the leader who gave it isn't responsible? Are you kidding me?

Of course not. The leader influenced he didn't take a leash and pull his follower on a chain. I think you have to be more specific. Popes have more than influenced people but just a Catholic just knocking at my door and convincing me to come to Church? That's an influence but it means nothing unless I act on it.

If a parent tells a child to go swimming in a sewer, and the kid goes swimming in the sewer, the parent did nothing, unless they reached out and physically threw them in the sewer? That's absolutely crazy.

You're not getting it. The parent didn't put the child in the water. The parent didn't push the kid in the sewer. I'm talking literally. The parent was an influence, yes; and, the child has a choice to do what his mother said or not. Children (and it seems adults) are very impressionable. I mean, when my friend I told you about and I were watching the news when the Pope came to DC, we were going to go. A lady tried jumping on the guy, and my friend says "THAT'S LIKE JUMPING ON JESUS". Depends on the person. I sure didn't see it that way. An insult, yes. Like Jesus, no.

This idea would mean we can't credit any leaders or role models for anything. Flip it positively. Let's say the Pope says "Give to charity!" and 80% of Catholics go out and give to charity based on the Pope's example. You're saying the people did that on their own, the Pope had no influence on the spike in charitable giving, unless he physically reached out and ripped cash out of the people's pockets?

Yep. If the Pope gave charity and I followed his example, no matter how much he influenced me, it is still on my shoulders and action to provide the charity. So, he is an influence, a guide, etc. He didn't do it for me.

Another way to put it: The pope told me the way to the end of the path is to carry my cross. He did not carry it for me. I could either listen to him or not listen to him.
​

Desire, influence, coercion, etc are not sins. The action-have sex, kill, or give charity are.

The Bible talks about the latter: Why did god killed so many Isrealite? and I think, when? You mean the people killed in the name of god. God did nothing.

Unless you can show god exists...then that circles around again, so....

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Wrong, dude. The Israelites were commanded by God to do that among their own only. Also, don't forget that all the people of Israel promised God that they would obey Him when God promised to protect them and prosper them.

We are not commanded to do that today, as you well know.

Your God commanded someone to do that. Either killing homosexuals for being homosexual is immoral; or it is not. So, if it is wrong, then your God gave someone an immoral command. If it is not immoral, then you should not consider this an immoral act; as God gave that command to someone.

 

[Sunstone]

A while ago I devised what I call my seven deadly sins of religion. It's basically a list of seven tests to determine whether a religion is "bad" or overall harmful. @Quintessence requested I make a thread to discuss them, so here we go:

A religion is harmful if:
1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.
2. it preaches complete and total submission to a leader or prohibits individuality or free thought.
3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.
4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.
5. it shames sex or the body.
6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.

Thoughts? Do you disagree with any of these? If so, why?

I wouldn't agree with numbers 6 and 7 because sometimes people want to do bad things and don't want to do good things. But the other points seem about right.

 

[Sunstone]

1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.
2. it preaches complete and total submission to a leader or prohibits individuality or free thought.
3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.
4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.
5. it shames sex or the body.
6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.

All this sounds a lot more like an atheist/ socialist state, like North Korea, than any religion I'm aware of.

Seems like your awareness of religion is quite limited, then.

 

[lovesong]

Alrighty. I'm going to try to address as many of you as I can in one post, just bare with me here. I'm also going in order here, just to keep track of everything.

I am not sure about this one. Since many religions have a belief in eternal hell - Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Dvaita Hinduism, forms of Sikhism - this seems too open-ended to me.

In my religion, for instance, Hell is considered...

"...Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life...The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy..."Eternal damnation", therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God's judgement ratifies this state...The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom..."

- Pope St.John Paul II (General Audience, July 28, 1999)
Does this description qualify for your deadly sin?

Eternal torment for not obeying the tennets or leadership of a religion (or cult) is a form of coercion. That's the issue, I believe, the OP is denouncing.

This, basically. You mention that it seemed too open ended because so many religions have the concept of hell, but just because it's popular doesn't make it right (helpful, a good idea, I'm not talking about objective truth here). I know that most organized religions have some form of punishment but that doesn't change that I think it is a harmful notion to entertain. Like NewGuy was expressing, believe it is nothing more than a scare tactic used to keep people in line.

Again this is a bit too general for me.

