Moderates give cover to religious fanatics

[des]

This is a very good statement re: the difference between the application of some supposed religious tenet without reason, and the application of religious *meaning* with reason.

I would say that moderates and liberals are much more concerned, probably primarily concerned, with religious meaning as opposed to some scripture, and it's why we don't usually quote it. Do we believe in the same god that is discussed with such fervency on godshatefags dot com? I don't think so.


--des

in other words, i the dominionist Christian is saying on one had they love their nieghbors, but on the other hand is calling for gays to be put to death, their practise of campaigning to kill gays is the only thing available to us to use as criteria for sincerity of faith, and such action is obviously not produced from a sincere attempt to love ones neighbors.

and i do hope that this post shows that even though i am religious, i think for myself from that religious framework, like so many others do

 

[des]

Ok, I'll answer in a different way. No we don't act on commonly shared religious beliefs. Because we don't share them. My beliefs would include other principles such as loving your neighbor and so forth.
Some of those might be shared by secularists and others would not be.

--des

In other words, you don't act on commonly shared religious beliefs as does the religious fanatic, instead you think for yourself as do the secularists which is what I stated when you got oh so insulted you didn't know how to respond.

 

[dogsgod]

Ok, I'll answer in a different way. No we don't act on commonly shared religious beliefs. Because we don't share them. My beliefs would include other principles such as loving your neighbor and so forth.
Some of those might be shared by secularists and others would not be.

--des

Many moderates do share basic beliefs with religious fanatics such as a belief in God and that we have a soul and that it enters God's creation at the moment of conception. These and perhaps a few other commonly shared beliefs such as Gods love for his unborn children are the only basics a fanatic needs to be reassured of by a general population of moderate believers. It wouldn't take many of these commonly shared beliefs for the fanatic to draw ultimate conclusions, and act on them.

 

[Mike182]

Many moderates do share basic beliefs with religious fanatics such as a belief in God and that we have a soul and that it enters God's creation at the moment of conception. These and perhaps a few other commonly shared beliefs such as Gods love for his unborn children are the only basics a fanatic needs to be reassured of by a general population of moderate believers. It wouldn't take many of these commonly shared beliefs for the fanatic to draw ultimate conclusions, and act on them.

yes, and the debate rages over the potential rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother over her own body - religious moderates go both ways, and if the argument of the fanatics is a reverence for life then why the hell are they killing? it does not follow through to kill in the name of a belief for the reverence of life.

 

[dogsgod]

yes, and the debate rages over the potential rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother over her own body - religious moderates go both ways, and if the argument of the fanatics is a reverence for life then why the hell are they killing? it does not follow through to kill in the name of a belief for the reverence of life.

The religious fanatic concludes that the killing of one or a few doctors or the bombing of clinics will save many lives of God's unborn helpless souls and that he will be looked upon favorably in the eyes of an all seeing, all knowing God for fighting His good fight. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Mike182]

The religious fanatic concludes that the killing of one or a few doctors or the bombing of clinics will save many lives of God's unborn helpless souls and that he will be looked upon favorably in the eyes of an all seeing, all knowing God for fighting His good fight. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

1) this still contradicts the belief in a reverence for life.

2) thankyou! :hug:

you used a great word there, "intentions"!

how many religious people believe intention matters, how many believe actions matter, and how many believe in some point between the two?

if people believe intentions are to be judged, then yes, you could take the opinion that the intention was to save the souls of those unborn who that doctor would otherwise have killed, and this is a good intention. however, murder is murder, and while we are more horrified by a seriel killer and a mass murderer than we are by someone who has only killed once, morally they are of the same value - the intention of the doctor is to kill the foetus, the intention of the fanatic is to kill the doctor, according to MODERATE beliefs both of these intentions are the same, and both are equally in the wrong.

if people believe they are to be judged on their actions, they will be judged in this case for killing a doctor, regardless of any percieved greater good.

if people believe somewhere in between, being judged on both intentions and works, then we have something that roughly goes along the lines of "i could campaign to stop abortion without using morally wrong means."

my observation so far has been that you are seriously simplifying religious beliefs and ideas to twist them round the point of moderates feeding and agreeing with the principles that fanatics use, and you have no argument of substance because of this simplification.

