See.....that's how sophisticated the conspiracy is.
He's cromulent often enuf to have some credibility.
Fiendishly clever those atheists are!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Rape or Religion?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
He's cromulent often enuf to have some credibility.
Fiendishly clever those atheists are!
And, there is also the raping of the land.
He's probably not watching enough Law and Order SVU.
He is wrong in this.
Gruss Gott!
I thought they were only bodice rippers!
rape, bodily assault, is a form of control.
rape in the other context means to be carried off. paul was raped, rapt.
rapt from rape
Rape - Wikipedia
enraptured means to be carried off with emotion, or in mind vs in body.
religion can be used as a form of control or transcendence.
people who have been raped, physically violated, would not consider it a form of religion.
religion is not a form of rape or one to one relationship
When I was 13 I called them terromance.
'Terror' + 'romance'.
There's definitely ripping going on.
Sam Harris seems to have a tendency to define "religion" as what I would call "devotion to theism". I wish he did not, but he does.
By that light, it is a tough call. Far too much damage has been done by passive acceptance of reverence to theism. But of course the same can and should be said of rape as well.
By that light, it is a tough call. Far too much damage has been done by passive acceptance of reverence to theism. But of course the same can and should be said of rape as well.
rape of the body and rape of the mind is the difference between being emotionally abused and physically abused. there is no more humbling experience than being sexually assaulted. one escalates to the other.
sexual harassment is not exactly like sexual assault.
But they overlap quite a bit.
I would guess that most rape is spousal rape. Religion often justifies spousal rape by declaring it permissible - or even expected. Religion also serves to stop leaving situations where they might be raped, either by working to ban divorce or by creating duscriminatory social structures that stop a woman from living independently.
So in my mind, "rape or religion" aren't mutually exclusive things. Get rid of religion and you'd get rid of a lot of rape.
No idea who this is but sounds like something a rapist would say.
Religion itself isn't rape; religion just often enables rape.
I agree that they sometimes overlap, but this goes back to another point I mentioned: religion is only conditionally harmful. It is also subject to reinterpretation or change. Rape, on the other hand, is invariably harmful.
If religion's justification of rape in some situations is one of the reasons it is harmful, then that is even more reason to view rape as the one to get rid of between the two in the case of being given the option to do so.
When I say "religion," I'm talking about religion as it actually exists, not a hypothetical state where religion has been reformed to get rid of its negative elements.
This gets into a different question: on one side of the balance, put all the murder, slavery, and other oppression that would not exist if not for religion. On the other side, put all the rape where religion isn't a factor. Which side has more weight? I'm not sure.
rape is about control, about power. religion can be used as a form of control, power. a service to self can't control another when the other doesn't fear, or the service to self doesn't have fear of love. service to self is all about having control of self and other as self.
a person who seeks power will use any means possible to capture and keep control.
fear is the mind killer. a person who fears is in reaction mode, in survival mode. the preservation of self is instinctive and allowable to a point.
but then what if the mind is life eternal. self who can control the mind controls the spice of life.
knowing thyself is knowing other as self is metapsychology.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Last edited:
I think religion as it actually exists has potential for reinterpretation, and, for instance, Christianity has already seen a lot of improvement from its medieval days.
As for the second point, it seems to me that deciding which side has more weight, if either, would require making a judgment concerning whether certain kinds of suffering are worse—however the word "worse" is defined in this context—than others. I don't think it's meaningful to make such a judgment between two things like rape and murder; I view Harris's hypothetical as a way to draw an emotional reaction and not as an argument that has much meaning in the real world.
What kind of religious people you hanging out with?