Most religions have ethical precepts relating to sex that, in theory, restrict some activities to varying or greater degrees.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism all believe that sex is good - indeed holy - in certain circumstances but not in others.

Highly ascetic religions such as Jainism and Buddhism often view sexual desire - ultimately - as a negative distraction from nibbana, even if they permit it for lay people. It's absolutely banned for monks.

So, I think this is far too discriminatory to far too many religions.

Also, would shaming "adultery" be included in your definition? Unfaithfulness to a partner?

Of course there is morality with sex; as with everything else; but some religions go so far as to make one feel ashamed of being sexual human beings. That is just as psychologically damaging and unhealthy as promiscuity.

This is exactly how I would respond, if NewGuy didn't beat me to it! Thanks NewGuyOnTheBlock!
Also you say that you think it's far too discriminatory to far too many religions, but as I said before, that doesn't matter. Just because something is popular doesn't make it good. If the whole world started beating their children would that make it ok? That how I view this. To me it is horrible what some religions teach about the body and it is such a shame that some kids grow up thinking their bodies are dirty and that their natural sexual desires are evil.

I have one two-part question and I hope you don't take it the wrong way.

Who decided that you should be the one to decide these things and what gives anyone else the right to decide them?

I never said I was declaring some new objective truth or unchallengeable law. These are just my rules, the things that guide my thinking, and I am sharing them for debate. Everyone has the right to set their own laws for morality.

Assessing something as "good" or "bad" always depends on values. Hate is not necessarily "bad," even though it tends to be painted as such. I'd wager most of us "hate" criminals, and have an attitude of "un-acceptance" towards them. Strongly following the guidance of a leader isn't necessarily "bad" - remember that not every culture is America and obsessed with individualism (honestly, I find America's obsession with this unhealthy, and it creates a lot of egoistic conflict). One doesn't have to value the sciences either, so I don't see how it is necessarily "bad" to discourage it. Threats of punishment aren't necessarily "bad" and on the whole that seems to be an accepted way to maintain social order in human cultures that I'm aware of. And who cares if someone shames sex or the body? People are allowed to put their values elsewhere, and putting their values elsewhere doesn't make them "bad," it makes them different.

At the end of the day, I don't have a problem with this list provided it's understood in the context of being a reflection of one's own values. But attempting to universalize it, or suggesting that others should follow it, is not something I can agree with.

Oh no, I wasn't suggesting that everyone follow them. To me they are the set lines that separate religion, but I'm not demanding anyone else comply. There are two points here I want to look at. Firstly, you say "And who cares if someone shames sex or the body?" I really have a problem with this idea. I feel that it is very damaging to teach a child that their bodies are dirty and that their natural sexual desires are evil. A person should not be made to feel uncomfortable in their own skin. One example I can give is that a friend of mine, who grew up Christian, recently decided she was ready to have sex. She was very happy and excited and enjoyed herself, but the next day came to me worrying that she was going to hell because of it. She was ready, had fun, and did not regret it, but she was taught that having sex before marriage would send her to some horrible place of torture. Nobody should face such fears for indulging in a natural, healthy human pleasure. The other point I want to address is where you say "People are allowed to put their values elsewhere, and putting their values elsewhere doesn't make them "bad," it makes them different." I agree to an extent, but my original list set out some values that I do feel are "bad." You say that having different values can't be bad, but what if someone believes that they have the right to abuse others. In their own moral framework this is perfectly okay, but I can't believe that you would say to that person "your values are just different, they're not bad at all!" What if someone believed it was okay to rape, murder, steal, and beat their kids? There are some values which just are not okay to uphold. Yes we could say that holding them is alright as long as we don't act on them, but as soon as we transmit them to others (as religions do to survive the generations), we are damaging them by convincing them that these things are okay, and to me that is a form of acting on them. Would you say it's okay for a man to teach his son that beating his girlfriend was okay?

 

[lovesong]

Wow, the first time I tried to post, it said it was too long! Here's part two:

I guess my overall point is:

Is it a sin because of what religious do? or. Is it a sin because of what the religion teaches?

If the religion teaches you are going to hell if you don't believe in god, that's not a sin. It's just a claim or belief.

If the religious started killing people who didn't believe based on this teaching, that action is a sin. So, it would be instead, "any religion that promotes killing based on a given faith is a sin"

I can't speak for the OP, but I think the use of the term "sin" was intended to be more figurative. Like when someone says "it's a sin to waste your talent." From a literal, religious "sin" standpoint, it's obviously not a real true sin if you are a good singer but refuse to sing in public. But it could be thought of as a figurative "sin" more of like "isn't it a shame" that the person won't share their gift with the world.

