Runt
Well-Known Member
Like Snake Handlers!
-
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!
Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive?
- Thread starter Fluffy
- Start date
kai
ragamuffin
well really it would depend on where you happen to be born, the likelyhood of being brought up a christian when born in Saudi Arabia is pretty slim. (but like i said there is a thread here
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...5249-child-abuse-teach-children-religion.html
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Thanks kai
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
First you say "religion," lumping all religions together.
Then you say "Abrahamic" religions, lumping all the myriad denominations together.
It's the lumping that's the problem.
Within Islam, the Sufis believe that even Satan will be reconciled with God.
There are a few denominations of Christianity that believe in universal salvation.
And there are many more who believe that hell is only for the truly wicked having nothing to do with who is Christian and who is not.
And even within the denominations that preach hell, there are individual Christians who don't buy it.
For Judaism, I would say that many Jews would say that your characterization doesn't even make sense. Heaven and hell are not a concepts that all or even most Jews accept.
Your original point was that even religious liberals were wanting when it comes to gender equality. I say that's not true, and you switch the conversation to the two largest Christian churches. Unless the two largest Christian churches are liberal, which I know they are not, your point is irrelevant.
There are officially recognized Welcoming congregations programs amongst the UCC, Quakers, Mennonites, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Reform Judaism, and of course the UUA.
There are unofficially recognized Welcoming congregations programs amongst the Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists, and conservative Judaism.
You want to judge by the entire denomination and wonder why people are members? People aren't members of denominations. People are members of congregations. Most of the time, they don't even know what the "official" stance of their denomination is. But they do know what their congregation believes.
What's more, many people have their entire social structures centered around church. Religion is not simply a "club" that you can either join or not. I know some people treat it that way, shopping from one faith to another depending on what suits them at the moment, but many more treat it as a relationship, a commitment. You stay even when you don't agree. Because if you leave, there's no way to get it to change.
I know you don't agree with the policies and actions of this country, MB. Why haven't you left? Why are you continuing your membership in such a discriminatory organization?? I know why I haven't left.
Is that an answer? Are you seriously questioning the morality of gay parents who don't prevent their kids from participating in something that all their friends are doing? Different people resist in different ways.
I'm opposed to anyone who preaches divisiveness, which is what Dawkins does. As for the Boy Scouts, I have no relationship with them whatsoever. This is mind-boggling! My denomination has chosen to maintain a relationship with them and you assume that I do. It's exactly the kind of "they're all the same" thinking that is the reason for our argument. I spend a hell of a lot more time dialoguing with people who don't like religion than I do the Scouts. This thread is an example of it. :sarcastic
So you criticize devoting your life working with the poor? If you get out on the streets and do that, then you can tell me how you do it better than she did. Otherwise, dandruff. And don't bother bringing up the charges of embezzlement again. I don't buy it. Unless you're suggesting that she hid the money under her sari.
That's nice. So the guy up the street from my church who spends several hours a week running a soup kitchen is not a good Christian because he doesn't enrage other Christians.
In your world, no one would work with anyone, because there's always going to be something that someone does that you object to.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Perhaps you could try it for once, and then we'll find out if we do.
Runt
Well-Known Member
MidnightBlue... I know you're talking to Lilithu, but I wanted to address some of these....
I suppose I said all of that to say this: Although there is still certainly a huuuuge number denominations and sects within the three Abrahamic religions which preach hellfire and damnation, and divide the Chosen people from the Damned, there are also a growing number of sects and denominations which do not do this. I know there are many Christian faiths out there especially that I can think of that proclaim that all---or at least most---people are loved by god and going to heaven. Certainly these groups do not drown out the voices of more orthodox, fundamentalist, extremist or evangelical groups who do indeed continue professing that certain people are beloved by god and deserving of the rewards of heaven, whereas the vast majority of others are not rewarded and not deserving... still, they cannot be ignored, and to generalize by claiming that the Abrahamic Religions simply "do" divide the world into these two camps is inaccurate. Some denominations and sects do, some do not. And some individuals within denominations and sects dividing the world in this way practice and preach their religion in ways which differ from the doctrine of their religion. Yet their religiosity can be considered no less an example of religion---nor any less genuine---than those which more strictly adhere to the dogma of their faith. So, again, there are instances where the Abrahamic Religions preach sin and hellfire, and instances where they do not. One religion should not be condemned for the "sins" of others...
I think there's a dangerous and rather unfair habit within popular culture to try to point to a particular form of a religious tradition and claim that it is the "real" or the "most valid" form of that religion, and that all other forms are merely deviant forms, or exceptions to the rule. One of the ways people often do this is by pointing to the religious texts claimed by a tradition, and arguing that because the tradition does not adhere to everything in the text, it is somehow less genuine---less an example of the broader religious tradition to which it belongs---than branches which better adhere to the text, or which are older.
