This is why religion is a problem

[Rufo]

In the same way that Heavy Metal should take the blame when some teenager goes nuts with a gun after listening to their favourite CD?

It's interesting that you mention that - it's one of the reasons I have a hard time blaming this kind of things on religion.

People are influenced by culture, of which both religion and art are parts. Frequently people interpret these religions and arts in radically different ways. A lot of people enjoy them and feel at ease with them. Some people are frustrated or violent, and this will express itself in the arts and religion they are interested in, or the way they are interested in them and interpret them.

There are extremes, but it does not justify calling their interests a 'problem'. I find it ironic that you usually find the religious on the side that blames arts for despicable deeds. Maybe they should have that beam in their eye looked at...

 

[Egg]

No. Nobody is propping up this notion that there are hidden messages on CDs or in music. All believers prop up this notion that there's an invisible man who guides people via messages one gets in one' head.

See the difference?

I don't think any CD has inspired people to fly airplanes into buildings, hate homosexuals, or rape their children...

Sorry, who's propping up the notion that there's an invisible man who guides people via messages one gets in one's head to rape one's children?

 

[Egg]

I find it ironic that you usually find the religious on the side that blames arts for despicable deeds. Maybe they should have that beam in their eye looked at...

I think you have a fair point there.

 

[articulett]

When an invisible man talks to you in a way that is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion, then you are. If you prop up and support this notion that god talks to people "telepathically", then you have no say in what he could be telling other people. Just because the invisible guy who talks to you doesn't tell you to rape children... doesn't mean that the invisible guy talking to someone else (say, Lot -- or the preacher man in the OP) isn't.

We have Mormon guys on this forum who believe that god told them that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Just because he didn't tell you that, doesn't mean he didn't tell them. If you are running around showing deference to the inane idea that invisible immeasurable entities influence people... then you are part of the paradigm where these delusions prosper.

Moreover, when you defend faith and make it look like it's anything and everything but faith and religious deference-- you cover for the problem. Faith is not a means of actually knowing anything valid or true. You cannot get messages via invisible entities and voices in your head. Even when you think they are god or devils or thetans... it isn't. It's a delusion. It's wrong to support delusions or make people feel special and chosen because they think god is talking to them. It encourages this kind of insanity. You have no choice as to what the voices in peoples heads that they interpret as "god" is telling them.

 

[uruk]

It was Lot's daughters, not Noah's (at least not that was reported).

I stand corrected

I didn't say that you couldn't find stories in the bible and take them to justify whatever you might want them to. I asked which religion teaches that rape and incest are ok. Have you ever heard of any churches which would defend that kind of interpretation of those passages?

I haven't heard anything like that being pounded out from the pulpit by any mainstream religion. Although that particular priest may possible have been considering it.

But I am reminded of the song "Give me that old time religion" Particularly the refrain: "It was good enough for old Jonah so it's good enough for me".

It could read "If it was good enough for old Lot, it's good enough for me".

What religion preaches comes from those stories. It would be very easy to come across those verses and make some very bad decisions

You were asking for an incident where an atheist killed a religious person because they believed in a god. This was a pretty common occurrence under atheistic communist regimes. Although it could be argued that believing in god was not the only reason they were killed and that the killers didn't do the killing just because they were atheists, it remains that people were killed by atheists because of their god beliefs.

Can you give me a link? Did Stalin or China target religios groups or ethnic groups?

 

[Rufo]

Can you give me a link? Did Stalin or China target religios groups or ethnic groups?

I don't know about Stalin, but I remember reading about Lenin targeting Christians, killing thousands. The Wikipedia article about Lenin (scroll down, the last paragraph of that section) provides some information, although you might want to look into it some more if you're interested (Wikipedia is, as many point out, not perfect).

In a letter of March 19, 1922, to Molotov and the members of the Politburo, following an uprising by the clergy in the town of Shuia, Lenin outlined a brutal plan of action against the clergy and their followers, who were defying the government decree to remove church valuables: “We must (…) put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades. (…) The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing (…) the better.” According to Church records, 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks and 3,447 nuns were killed that year.