This is what I meant by sin, the title is really just a play on words, since there happened to be seven. But I don't think doing and teaching are separable. When a religion teaches something, lets say a hatred of homosexuality, it is essentially doing it. If I teach a child that gay people are evil, that child is not only now being hurt by my discriminatory teachings, but will most likely someday act on this. It is very hard to teach a set of values and expect nobody to act on them.

Do you think your OP deadly sins are geared towards a specific audience like Christianity?

It may end up that way, and it's entirely possible to say that these are the result of being brought up in a predominantly Christian country, however, I didn't have Christianity consciously in mind when working them out. It just so happens that I disagree with the set of values taught by our big three (really big two) monotheisms. Some of these can be applied to religions worldwide though.

This seems more like looking at the people not the religion.

To me they are one and the same. A religion cannot exist without its people, the teachings of a religion are meaningless unless there are people perpetuating them. Yes, many people will have different takes on the same religion, and we should take these into account, but we are still looking at the religion of these people.

The last two, scientific and technical advances, how does denying those make it a sin? Is it causing harm? Is it making people turn against each other?

Alright, I'll admit, I did have Christianity in mind with this one. The evolution debate is what mostly fueled this particular point, but it applies to anyone who denies science, including anti-vaccine supporters and people who deny medical care and academic education to children. I see spreading a disbelief in science as harmful indeed. Spreading disbelief in science is spreading ignorance, something that I absolutely feel is harmful to those affected.

This isn't a sin. This is just a belief unless people are telling others to cover up. In Muslim and Catholic case, it doesn't shame sex or the body. It's an act of humility. Unless it's doing harm, what would make it a sin that other people who disagree are affected from it? (I live in a diverse environment, so..)

Related to Lovesong's #5: "it shames sex or the body," I can see the figurative use of the word sin here. I think it's a shame when I see people who were raised very religiously viewing human sexuality as dirty and shameful, something not to be discussed, something dirty. I personally feel sex is a wonderful part of life to be celebrated, and I think it's a "sin" when people have the joy sucked out of sex by puritanical religious training.

I recognize someone with dysfunctional, negative ideas about sex isn't sinning against anyone...isn't causing harm to others due to their views. It's not a sin in that regard. But it's a "sin" in the sense that it's too bad for that person, it's a shame, it's unfortunate. That's my idea of what Lovesong meant by "sin" but again, I'm just giving my view.

This is what I meant with that point. Earlier in this mega-post I addressed the same point a few times, here is how I explained it one of those times:
I feel that it is very damaging to teach a child that their bodies are dirty and that their natural sexual desires are evil. A person should not be made to feel uncomfortable in their own skin. One example I can give is that a friend of mine, who grew up Christian, recently decided she was ready to have sex. She was very happy and excited and enjoyed herself, but the next day came to me worrying that she was going to hell because of it. She was ready, had fun, and did not regret it, but she was taught that having sex before marriage would send her to some horrible place of torture. Nobody should face such fears for indulging in a natural, healthy human pleasure.

What do people want to do that some religions disprove of? Is it against their religion or is it a sin because it's objectively wrong?

This was referring more to when a person's religion stops them from living their life as they see fit or interferes with their daily decisions. Some examples would be a Catholic wanting to eat meat on a friday, so has to face the decision to enjoy themself or fear punishment, a child wanting to sleep in on sunday but fearing that their god wont love them anymore if they do, a Jewish person really wanting to eat pork chops but is afraid to because of their religious upbringing, or a teenager wanting to masturbate but fears hell for doing so. These sorts of small things are what I meant by 6 and 7.

This kind of relates to my other post. When I read the OP, I'm thinking of sin an action. Love your god first, do not kill, do not convert, etc are all action sins not figurative or metaphorical. So, in my impression, if a religion teaches against homosexuality, that's just a moral. There is a lot of things wrong with that moral; however, I don't see something wrong as sinful. I believe Jesus being god is wrong. That's not as in; that, just my opinion. It can influence other people, sure. If that was my intention/action. If it's just an opinion or figurative, than I see it wrong. Sin wouldn't be the right word to use unless it was defined in the OP. Since it wasn't, and I'm used to protestant view in regards to the Bible (rest of my family protestant), they focus on the Bible a lot for answers. Sola Scriptura. So, sin, in this case, would be based on the Bible.