I suppose I said all of that to say this: Although there is still certainly a huuuuge number denominations and sects within the three Abrahamic religions which preach hellfire and damnation, and divide the Chosen people from the Damned, there are also a growing number of sects and denominations which do not do this. I know there are many Christian faiths out there especially that I can think of that proclaim that all---or at least most---people are loved by god and going to heaven. Certainly these groups do not drown out the voices of more orthodox, fundamentalist, extremist or evangelical groups who do indeed continue professing that certain people are beloved by god and deserving of the rewards of heaven, whereas the vast majority of others are not rewarded and not deserving... still, they cannot be ignored, and to generalize by claiming that the Abrahamic Religions simply "do" divide the world into these two camps is inaccurate. Some denominations and sects do, some do not. And some individuals within denominations and sects dividing the world in this way practice and preach their religion in ways which differ from the doctrine of their religion. Yet their religiosity can be considered no less an example of religion---nor any less genuine---than those which more strictly adhere to the dogma of their faith. So, again, there are instances where the Abrahamic Religions preach sin and hellfire, and instances where they do not. One religion should not be condemned for the "sins" of others...
The UUA isn't really a Christian church... that being said, though, even though the two largest Christian churches in the world commit injustices, does not mean that every religion is injust, or even that the religions which do commit injustices do so necessarily. If some religions commit some injustices and others do not, then it follows that these injustices are not a necessary bi-product of human religiosity. Other factors contribute to injustice, which become entangled in and propagated by religious motivations. We must condemn injustice, and not make the mistake of arguing that if injustice is committed by some religions, all religions, simply by being religions, are harmful.
I'm not challenging you on this one, I'm actually curious. I have heard nothing whatsoever about the UUA being associated with the Boy Scouts. Given, I don't doubt in any way that we are, but I simply have not heard anything about it, which suggests to me it is not a group which my congregation, at least, it terribly interested in or loyal to. That being said, other than recalling a news story about a young atheist who was kicked out of the Boy Scouts for refusing to state that he believed in God, I don't know what the Boy Scouts have done that is so contemptible that the UUA should be condemned for simply being associated with them. While I personally would rather we NOT support the Boy Scouts for the aforementioned reason, I don't consider the issue of such great consequence that continuing to associate with the organization makes the UUA a religion so reprehensible that people should abandon or annihilate it, as Dawkins suggests. And even if the Boy Scouts had done something reprehensible...... if general congregants were to be informed about what the UUA should not support the Boy Scouts, we could simply stop supporting them... as I said earlier, even if a religion contributes to injustice, it need not do so necessarily. Rather than being abandoned, a religion can be changed, an injustice can be halted or even made right...
Again, you're generalizing. Yes, some religious people condone bigotry and exclusion, but certainly not all religious people, and certainly not all religions. And not necessarily. It's unfair to say that because some religions condone bigotry and exclusion sometimes, ALL religions are negative and should be done away with.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
I'd say that's true of the vast majority of UU congregations.
The Boy Scouts discriminates against both atheists and BGLT. There have been long time troop leaders that have been kicked out once it became known that they were gay.
I don't know much more about it than you do, but I think at one time the UUA cultivated a relationship with the Scouts because so many of our youth were members. When the trouble started, there was a long conversation about whether to drop the association or continue. And the powers that be decided to continue basically for the reasons you state, because they felt that we could have more of a positive effect if we maintain a relationship than if we cut it off. I do think that many UU families keep their kids from the Scouts as a result. But others don't. I think that Amy started a thread on this in the UU forum.
Yep, she's a UU! :angel2:
Runt
Well-Known Member
Hmm.... while I recognize that it was probably a hard decision for the UUA to make, at the same time...... I wish it hadn't been the decision made. But that's okay... there's plenty of time for pointed sermons.. >.> Stupid decisions can be overturned. We should make our OWN Boy Scouts! We can call them... erm.... Boy Scouuts...
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
UUgh! I'm not sure what's worse, that you didn't use gender inclusive language or that you did the UUbiqUUitous double-UU.We should make our OWN Boy Scouts! We can call them... erm.... Boy Scouuts...
I think it would be cool if we started our own Scouts. And completing OWL (comprehensive sex ed, for those of you who aren't UUs) can be one of the merit badges!
Smoke
Done here.
I don't really think I ought to have to point out what I did and didn't say, but I wasn't talking about heaven and hell, I was talking about dividing the world into "us" and "them." The first thing I said in this thread on that subject was:
That is, I didn't say "all religions," and I specifically indicated what kind of religions I was talking about. The second thing I said on the subject was:
In other words, I'm objecting to religion's role in perpetuating and sanctifying the very "fear and hatred of 'the Other'" that you object to.
