|
Post by Don on Jun 4, 2017 21:41:01 GMT -5
It's not even about being forced. It's about voting for those sorts of initiatives. But even so, Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, biyatch." Well, we don't actually vote for initiatives like that, but if you vote for politicians that support food stamps, to use this particular example, you are voting to use force to compel some people to pay for those food stamps, even though they would not choose to do so voluntarily. So yes, it is about being forced. It's about approving the initiation of force against otherwise peaceful people who would choose to spend their money differently than you demand. That's what government does. It enforces some people's demands against other people's voluntary choices, by force if necessary. Calling it voting doesn't change what's happening. And professional courtesy covers your "but even so," ya know.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 4, 2017 21:52:45 GMT -5
Jesus wasn't a libertarian, Don. He never uttered a single word about resisting those awful government officials. His only mention was to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" -- after asking whose face was on the coin.
Jesus didn't give a fuck about money or personal possessions or freedom.
He was anti-violence to the point of being killed without resisting.
You probably don't want to associate with Jesus.
ETA: And if that's coming off as hateful or dismissive again, I'm sorry.
But I just can't fathom the defense of Christians being against food stamps or healthcare or Medicaid or whatever else because "the government forced them." Helping less fortunate people was a fucking missive from Christ himself. He didn't give any parameters or exceptions. And the outcome for those who never helped was, "Depart from me; I never knew you." And then a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Conservative Christians should be rejoicing that some of their tax dollars go to feed the hungry and care for the sick, not whining that it wasn't voluntary.
The overall point is that the god belief is often nothing more than an excuse to prop up an ideological belief for some people, because there isn't a single damn Bible verse to support what amounts to "I got mine; fuck you."
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 5, 2017 0:48:26 GMT -5
Agreed. The question, for me, is how much an actual belief in a god informs ideology, as opposed to how much a person or group of people "use" the concept of a god to do what they want to do. I.e., is it: a god says to do X, Y, and Z, therefore, they must do X, Y, and Z (as they understand what their god has commanded) or is it: I want to do X, Y, and Z, and I'm using this interpretation of god to justify it? (Side note: this may in fact be the crux of why I don't believe in a god anymore. ) My response would be to ask why you feel compelled not to believe someone when they tell you exactly why they act the way they do. This is something I notice in a lot of Islamic apologists (I'm not saying that you are one. You might be. You might not be. I'm just saying this to make a point), they do everything they can to deny the reasons that terrorists give for their actions...but usually only when those reasons are related to Islam. Parodoxically, they accept the reasons that have nothing to do with Islam. If a fundamentalist Christian politician votes against gay marriage or a Christian baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it is against their religious beliefs, many liberals will often automatically accept the religious reason and proclaim that the person and his/her religious beliefs are bigoted. When a terrorist (or terrorist apologist) claims that a terrorist act is motivated by Western foreign policy or climate change, many liberals will automatically accept that reason. However, when groups like ISIS or Al Queda claim that terrorist acts are motivated by their fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, suddenly those same liberals will deny it to their dying breath. So, my question is, when a person or group tells us that their actions are driven by their religious beliefs, why do many liberals only accept that for bad acts by fundamentalist Christians, but bend over backwards to deny it when it comes to bad acts by fundamentalist Muslims? My attitude is that when someone tells me that they act a certain way for a specific reason, and they tell me that reason, I believe them because I have no reason to doubt them. I'm not a mind reader, so I would be a fool to make an argument based on some sort of clairvoyance that I somehow know the "real" reason that they act the way they do, and that I somehow know that they're really lying. I feel that your attitude on this is hewing close to an attempt at mind-reading. If they say, "We do this because of X," we don't have much reason right now to disbelieve them or ascribe alternate, more convoluted motivations for their actions. They throw gays off of rooftops because their religious beliefs dictate that gays should be put to death. Sharia Law demands that gays should be killed, because it is commanded in the hadith. That's just one example of their barbaric behavior. The quran and hadith both command that the world should convert to Islam and that infidels should be punished. That is another driving motivation behind their actions. They are conquering Middle Eastern territories and forcing everyone on those lands to follow their fundamentalist interpretation of Islam because their religious beliefs based on their interpretations of their holy texts command them to do so. They follow an apocalyptic ideology. Some have admitted that they are driven by a belief that they are readying the world for a supernatural reckoning from Allah. As far as the "nothing to do with belief in god," I will always disagree with that, because the evidence does not support your position. You're pretty much just guessing or in denial for some reason that I truly do not understand. I agree that terrorist acts are not inexorably linked with the concept of belief in a god, but ISIS's