Some of the OPs points were not geared towards religion in general. It was mostly abrahamic faiths and I assumed Christianity. We can use those "sins" to see which denomination is healthy or maybe use them to see if Christianity is healthy. However, like eating soup with a fork, some doesn't seem to apply as criteria of it being a sin. For example, "promising eternal punishment" isn't a sin. It's a statement from a specific belief. another "if you turn around you will turn into a pillar of salt" that's a figurative sin. Not reality. If god was here and he did both of those, then we can say both of these are sins.

Until then, I agree with your first have, it's all figurative. I saw it literal and as an action.

I hope I covered these points above, if not just let me know!

 

[Quintessence]

Oh no, I wasn't suggesting that everyone follow them. To me they are the set lines that separate religion, but I'm not demanding anyone else comply.

Thanks for clarifying that!

Firstly, you say "And who cares if someone shames sex or the body?" I really have a problem with this idea. I feel that it is very damaging to teach a child that their bodies are dirty and that their natural sexual desires are evil. A person should not be made to feel uncomfortable in their own skin.

With respect to my own values, considering how aware I am of human overpopulation, I have a very hard time decrying any group that wants to discourage people from having sex, regardless of how it is packaged. I also don't see "shaming" the body as necessarily leading to discomfort. Western culture is on the whole dualistic - that is, it perceives a distinction between body and spirit. It's par for the course in Western culture to elevate the spiritual over the physical. While I personally disagree with some aspects of this dualistic attitude, I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, nor do I necessarily see it as leading to personal discomfort or what have you. If some other culture wants to emphasize pursuit of enlightenment or communion with a deity for example, sure, why not?

One example I can give is that a friend of mine, who grew up Christian, recently decided she was ready to have sex. She was very happy and excited and enjoyed herself, but the next day came to me worrying that she was going to hell because of it. She was ready, had fun, and did not regret it, but she was taught that having sex before marriage would send her to some horrible place of torture. Nobody should face such fears for indulging in a natural, healthy human pleasure.

Fear and adversity is part of life. If not this, then it'd be something else. As a culture, I wish we would do a better job of valuing adversity and how it weaves into the stories of our lives. That, and I ask myself - if I were to agree with you on this, what would be done about it? Short of going to this person's parents and saying "I'm going to make you stop teaching your child your way of life, or else," I'm not sure where we go with this sort of attitude. I'm far too live-and-let live to want to bother with things like this. Pluralism is a central value of mine, and that includes valuing ways of life when I disagree with them.

The other point I want to address is where you say "People are allowed to put their values elsewhere, and putting their values elsewhere doesn't make them "bad," it makes them different." I agree to an extent, but my original list set out some values that I do feel are "bad." You say that having different values can't be bad, but what if someone believes that they have the right to abuse others. In their own moral framework this is perfectly okay, but I can't believe that you would say to that person "your values are just different, they're not bad at all!" What if someone believed it was okay to rape, murder, steal, and beat their kids? There are some values which just are not okay to uphold.

Keep in mind I'm a moral nihilist. I just don't stuff reality into "good" and "bad" categories. Things are what they are, and how humans judge them speaks to the values of that human and also is a reflection of their cultural/environmental upbringing. No matter what sets of values are brought to the table, both cooperation and conflict result at various times and scenes. I'm not interested in demonizing (which is what lists of "bad/evil" things has the effect of); I'm more interested in something like this. To me, a religion is "bad" (not really the right word to use) if it is the wrong religion for you.

Would you say it's okay for a man to teach his son that beating his girlfriend was okay?

Is this person under my authority? In other words, do I have the power to dictate what they should and should not do, upon pain of death if he disobeys? If not, it doesn't really matter what I think. He does his thing, I do my thing, and cultural consensus will deal with it one way or another.