No. I said there is no large Christian church in which women are equal to men and LGBTs are equal to cisgendered heterosexuals. That's true, and it includes "liberal" churches like the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church USA.
I'm well aware that there are many religious denominations in which equality and bigotry are equally acceptable options on the local level. Whenever religious people are explaining to me how enlightened Christians are about LGBTs, I always think it would be helpful if they mentally substituted the word "black" (or "Asian" or "blue eyed" or "short" or whatever it takes for the reality of exclusion to sink in) for the word "gay." For instance, how impressed would you expect me to be with the following?
There are officially recognized programs among the UCC, Quakers, Mennonites, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Reform Judaism and of course the UUA whereby some congregations welcome black members.
There are unofficially recognized programs among the Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists and conservative Judaism whereby some congregations welcome black members.
There are unofficially recognized programs among the Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists and conservative Judaism whereby some congregations welcome black members.
If you belong to a Klavern, you belong to the Klan, and unless you're completely oblivious, you know you belong to the Klan. I don't deny that many people are completely oblivious.
Again, you could make the same argument for belonging to the Klan. My uncle, whom I loved, was a member of the Klan. The members of the Klan also have a social structure and a relationship among themselves. It's not just about racism and bigotry, even though racism and bigotry are institutionalized in the organization. According to your argument, it would have been wrong for my uncle to leave the Klan. (You can rest easy; he never did.)
Frankly, if I could afford to emigrate, I probably would. But I shouldn't have to explain that nationality isn't the same thing as membership in a private organization, or as easy to change.
I did give up my religion, which I loved, precisely because of such issues, and it wasn't an easy thing to do. But it was the right thing to do.
Allowing your children to join an organization that explicitly and vehemently teaches bigotry is not resistance; it's capitulation. I don't say that everyone whose sons are in the Boy Scouts is a bad person, but I do think they've made a bad decision.
Actually, the "you" I had in mind was your denomination. Unitarian Universalists, as a group, have determined that membership in the BSA is compatible with their principles. Why do you blame me for noticing?
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not impressed with Mother Teresa for reasons I've already stated, none of which you've addressed, so I don't see any point in pursuing that subject any further.
He's probably an unusually good Christian, but if he advocates peace, justice or equality, he will certainly incur the rage of many of his fellow Christians.
I didn't say anything at all about who anyone could work with, who anyone could associate with, or anything of the kind. Very few of the people I work with or associate with share my beliefs or convictions. I'm not saying that religious people, or any people, ought to cut themselves off from the world.
I am saying that in the dominant religions in the United States, religious belief has been and still is more conducive of violence, injustice and bigotry than peace, justice and equality. The fact that every Christian denomination sanctions institutionalized homophobia on the local and regional level, and most mandate it on the national or international level, is just an example of that. And while I respect the UUs more than most religions, I reserve the right to be critical of their decision to continue their relationship with/participation in the Boy Scouts. If the Scouts excluded African-Americans instead of homosexuals and atheists, I suspect the UUA would have reached a different decision.
You seem not to grasp the fact that I can disagree with someone's beliefs and ethics and still see much good about that person. You seem also to feel that Richard Dawkins' rejection of religious belief makes him a bad person. Or is it just his explaining his reasons that makes him a bad person?
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Btw, here are some links pertaining to the relationship between the UUA and the Scouts. As you can see, even tho we still maintain a relationship with them, we haven't been quiet about our objections.
Unitarian Universalist Association
UUA: Work to Change Discriminatory Policies of Boy Scouts of America
Boy Scouts of America
In particular, I'd like to highlight the following:
The UUA has since entered into negations with the BSA to be represented on the BSA Religious Relationships Committee. They commented that:
Unitarian Universalist Association
UUA: Work to Change Discriminatory Policies of Boy Scouts of America
Boy Scouts of America
In particular, I'd like to highlight the following:
The UUA has since entered into negations with the BSA to be represented on the BSA Religious Relationships Committee. They commented that:
- a large number of young Unitarian Universalists have been involved in Scouting.
- the BSA "will need counsel from groups like the UUA -- not just from religious conservatives," -- to help it adapt to "the religious pluralism of the 21st century." BSA will also need to change in order to avoid future court challenges to its religious discrimination policies.
- "Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should not be allowed to continue as a national policy of the BSA. It will ruin the organization, costing them the support of millions of people, of foundations, and of the United Way in many areas."
Smoke
Done here.