acts absolutely are linked with THEIR specific beliefs in their specific interpretation of their religion...which is absolutely based on a belief in a god. I agree that, absent religion, the world would still have terrorism (e.g., the IRA in the 80s). But, absent religion, ISIS would not exist. Sure, some terrorist group in the middle east might exist, but they would have radically different motivations from ISIS. ISIS's motivations are largely informed by their religious beliefs, which is why they make all people in the lands they take over convert to and abide by their beliefs (or they kill them). That doesn't mean they don't have other influences as well. But it is factually wrong to state or believe that their motivation is not mostly motivated by their religious beliefs or has "zero" to do with belief in god. It is not a position that is rooted in reality. I'm confused, because you spent most of your post up until this point seemingly downplaying their stated motivations. It's important that we don't blame terrorism, bigotry, and hate on ALL god beliefs. So, I agree with that, if that's the point you're making. But, several god beliefs absolutely teach these things and absolutely should be blamed for them. The radical, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that ISIS follows is one of those god belief systems that deserves blame for motivating ISIS's actions. You seem to be vigorously trying to establish that religion, in general, is not to blame for terrorism. In that case, you're preaching to the choir, as I don't see where anyone in this thread has said anything close to that (i.e., laying the blame on "religion" as a whole...though, an solid argument for that could probably be made). I've been pretty clear in several posts now that I am not making that claim or putting that blame on "all religion" or on the simple concept of "believing in a god" yet, whenever I am careful to make that clear, you still come back with that same defense. I want to be totally clear, yet again. I am not laying the blame for ISIS's behavior on "all religion" or on the fact that many people are religious. I am saying that they are motivated by a specific set of religious beliefs. There are racist police officers, but that doesn't mean that law enforcement is inherently racist or that everyone who is or wants to be a cop is racist. It's the same logical principle. "Religious belief," as a phenomenon, is not inherently bigoted and hateful, but many specific religious beliefs are. So, I'm asking you to please not reply back with that same defense again, because it is irrelevant to the points I have made. I still view that as just a word game. Give the current ultra-PC sentiments floating around in the West, it often makes some people uncomfortable to blame Islamic beliefs for anything negative. It's almost a taboo at this point, so they sugar-coat it or dance around it by bringing in "western foreign policy" or "political ideology" and other such things so it doesn't sound like they're attacking the PC crowd's current golden calf of Islam. Maybe on some level you're partly motivated by that socially-prescribed discomfort? Or maybe not. I don't know but it kind of echoes that type of reaction. Sort of like when some people who don't believe in a god call themselves "agnostic" rather than "atheist," even though that's a misuse of the term "agnostic." They do it because it's more socially acceptable and won't raise the ire (or eyebrows) of as many people. Not saying you're doing that, but it comes across as similar to me. I don't feel there's anything wrong with laying the blame where it belongs and, in ISIS's case, it belongs mostly on their religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 5, 2017 5:41:56 GMT -5
Jesus wasn't a libertarian, Don. He never uttered a single word about resisting those awful government officials. His only mention was to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" -- after asking whose face was on the coin. Jesus didn't give a fuck about money or personal possessions or freedom. He was anti-violence to the point of being killed without resisting. You probably don't want to associate with Jesus. What Jesus was and how he is portrayed are probably two different things. Moreover, not every Christian sect portrays him the same way. Don's point about food stamps and the like is completely valid: acts of personal charity and government programs are two very different things in many people's minds, even if they are seemingly the same in other's minds. As to ideology and Christian teachings--be it libertarianism, communism, or anything else--that's pretty complicated. There are passages in the Bible that suggest both of the above ideologies, to be sure. In that regard, many scholars think it reasonable to allow that Jesus might have been an Essene, a sect that was borderline communist/socialist, though also seemed to have a lot in common with Levellers (also Diggers). As to Jesus and anti-violence, there's another historical angle here that's somewhat controversial, the idea that Jesus and/or many of his followers might also have been Zealots, especially if part of what drove them was a belief that Jesus had some sort of claim to the throne. Anyway, regarding the Bible and violence: www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2014/04/30/the_myth_of_a_non-violent_jesus.html
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 5, 2017 6:24:00 GMT -5
And of course, there's a very famous passage from Matthew where Jesus says he came not to bring peace but a sword.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 5, 2017 6:39:35 GMT -5
Yeah, that's a good one. There's also Simon Peter whipping out a sword and slicing off a guy's ear. Jesus told his followers to stop resisting after that, of course, but one can wonder why they were walking around with swords, to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 5, 2017 6:44:57 GMT -5
They wanted to do their traditional sword dance w/ President Trump when he came to town?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 5, 2017 7:04:24 GMT -5
Lol.