What I believe in doing is being that which you want to see in the world, then leaving others alone. Not just because 99% of the time, I have zero authority to dictate what they do with their lives, but because I can't muster the mental health effects of doing otherwise. When all I do is $#@% and whine about what other people are doing, that cultivates a lot of negativity in my life. And lots of negativity means anxiety, it means anger, it means depression - and why the blazes would I inflict that in myself on a routine basis with my own thoughts? Instead of sneering at the vast majority of people at the grocery store who are too damn lazy to bring canvass bags, I always bring my own bag and set an example for others to follow, if they want to. Instead of getting irate at the humans who insist on reproducing in spite of overpopulation, I personally refuse to ever have children and speak out in support of being childless for life in a culture where doing this is very taboo. I look for the positive spin, I guess. So other than the list of things I linked to earlier, I would much rather make a list of "Quintessence's seven beautiful glories of religions" instead of composing a $#@% list. If that makes sense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Haha. I get those long post errors too. I guess it's saves others from the head ache of my writing a book.

This is what I meant by sin, the title is really just a play on words, since there happened to be seven. But I don't think doing and teaching are separable. When a religion teaches something, lets say a hatred of homosexuality, it is essentially doing it. If I teach a child that gay people are evil, that child is not only now being hurt by my discriminatory teachings, but will most likely someday act on this. It is very hard to teach a set of values and expect nobody to act on them.

I think I'm being picky, but yes, I agree they are one in the same in that people personalize the teachings. Literally, they are not. What made me kill my wife was the actual socker bopper that hit her on the head. Regardless of what motivated to do so (your point), that motivation did nothing unless I had the tools and actions to do so (my point).

I was telling Demon about people (adults too) are very impressionable. If the Pope told Catholics 40 years and older to jump on one leg, they'd probably consider doing it. It's not wrong, just, um, weird. Not exaggerating either.

I agree, I just had a different angle to it.

To me they are one and the same. A religion cannot exist without its people, the teachings of a religion are meaningless unless there are people perpetuating them. Yes, many people will have different takes on the same religion, and we should take these into account, but we are still looking at the religion of these people.

Yes and no. Yes, because people personalize it internally. No, because literally a teacher (like a gun) can't do anything without the believer (or the shooter).

What I read it's like saying the gun is a sin because when it shoots, it kills people.

I think you mean, when the people use the gun (cause I can use it to prop my table up), and they shoot someone, then it can kill them.

That's what I mean by, it comes from the people not the religion/teaching.

Alright, I'll admit, I did have Christianity in mind with this one.

I figured. Very hard to escape, I know. I try very very hard to get out of that because it's hard to find the point of a thread (any) when there is some bias in the OP unless that's the intention. Sometimes I can't tell.

The evolution debate is what mostly fueled this particular point, but it applies to anyone who denies science, including anti-vaccine supporters and people who deny medical care and academic education to children. I see spreading a disbelief in science as harmful indeed. Spreading disbelief in science is spreading ignorance, something that I absolutely feel is harmful to those affected.

What religions say science is spreading ignorance? The only people I can think of that don't use "science" is the Amish; but, I don't know them personally to see if they thought of it that way. Most Christian folk I talk to say that god works through science or doctors to cure illnesses not deny medical assistance completely. Nuns tend to the ill all the time. There are spiritual directors in hospitals that help those that ill by changing their perspective on beliefs...seeing it from god (or devil or so have you, so I heard before), rather than tell the patient to "let god take care of it" literally. Usually, it's spiritually.

I do have to admit, when one church thought I had the holy spirit when I had a seizure and denied calling 911, I had a fit and almost a lawsuit with that. I don't know what denomination, but from my christian experience, I know that's not part of Christianity. I don't know what that was, to tell you honestly.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@lovesong I see it as the people because if you don't have the Church and religion and just read the Bible by itself, then you are the only interpreter (and, well god), of that Bible. The only way you know personally if what you read is a sin is how you interpret it.

For example, if i were Christian and looked at the cross as suicide, maybe I could think if I kill myself, I'll be like Christ. Another way to look at it is, maybe if I tell all the government that disagree with Christ's teachings that they are hypocrites then I will be far with god. Or, I could read it as the cross is telling me I need to die in my ego (flesh), things that make me turn away from god like hate, etc and let those sins "die on the cross" to be a new person. I could read god as an actual entity floating in the sky or see him as casper, I dont know.

Without the people instilling the teachings to where they become a "weapon" the teachings does nothing. We keep externalizing our problems. They come from us.