I usually think about this when someone classifies Lenin as some kind of communistic philosopher without blood on his hands, like Marx. He may not be remotely close to Stalin's level, but he's still bad.

 

[Zygar]

I don't think any CD has inspired people to fly airplanes into buildings, hate homosexuals, or rape their children...

Pointing at these specific acts is boring and pointless.

When an invisible man talks to you in a way that is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion, then you are.

Now there's the meat of the matter.

Given how many different conflicting tales there are of what God has said to us, we have a seriously big problem. God is an idiot who can't keep his story straight, or God is an idiot who can't find a decent method of communication. Or possibly God is maliciously doing this to us just to **** with us.

 

[Fnord]

This makes it look like he decided what he was going to do, explained it to everyone, and then did it. Therefore, it would appear that the blame rests on

{SNIP}

... the person who decided to commit the act.

 

[Whiplash]

Anyone have any statistics on the number of times someone didn't do something morally wrong because their religious convictions prevented them from doing it? Any numbers on that?

This was an excellent question and raises lots of areas of discussion. I'm very disappointed to see it was completely ignored. Not suprised, but disappointed for sure.

Of course it's something that can't really be counted or quantified, but I'm quite certain there are many people who have avoided doing things that even non-religious people feel is "wrong", because of their beliefs.

But sadly, unless someone believes that everything and anyone involved in relgion is absolutely evil, wrong, ignorant, biggotted and horrible human beings, they won't make many friends around here. I thought lefties were all about shades of gray and moral relativism these days, but they sure don't seem to feel that way when it comes to religion. Wait, I take that back. If it's Islam they will.

Here I am, a conservative, calling on people to be more open minded, kind, empathetic, understanding, compassionate and objective. And it's rejected in a mostly hostile and condescending manner by the very people who usually champion these virtues. An irony that is not lost on me.

 

[m_huber]

{SNIP}

... the person who decided to commit the act.

Would his wife or children have supported him if God had not given him instruction?

 

[Egg]

When an invisible man talks to you in a way that is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion, then you are. If you prop up and support this notion that god talks to people "telepathically", then you have no say in what he could be telling other people. Just because the invisible guy who talks to you doesn't tell you to rape children... doesn't mean that the invisible guy talking to someone else (say, Lot -- or the preacher man in the OP) isn't.

We have Mormon guys on this forum who believe that god told them that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Just because he didn't tell you that, doesn't mean he didn't tell them. If you are running around showing deference to the inane idea that invisible immeasurable entities influence people... then you are part of the paradigm where these delusions prosper.

Moreover, when you defend faith and make it look like it's anything and everything but faith and religious deference-- you cover for the problem. Faith is not a means of actually knowing anything valid or true. You cannot get messages via invisible entities and voices in your head. Even when you think they are god or devils or thetans... it isn't. It's a delusion. It's wrong to support delusions or make people feel special and chosen because they think god is talking to them. It encourages this kind of insanity. You have no choice as to what the voices in peoples heads that they interpret as "god" is telling them.

I'm not really seeing the difference here between being inspired by art or being inspired by the bible. So, why would it not follow that someone who was inspired by watching Schindler's List to campaign against Nazis would be propping up the notion that people can be inspired to action by art, and therefore carry some kind of implicit guilt for the teenager who pulls a gun on his classmates claiming to be inspired by some Heavy Metal band?

Could it not also be argued in the same manner that those spreading or defending anti-religious rhetoric are propping up those (like Lenin) who might act on such ideas?

 

[Hokulele]

I didn't say that you couldn't find stories in the bible and take them to justify whatever you might want them to. I asked which religion teaches that rape and incest are ok. Have you ever heard of any churches which would defend that kind of interpretation of those passages?

That would depend on what you would accept as a definition of religion. There are many cults loosely based on Christianity and biblical writings that use interpretations most societies would find repugnant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh#Accusations_of_child_abuse_and_statutory_rape

 

[articulett]

I'm not really seeing the difference here between being inspired by art or being inspired by the bible. So, why would it not follow that someone who was inspired by watching Schindler's List to campaign against Nazis would be propping up the notion that people can be inspired to action by art, and therefore carry some kind of implicit guilt for the teenager who pulls a gun on his classmates claiming to be inspired by some Heavy Metal band?