There's also the issue of how many men came to arrest Jesus and his merry band of peaceniks.
John 18:3 from the KJV: Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
A "band" is non-specific, but the original Greek reads "cohort" in direct translation, which is how it is written in the NASB: Judas then, having received the Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.
A Roman Cohort is actually a specific unit that consisted of 480 men, most of the time. That's a lot of guys...
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 5, 2017 7:28:02 GMT -5
Jesus wasn't a libertarian, Don. He never uttered a single word about resisting those awful government officials. His only mention was to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" -- after asking whose face was on the coin. Jesus didn't give a fuck about money or personal possessions or freedom. He was anti-violence to the point of being killed without resisting. You probably don't want to associate with Jesus. What Jesus was and how he is portrayed are probably two different things. Moreover, not every Christian sect portrays him the same way. Don's point about food stamps and the like is completely valid: acts of personal charity and government programs are two very different things in many people's minds, even if they are seemingly the same in other's minds.As to ideology and Christian teachings--be it libertarianism, communism, or anything else--that's pretty complicated. There are passages in the Bible that suggest both of the above ideologies, to be sure. In that regard, many scholars think it reasonable to allow that Jesus might have been an Essene, a sect that was borderline communist/socialist, though also seemed to have a lot in common with Levellers (also Diggers). As to Jesus and anti-violence, there's another historical angle here that's somewhat controversial, the idea that Jesus and/or many of his followers might also have been Zealots, especially if part of what drove them was a belief that Jesus had some sort of claim to the throne. Anyway, regarding the Bible and violence: www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2014/04/30/the_myth_of_a_non-violent_jesus.htmlYeah, tell the money-changers in the temple that Jesus was non-violent. OTOH, at the core of not only christianity, but nearly every religion, is a golden rule that is profoundly libertarian in nature. Live and let live; treat others as you wish to be treated. But it amazes me to see it interpreted as "force people to treat others as you think they should be treated." The golden rule is an individual dictate, not a prescription for governance. The only Levelers I'm familiar with came along about 1500 years after Jesus, and "emphasized popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality before the law, and religious tolerance, all of which were expressed in the manifesto "Agreement of the People". In contrast to the Diggers, the Levellers opposed common ownership, except in cases of mutual agreement of the property owners." Based on that description, Levellers were early libertarians. As for the bolded, I have yet to hear anyone draw a convincing moral or ethical equivalent between the two acts. A is not B, as Penn Jillette so eloquently explains. If you want moral credit for helping people, you have to actually, you know, help people yourself, by giving them your own stuff, not by appointing some agent with a gun to take stuff from your neighbors and give it to poor people. I'm not a fan of religion, at all, but even I can figure out that voting and paying taxes is not going to be enough to get one into heaven. I see no moral difference between forcing people to pay for food stamps because your religion calls for treating the poor kindly and denying women abortions because your religion calls abortion murder. In both cases, religion is being used to justify using force against otherwise peaceful individuals attempting to go on with their own lives. There's no difference created simply because you personally consider one cause just and the other unjust.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 5, 2017 9:23:21 GMT -5
The only Levelers I'm familiar with came along about 1500 years after Jesus, and "emphasized popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality before the law, and religious tolerance, all of which were expressed in the manifesto "Agreement of the People". In contrast to the Diggers, the Levellers opposed common ownership, except in cases of mutual agreement of the property owners." Yes, those are the Levellers of which I speak. And yes, they were kinda the precursors to libertarians, though they were also classical liberals. The Diggers--in contrast--were more socialist, almost early communists in some cases, which was kinda my point in referencing them. Of course, Diggers were also called "True Levellers" and the two groups were not unrelated, despite some very different points of view. FYI, the Diggers were very much a Christian group, as these Bible verses (Acts 2:44, 45) were the root of their point of view: 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.Which is one of the "communist" Bible passages, to be sure. But that passage is worth considering, relative to this discussion, because the act of sharing the wealth was very much an individual choice made by all of those who believed (i.e. the early Christians). There was no expectation to force anyone else to do this, just a hope that others would join and follow suite.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Jun 5, 2017 10:22:32 GMT -5