 

[lovesong]

@Quintessence, thanks for the reply. The way you went about explaining yourself made a lot of sense. I can definitely see where you're coming from and can appreciate that way of thinking. There is only one part I want to touch on, but even that can be resolved by understanding your way of thinking about these things:

With respect to my own values, considering how aware I am of human overpopulation, I have a very hard time decrying any group that wants to discourage people from having sex, regardless of how it is packaged. I also don't see "shaming" the body as necessarily leading to discomfort. Western culture is on the whole dualistic - that is, it perceives a distinction between body and spirit. It's par for the course in Western culture to elevate the spiritual over the physical. While I personally disagree with some aspects of this dualistic attitude, I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, nor do I necessarily see it as leading to personal discomfort or what have you. If some other culture wants to emphasize pursuit of enlightenment or communion with a deity for example, sure, why not?

I am also against overpopulation, but I don't personally see sex as a reproductive act (yes, I know it is, but that is only a small aspect of it in my mind), I see it as an act of pleasure. I could understand discouraging people from reproducing, but discouraging sex is just discouraging pleasure. I see what you mean by pursuing enlightenment over the physical, but I still feel that it is harmful to perpetuate the idea that our bodies are dirty or shameful. The body doesn't have to be an object of shame to focus on the spiritual. All this said, I can see that none of it really matters when looking through your lens, since what others do in their time is none of our business. The only way this would matter is if it came around to affect us, right? But that's the problem, it does affect us, or at least, I feel that it does. The values that I was taught that hurt me growing up did affect me, and the values that get imposed on me today by the society I live in affects me also. I can perfectly understand not caring what values are held by others when they don't have any impact on you, it just seems that a lot of these things do come back around to bite us.

 

[lovesong]

Yes and no. Yes, because people personalize it internally. No, because literally a teacher (like a gun) can't do anything without the believer (or the shooter).

What I read it's like saying the gun is a sin because when it shoots, it kills people.

I think you mean, when the people use the gun (cause I can use it to prop my table up), and they shoot someone, then it can kill them.

That's what I mean by, it comes from the people not the religion/teaching.

I saw it's the people also because if you don't have the Church and religion and just read the Bible by itself, then you are the only interpreter (and, well god), of that Bible. The only way you know personally if what you read is a sin is how you interpret it.

For example, if i were Christian and looked at the cross as suicide, maybe I could think if I kill myself, I'll be like Christ. Another way to look at it is, maybe if I tell all the government that disagree with Christ's teachings that they are hypocrites then I will be far with god. Or, I could read it as the cross is telling me I need to die in my ego (flesh), things that make me turn away from god like hate, etc and let those sins "die on the cross" to be a new person. I could read god as an actual entity floating in the sky or see him as casper, I dont know.

Without the people instilling the teachings to where they become a "weapon" the teachings does nothing. We keep externalizing our problems. It comes from us.

Haha, very good point. Yes I guess then I am looking at the people, or the religion of the people. I agree that we do need the people to carry out the religion and so it is the people I am looking at, or the beliefs that they take action on.

What religions say science is spreading ignorance? The only people I can think of that don't use "science" is the Amish; but, I don't know them personally to see if they thought of it that way. Most Christian folk I talk to say that god works through science or doctors to cure illnesses not deny medical assistance completely. Nuns tend to the ill all the time. There are spiritual directors in hospitals that help those that ill by changing their perspective on beliefs...seeing it from god (or devil or so have you, so I heard before), rather than tell the patient to "let god take care of it" literally. Usually, it's spiritually.

I do have to admit, when one church thought I had the holy spirit when I had a seizure and denied calling 911, I had a fit and almost a lawsuit with that. I don't know what denomination, but from my christian experience, I know that's not part of Christianity. I don't know what that was, to tell you honestly.

No no, teaching a disbelief in science is spreading ignorance. I have no problem with those who say that god works through science, it's when they say that science is just wrong and try to force that on others that I have a problem (young earth creationists, for example). My big problem with all of these is forcing it on others, even by teaching it to the next generation. If someone wants to deny science that's on them, but as soon as they try to make others do it, as with your case when they didn't call 911, I see it as harmful.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.
2. it preaches complete and total submission to a leader or prohibits individuality or free thought.
3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.
4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.
5. it shames sex or the body.
6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.

All this sounds a lot more like an atheist/ socialist state, like North Korea, than any religion I'm aware of.

