Whats more important, religion or people?

[England my lionheart]

Many people take their orders from him.

I respect the position and think many popes have done good, but I don’t think he speaks for God. He does not set policy in my life.

A quick look around the US and it’s clear that a a great many Catholics don’t follow what he says either.

Maybe that’s true,I think most religious people,especially the Abrahmic religions think that a person does,ie a prophet,a prophet is a person after all and although the Pope isn’t a Prophet he is gods vicar on earth.

 

[Truth in love]

Maybe that’s true,I think most religious people,especially the Abrahmic religions think that a person does,ie a prophet,a prophet is a person after all and although the Pope isn’t a Prophet he is gods vicar on earth.

some see him that way. A prophet on the other hand is picked by God and does have authority to speak for Him.

 

[England my lionheart]

some see him that way. A prophet on the other hand is picked by God and does have authority to speak for Him.

This is the difficult part,from God to person,God to Moses Jesus Muhammed or the many prophets of the old and New Testament,how can we possibly know they had authority so it’s left to us as humans to find some empathy imo.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Whats more important, religion or people?

If people are more important (which I personally assert that they are) then it is only logical that an empath should feel more empathy for the victims of religion (such as the LGBT community) than for the people who have their religions critiqued.

But if you feel that religions are important more than people are feel free to justify your position to do so (no I'm not forcing you to justify your position by asking you to).

In my opinion.

I voted others.

It depends which religion. There are many religions in the world.
Religion is part of people and people are part of religion.
Is food more important or people? For some people, religion is like their spiritual food.
There could be some cults, that are poison. Beside those, religion can be food for spiritual needs.
The extremism is another story however.
Some have used religion against human rights. In that case, of course they have gone the wrong way. That's not how religion supposed to be.

 

[danieldemol]

There was a serious of abusers who appear to have gotten cover form the church.

I think that there is enough evidence that the church at that time (late 90’s is when this all came out as I recall) was endangering children as they would not subject the priest to legal consequences and put them in a position to abuse again. Even in this case though I would not the the roughly one billion Catholics for the abuse only the priests and others who took part in or covered it up.


Any medium or larger group has someone doing things wrong. When the teachings and consistent behavior is good and there are a few bad actors it’s wrong to blame the group.

So there have been other groups than the Catholic Church which have covered up sexual abuse presumably because they felt the prestige of the religion was more important than the people (victims) at stake so again, how would you have referred to *all* of the victims?

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

I voted others.

It depends which religion. There are many religions in the world.
Religion is part of people and people are part of religion.
Is food more important or people? For some people, religion is like their spiritual food.
There could be some cults, that are poison. Beside those, religion can be food for spiritual needs.
The extremism is another story however.
Some have used religion against human rights. In that case, of course they have gone the wrong way. That's not how religion supposed to be.

So special pleading, if my religion subjects criminals to cruel and unusual punishments* (ie goes against human rights) it is spiritual food, but if other religions do it the people are more important than the religion.

*such as burning arsonists for example.

In my opinion.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Well, religion can't exist without people. People can exist without religion. Religion can make people less important. Religion can make people more important. So if you have a religion that makes more important, then is that specific religion more important than people? Or is that an oxymoron, or paradox?

 

[Truth in love]

So there have been other groups than the Catholic Church which have covered up sexual abuse presumably because they felt the prestige of the religion was more important than the people (victims) at stake so again, how would you have referred to *all* of the victims?

In my opinion.

by referring to them as being abused.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So special pleading, if my religion subjects criminals to cruel and unusual punishments* (ie goes against human rights) it is spiritual food, but if other religions do it the people are more important than the religion.

*such as burning arsonists for example.

In my opinion.

Human rights would weigh a religion against its standards.

 

[danieldemol]

by referring to them as being abused.

But then I would only be covering the victims of abuse cover up, I wouldn't be covering those subject to harassment for being LGBT or victims of apostasy laws for example.

So again how would you cover all the victims?

In my opinion

 

[danieldemol]

Human rights would weigh a religion against its standards.

So a religion whose standards are that apostates should be executed wouldn't be committing human rights abuses by that criterion.

I think it is far more logical to judge the extent to which religions adhere to secular human rights standards based on reason and compassion than on arbitrary religious standards.

In my opinion.

 

[Truth in love]

But then I would only be covering the victims of abuse cover up, I wouldn't be covering those subject to harassment for being LGBT or victims of apostasy laws for example.

So again how would you cover all the victims?

In my opinion

There is not a term that covers all victims without blaming a lot of innocent folks.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Whats more important, religion or people?

If people are more important (which I personally assert that they are) then it is only logical that an empath should feel more empathy for the victims of religion (such as the LGBT community) than for the people who have their religions critiqued.

But if you feel that religions are important more than people are feel free to justify your position to do so (no I'm not forcing you to justify your position by asking you to).

In my opinion.

I believe that truth is more important - and that can be found through both religion and people - but the source is God.

 

[danieldemol]

There is not a term that covers all victims without blaming a lot of innocent folks.

I disagree, victims of religion doesn't mean victims of all religions, it just means all victims.
In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

I believe that truth is more important - and that can be found through both religion and people - but the source is God.

Ok, but how can we find truth without subjecting religions to the scrutiny of critique? What if the truth is that some religions victimise some people, how should we know without religions being subject to criticism? And if the truth is that some religions do victimise some people, who should we have empathy for in that case - the victimiser religion or the victim/(s) of that religion?

In my opinion

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Ok, but how can we find truth without subjecting religions to the scrutiny of critique?

You can't.

All religions - people - ideas - anything - should be subject to scrutiny and critique.

Those who say otherwise are not seeking truth.

They are either trying to confirm their own biases or are beholden to an ideology/religion/culture/people.

What if the truth is that some religions victimise some people, how should we know without religions being subject to criticism?

You wouldn't - criticize away.

But you need to be clear about what you mean by "victimize".

What does a "victim" of religion look like to you?

And if the truth is that some religions do victimise some people, who should we have empathy for in that case - the victimiser religion or the victim/(s) of that religion?

Well - you have empathy for people - not systems of faith and belief.

We should have empathy for all the victims - even those who victimize may themselves be victims.

In my opinion

When did you share an opinion?

 

[syo]

People are important.

Religion should get out of people!

 

[Muffled]

Whats more important, religion or people?

If people are more important (which I personally assert that they are) then it is only logical that an empath should feel more empathy for the victims of religion (such as the LGBT community) than for the people who have their religions critiqued.

But if you feel that religions are important more than people are feel free to justify your position to do so (no I'm not forcing you to justify your position by asking you to).

In my opinion.

I believe God is more important than people. When people are right with God, people are better off.

 

[Muffled]

Given SCOTUS have put religion above people (or at least half the people)
and seem to be continuing the trend i don't see it as anything but a real life situation in which the church has become more important than the people of America

I suppose one does not consider unborn babies people but that is no surprise that is what soldiers do so they don't feel so bad about killing their enemies. My wife thought of the child within her as an alien but that didn't stop her from having children. Maybe knowing what the end result is helps.

 

[Muffled]

I don't agree with their ruling either, really, but if you think the church being more important than people is new, well.... it started about the 70's or so, actually.

As in 70AD? I believe Jesus died on a cross because the Pharisees felt their religious beliefs were better than God's word.