 

[dogsgod]

my observation so far has been that you are seriously simplifying religious beliefs and ideas to twist them round the point of moderates feeding and agreeing with the principles that fanatics use, and you have no argument of substance because of this simplification.

Religious beliefs are simple, it is humans that are complex to the point that we are baffled by our own complexity, and it is any given world religion as a whole that is incredibly complex in order to reflect the human condition. But moderates obviously do not agree with the principles that fanatics use. It's just not that difficult to see how a fanatic could take these simple sets of prescribed beliefs and draw them to their ultimate conclusions, beliefs BTW, that have no basis in fact, yet shared by moderates and fanatics alike.

I'm sorry, but moderates should realize the extremists that come part and parcel with this club they join that espouses faith beliefs.

 

[Mike182]

Religious beliefs are simple, it is humans that are complex to the point that we are baffled by our own complexity, and it is any given world religion as a whole that is incredibly complex in order to reflect the human condition. But moderates obviously do not agree with the principles that fanatics use. It's just not that difficult to see how a fanatic could take these simple sets of prescribed beliefs and draw them to their ultimate conclusions, beliefs BTW, that have no basis in fact, yet shared by moderates and fanatics alike.

I'm sorry, but moderates should realize the extremists that come part and parcel with this club they join that espouses faith beliefs.

what are you actaully trying to argue by putting moderates and fanatics in the same stroke?

say i accept that moderates to give cover to fanatics (which i don't, but for the sake of understanding your point) what then do you propose? is this just an atheistic proselytism? surely there are atheists who think unborn children should have the right to live, taking that simple premise i'm sure we can equally get fanatical atheists.

 

[dogsgod]

what are you actaully trying to argue by putting moderates and fanatics in the same stroke?

say i accept that moderates to give cover to fanatics (which i don't, but for the sake of understanding your point) what then do you propose? is this just an atheistic proselytism? surely there are atheists who think unborn children should have the right to live, taking that simple premise i'm sure we can equally get fanatical atheists.

I'm not suggesting that moderates intentionally provide cover. I think it's something that many have not even thought about or considered.

Perhaps there are some equally fanatic atheists, I don't know.

 

[lilithu]

I never mentioned fundamentalism, so why did you bother to bring that up? I'm referring to moderates vs fanatics of any religion.

Only fundamentalists rely solely on scripture (ie - revelation) for spiritual authority. By your making the argument that both "fanatics" and moderates rely on scripture/revelation to support their claims, you introduced fundamentalists, whether you were aware of it or not.

The point that I am making is that the beliefs of the fanatics are supported by the moderates because they share the same basic religious beliefs with each other, belief in a God, in a soul, etc. etc. Fanatics bring some of those beliefs to their ultimate conclusions and act on them, sometimes with dire consequences...............

Blahdiblahdiblah.... There is nothing inherent in belief in God or soul etc that would lead one to the conclusion that it's ok to kill people. What leads to that kind of fanaticism is certainty of one's own correctness. And that is something that is not unique to religious philosophies.

 

[dogsgod]

Only fundamentalists rely solely on scripture (ie - revelation) for spiritual authority. By your making the argument that both "fanatics" and moderates rely on scripture/revelation to support their claims, you introduced fundamentalists, whether you were aware of it or not.

I never mentioned anything about scripture or revelation either.

 

[dogsgod]

Blahdiblahdiblah.... There is nothing inherent in belief in God or soul etc that would lead one to the conclusion that it's ok to kill people. What leads to that kind of fanaticism is certainty of one's own correctness. And that is something that is not unique to religious philosophies.

There is nothing inherent in belief in God or soul etc that would lead most people to the conclusion that it's ok to kill people. Some basic religous beliefs combined with an unstable mind can prove to be rather "toxic". There are plenty of gruesome examples of that.