At no time have I said that all religions are negative and should be done away with. As a matter of fact, I haven't said that any religion should be done away with, though I certainly think that there are many religions that would have to be drastically reformed before it would be ethical to support them. I attempt, with limited success, to practice two religions myself.
I do understand Richard Dawkins' anger at the idea that people should consider turning to religion an appropriate response to violence motivated by religion. I understand his contention that it's better to abandon all such belief systems than to quibble endlessly about the details of what believers' Imaginary Friend does and does not sanction. I don't agree with his opinion in all details, but I don't think it's anywhere near as outlandish as people claim it is. Reason and compassion are almost always better guides to good behavior than dogma and revelation. When once you have accepted the principle of religious authority, you have accepted not only that religion may compel you to do evil, but that religion may demand that you believe evil is good.
Irrational beliefs and religious authorities have the potential to be very destructive things, and all too often they live up to that potential in spades. Is it really so hard to understand why Richard Dawkins should consider it a bad thing to cling so desperately to insupportable ways of believing and thinking, especially when so many believers refuse even to face the fact that religion ever has evil outcomes?
How many times on these forums have I read that religious violence, coercion and bigotry have nothing to do with religion, not even when they're officially mandated by religious authorities and enthusiastically embraced by believers for what both the authorities and their followers explicitly say are religious reasons? Admitting that you have a problem is the first step.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Those who are going to heaven are "us" and those who are going to hell are "them." And I'm saying that it's much more complex than your assertion that all the Abrahamic faiths divide into us versus them.
From my pov, YOU are the one dividing people into us versus them. You're the one who's being absolutist. "Don't associate with the evil-doers." I am surrounded by friends of the Abrahamic faiths who bear no ill-will towards anyone and try to make the world a better place, and you are saying that it's wrong to associate with them, because they're wrong for associating with their faith because some in their faith are hateful. It's wrong to talk to the Boy Scouts because some elements of them are hateful. You are dividing people into us versus them.
Why don't you try some of that Buddhist non-attachment, since you think it's so superior to the Abrahamic faiths?
I'm going to bed.
Smoke
Done here.
That is not only not what I said, it's the precise opposite of what I said.
I didn't say it was wrong to talk to the Boy Scouts; I didn't say it was wrong to talk to anybody. I said, and I believe, that it's wrong to participate in the Boy Scouts.
I'm really having trouble understanding why you keep insisting on putting words in my mouth, and criticizing me for saying things I haven't said.
Very mature, Lilithu.
That's a good idea. Your head may be clearer after some sleep.
And you clearly have a problem.
Science and religion are both human endeavors and both suffer from the association. So, for example, we've 'Social Darwinism' evolve to justify the violence, coercion and bigotry of the 19th and 20th century.
At the same time, we've also seen religion in the vanguard of the Abolitionist, Peace, Humanist, and Civil Rights movements.
Your bigoted view is adolescent and superficial. Perhaps your head will be clearer after some sleep.
I personally loved it. I have never seen Gods existence argued against in such a logical manner. Even a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawkings does not delve into that subject but rather touches upon it here and there. (I just read a Briefer History of Time buy Hawkings.... Like 140 pages of where we are today science wise written for the non scientist.)
It touches on string theory, quantum gravity, relativity etc etc.
But back to Dawkins... He is quite thorough... obviously different people would say he skipped over different things in regards to their particular faith but his argument seems to apply equally to most religions. Dawkins himself ackowledges that there may be a God of some sort in the einsteinian sense in that its still a useful construct at this point to theorize how the beginning of our known universe came about.
logician
Well-Known Member
Getting testy in your old age? I can refute any argument you make for the existence of
some god.
logician
Well-Known Member
There is no heaven or hell, fortunately, so supposed gods like you believe in cannot torture people for eternity.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Really, please point out to me where you said that we should not view anyone as the Other or "them" including those of the Abrahamic faiths with which you disagree. I must have missed it.
Well then, don't participate.
What, you're allowed to suggest that people live up to their ideals but others are not?
Very condescending, MB.
You keep attacking religion and then saying that you didn't mean it that way. You berate people for engaging in the same "superstition" that caused 9/11 and then say that you are not calling for an end to the Abrahamic faiths. What exactly do you see as a continuation of their faiths that doesn't involve what you call "superstition"? You lump all the different sects of the Abrahamic traditions together as if they all teach the same thing. How is that not "us versus them?" You condemn liberal religionists because they oppose conservative views on gender and orientation yet still maintain a relationship with the people. You are suggesting that liberal relgionists should sever themselves from conservatives. How is that not "us versus them"?
Perhaps you have a point somewhere other than your antipathy for the Abrahamic traditions, but you're certainly not making it clear.
Or perhaps not.