When I was a Christian, I was taught unacceptance and hatred to the point that I hated and refused to accept even myself. It taught me to be totally submissive to God; Abraham was instructed to kill his own son, afterall, and Abraham obeyed that order. I was taught to dismiss and deny science to the point I didn't know how wrong the statement "it's just a theory" is. The promises of eternal torture were so routine that I used to have very vivid dreams about going to Hell. Sex was very much shamed - Christianity has a very long history of trying to shame sex and make it and the human body seem dirty, and they have long held up a guy who himself may have had some very deeply seated sexual aversions and repulsions. And of course you had to do what god wants - not what you want, not what your family wants, but what god wants (6 and 7 strongly tied into 2 in my experience).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Haha, very good point. Yes I guess then I am looking at the people, or the religion of the people. I agree that we do need the people to carry out the religion and so it is the people I am looking at, or the beliefs that they take action on.



No no, teaching a disbelief in science is spreading ignorance. I have no problem with those who say that god works through science, it's when they say that science is just wrong and try to force that on others that I have a problem (young earth creationists, for example). My big problem with all of these is forcing it on others, even by teaching it to the next generation. If someone wants to deny science that's on them, but as soon as they try to make others do it, as with your case when they didn't call 911, I see it as harmful.

I guess they are getting better with the science. In geology class, we were about to go through evolution, and the teacher shrugged his shoulders and said "this is what science says its true. This isn't a religion class..." basically, science over won our school. There are no bibles anymore in the larger court rooms. You might see them in local court houses. I think we are getting more equalized.

However, I get what you saying as a statement in itself.

My point? I agree.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Everyone has the right to set their own laws for morality.

I wouldn't go that far.

Ever heard of Pro-Contact Pedophiles? This group of people believes that being sexual with children is not inherently harmful and that children can give consent for sexual activity with adults. Certain religious extremists believe it is their moral and divinely-dictated right, privilege and duty (thus moral) to do harm to certain other groups of human beings; ranging from Muslim extremists to White supremacists.

On a more individual rather than group basis, you have sociopaths among us who feel no remorse for causing harm to others; and narcissists who hold that it is their right for causing harm to others; and other idiots who hold that, based on Social Darwinism, doing harm to those weaker is simply the natural order of things and thus not immoral.

There are limits to how far a group or individual should be able to go in "setting their own laws for morality".

 

[Augustus]

How can any of those seven things be good?

It is worth pointing out that modern Western morals are based on the rights of the individual, which is a pretty rare thing in human history. Traditionally (and still in many places) the collective rights of the group were/are paramount (this is the root of things like blasphemy laws).

There is a tendency for people these days to consider that their own moral code is somehow the 'natural' one rather than a product of a particular set of historical circumstances. Your views reflect a (post)Christian Western tradition, and had you been brought up in a different time or place then your values would be different.

The logic/reason we use to work things out relies on a particular paradigm to make sense, and this paradigm is mostly fictitious.

Something being 'good' also depends on what you consider the purpose of life to be. Happiness? Survival? Hedonism? etc.

1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.

Almost every ideology does this though (religions are just ideologies in my book and shouldn't be treated apart). Anybody who is hostile to your worldview would fall into this category for many/most people.

prohibits individuality or free thought.

This starts to move into territory of whether or not freedom of choice is the ideal for humanity. I'm unsure that this can be supported evidentially, at least for a lot of people.

As a species, we have been happy to give up freedoms for security, a sense of purpose, etc.

it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.

Science and technology are not neutral though, they affect society in many different ways and not all positive ones at that.

Environmental destruction is caused by such advancements and could pretty much wipe out our species and many others.

What would be immoral about rejecting such technology and 'progress'?

(not to mention social isolation, obesity, depression, etc that could potentially be linked to technological progress)

it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.

We generally accept that society functions best with certain limitations (laws, norms, mores, etc)

Where this line is drawn is very subjective though.

In general, your points are pretty reasonable as loose guidelines rather that reflect a personal philosophy rather than rules (and I know you are being qualified in you statements regarding these ). When we talk about benefits, harms, goods, bads, etc. it is very difficult to move beyond our own personal values. Really we preference certain benefits over others, and mitigate certain harms when compared to others.

How we balance this equation rests purely on our own 'sacred mythology' (and we all have a sacred mythology).

 

[Nous]

Yes. Religion should not discourage any scientific or medical advancements.

Apparently there is no rhyme or reason behind your condemnation of a religion's efforts to discourage immoral or illegal behavior or the proliferation of harmful technology.

Your animus toward religion is irrational.