 

[Mike182]

I'm not suggesting that moderates intentionally provide cover. I think it's something that many have not even thought about or considered.

ok, fair enough.

the thing is though, religion is not just a set of beliefs, that is only half of religion. religion also deals with the propper way to react to those beliefs, with systems of ethics and codes of living and worship. there are so many different beliefs that play a role, big and small, in making up these complex, detailed and intimate systems and ethics that your reductionism of all teh varieties of religious belief to the basic stones of "God" and "soul", upon which you have then built this argument, just misses the reality or religion.

to take such a complex and deeply layered subject like religion, and reduce it to "God" and "soul" as the premise of any argument, then you are not talking about any religious practise at all - because in order to make that a religious practise you need to devise a system of reacting to those beliefs. in determining those systems, you need extra beliefs to imprint onto those foundation stones. by ignoring all of the extra beliefs that are added on, you have no premise of substance to base your argument on.

Only fundamentalists rely solely on scripture (ie - revelation) for spiritual authority. By your making the argument that both "fanatics" and moderates rely on scripture/revelation to support their claims, you introduced fundamentalists, whether you were aware of it or not.

and to quickly add to that, there are the minority religions that do not have scriptures at all

 

[lilithu]

I never mentioned anything about scripture or revelation either.

Sorry. That was standing_alone and robtex. At any rate, it does not negate what I said. You present your argument as if the moderate just hasn't followed his/her beliefs to their inevitable conclusions. Belief in God and soul etc does not lead to people killing over beliefs. Certainty about one's own correctness and intolerance for divergent views leads to that kind of violence.

 

[Mike182]

There is nothing inherent in belief in God or soul etc that would lead most people to the conclusion that it's ok to kill people. Some basic religous beliefs combined with an unstable mind can prove to be rather "toxic". There are plenty of gruesome examples of that.

in this case, should we not be more concerned by the fact that this peson has an unstable mind as opposed to very basic religious belief?

 

[dogsgod]

ok, fair enough.

the thing is though, religion is not just a set of beliefs, that is only half of religion. religion also deals with the propper way to react to those beliefs, with systems of ethics and codes of living and worship. there are so many different beliefs that play a role, big and small, in making up these complex, detailed and intimate systems and ethics that your reductionism of all teh varieties of religious belief to the basic stones of "God" and "soul", upon which you have then built this argument, just misses the reality or religion.

to take such a complex and deeply layered subject like religion, and reduce it to "God" and "soul" as the premise of any argument, then you are not talking about any religious practise at all - because in order to make that a religious practise you need to devise a system of reacting to those beliefs. in determining those systems, you need extra beliefs to imprint onto those foundation stones. by ignoring all of the extra beliefs that are added on, you have no premise of substance to base your argument on.

If we are reducing all I said to two words, "God" and "soul", then I would have to agree with you.

 

[Mike182]

If we are reducing all I said to two words, "God" and "soul", then I would have to agree with you.

you aren't reducing religious belief to those two things?

 

[dogsgod]

in this case, should we not be more concerned by the fact that this peson has an unstable mind as opposed to very basic religious belief?

I would say it could be a combination of the two. Take Yates, the mother mentally caught in the struggle between good and evil that drowned her children, she believed that killing her children was the only way to win her battle with Satan for her children's souls, if she killed them while they were still "under the age" of accountability, they would join God in heaven.

The problem is this, what she believed was logical but not based on a sound premise, but she was mentally ill and the results of her actions and well intentions were horrifying. She acted on some pretty basic religious beliefs that had no basis in fact, but who denies these beliefs?

 

[dogsgod]

you aren't reducing religious belief to those two things?

Not if you read my posts and what I actually said.

 

[dogsgod]

Sorry. That was standing_alone and robtex. At any rate, it does not negate what I said. You present your argument as if the moderate just hasn't followed his/her beliefs to their inevitable conclusions.

You haven't demostrated otherwise. You claim to use "God-given" reason. Where have you drawn religious beliefs to their ultimate conclusions on matters discussed?

Belief in God and soul etc does not lead to people killing over beliefs. Certainty about one's own correctness and intolerance for divergent views leads to that kind of violence.

I would venture to say that more people have been killed over beliefs, particularily a difference of religious beliefs, than anything else.