Could it not also be argued in the same manner that those spreading or defending anti-religious rhetoric are propping up those (like Lenin) who might act on such ideas?

You are having trouble seeing the difference because you think it is good to believe that your eternal happiness depends on believing a certain way. What wouldn't you do for eternal happiness?-- If you really thought God wanted you to do so? We have a society that approves of the notion that people can get "higher messages" and nobody who is capable of determining real messages (as if) from fake ones.

Moreover, lack of belief in something doesn't "inspire" anything... that's another bit of faulty thinking promulgated by religion. People who don't believe in astrology or superstitions don't run out to kill those who do... there is no reason to do so. We educate. Regimes are defined by what they believe in--the ideals that unite them-- not by the things they don't believe. We have huge swaths of people who believe that god talks to them and a bunch of other people who agree that this is a possibility. But we have no person who can distinguish god from a delusion of a god.

If you cannot see the difference, it is because you have a faith protecting meme that ensures you won't.

 

[articulett]

I believe in the bible there is an invisible guy who impregnates a virgin without her consent and tells her about it after the fact... now I'm not sure that counts as rape--

but the bible certainly doesn't forbid treating women as property of males.

 

[tsig]

Blaming religion for atrocities is like blaming firearms for murder.

In both cases, it is the tool used, and not the user of the tool, that is blamed for the crime.

In other words, religion doesn't rape little girls, people do.

But religion let's them feel right about it,

 

[Menalitus]

I doubt there is much "eye for an eye" or stuff about smiting in the firearm user manuals (or that of any other tools).

Thou shalt taketh this pump action and smite the unbelievers... Hallelujah!

 

[tsig]

While I can agree with your initial statement, that does not render their arguments "all rhetoric". Religion, any religion, is appealing because it gives adherents a moral high ground from which they feel they can dictate, or justify, behavior. After all, my god has the corner market on truth, so your god must be wrong and therefore inferior or even false.

From there, it's just a small skip from showing someone the "error of their ways" to "ridding the world of false gods/teachings".

Most religions are based on a "do unto others" kind of policy that forms the basis of their belief structure, no matter how easy it is to slip into the justification for violence in any form. Religion certainly helps provide a nice slippery slope, but that's a fault of adherents, rather than the religious basics.



Now, this is rhetoric. There is no way to know if any given atrocity would or would not have occurred if religion hadn't been present to provide a justification, no matter how lame or weak, and that goes the same with guns.

By the same measure, we could just as easily say that there are atrocities that have been prevented because of the involvement of religion or faithful adherents . . . or guns.

Seems like both of these sacred cows can cut in either direction.

Mumm sacred cows make the best barbecue.

The Cult of the Great Apis Bull lasted 3000 years. Christers have got to go another thousand just to get even.

 

[billydkid]

This is absolutely disgusting.



http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20080403060414774C774861


And that is why religion is a problem.

This and thousands of other reasons.

 

[tsig]

Do we know who granted him this religious authority, and who is was leading, besides a justification for his own moral shortcomings?

I would surmised as "self-proclaimed" all "authority" was self-granted, and he wasn't leading anyone. This suggests rather that he was using religion as a scape-goat for something he knew was morally reprehensible.

god gave him the authority just like he gives it to you.

 

[tsig]

I think urges and feelings we don't understand have long been attributed to gods, demons, thetans, and so forth...

I think this guy found himself attracted to his daughter and interpreted it as a message from god... I think polygamous Mormon men do this all the time... It's nice when your god happens to want exactly what you want for yourself. Suppose the daughter had gotten a message that it was really Satan trying to tempt her dad and pretending to be god--

When you believe invisible, immeasurable, entities that influence humans, you can be so readily manipulated and you can so readily fool yourself and others. Lots of folks claim to be in on "divine secrets"... their "secrets" are no more verifiable than this man's divine secrets. I think it's much smarter to teach each other to doubt all such messages.

It's interesting how the believers god agrees with him/her.

As the prophet's wife said " It's amazing how your god fulfills your desires"