I still view that as just a word game. Give the current ultra-PC sentiments floating around in the West, it often makes some people uncomfortable to blame Islamic beliefs for anything negative. It's almost a taboo at this point, so they sugar-coat it or dance around it by bringing in "western foreign policy" or "political ideology" and other such things so it doesn't sound like they're attacking the PC crowd's current golden calf of Islam. I absolutely agree with this. People who have no problem calling out the WBC for their bigoted protests will squirm out of pointing to ISIS's religious beliefs as motivation for their actions. You can say they're interpreting their holy books wrong (and that's the number one reason I ultimately rejected religion - anyone can interpret it to mean whatever they want). I'd argue that there are passages in the Quran that validate everything they do, even if other Muslims interpret those passages differently, or choose to emphasize the more peaceful parts of the book. Just like the Bible, if you select the right passages, validates everything the WBC and other bigoted preachers say and do.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 5, 2017 10:24:20 GMT -5
*nods head*
Blessed are the cheesemakers.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Jun 5, 2017 10:25:20 GMT -5
*nods head*Blessed are the cheesemakers. And Big-Noses.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 5, 2017 11:02:51 GMT -5
I still view that as just a word game. Give the current ultra-PC sentiments floating around in the West, it often makes some people uncomfortable to blame Islamic beliefs for anything negative. It's almost a taboo at this point, so they sugar-coat it or dance around it by bringing in "western foreign policy" or "political ideology" and other such things so it doesn't sound like they're attacking the PC crowd's current golden calf of Islam. I absolutely agree with this. People who have no problem calling out the WBC for their bigoted protests will squirm out of pointing to ISIS's religious beliefs as motivation for their actions. You can say they're interpreting their holy books wrong (and that's the number one reason I ultimately rejected religion - anyone can interpret it to mean whatever they want). I'd argue that there are passages in the Quran that validate everything they do, even if other Muslims interpret those passages differently, or choose to emphasize the more peaceful parts of the book. Just like the Bible, if you select the right passages, validates everything the WBC and other bigoted preachers say and do. Ditto.
If the behavior is in and of itself unacceptable, then you don't get to excuse it by pointing to a holy book. What amazing is that the same people who will call you a bigot for talking about Islam killing, but if a baker or pizza place have a religious issue with gay marriage saying they would serve but don't want to cater to a gay marriage, then it's okay to put them out of business.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 5, 2017 16:43:43 GMT -5
Jesus wasn't a libertarian, Don. He never uttered a single word about resisting those awful government officials. His only mention was to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" -- after asking whose face was on the coin. Jesus didn't give a fuck about money or personal possessions or freedom. He was anti-violence to the point of being killed without resisting. You probably don't want to associate with Jesus. What Jesus was and how he is portrayed are probably two different things. Moreover, not every Christian sect portrays him the same way. Don's point about food stamps and the like is completely valid: acts of personal charity and government programs are two very different things in many people's minds, even if they are seemingly the same in other's minds. As to ideology and Christian teachings--be it libertarianism, communism, or anything else--that's pretty complicated. There are passages in the Bible that suggest both of the above ideologies, to be sure. In that regard, many scholars think it reasonable to allow that Jesus might have been an Essene, a sect that was borderline communist/socialist, though also seemed to have a lot in common with Levellers (also Diggers). As to Jesus and anti-violence, there's another historical angle here that's somewhat controversial, the idea that Jesus and/or many of his followers might also have been Zealots, especially if part of what drove them was a belief that Jesus had some sort of claim to the throne. Anyway, regarding the Bible and violence: www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2014/04/30/the_myth_of_a_non-violent_jesus.htmlYeah, you're right.... I was using the perspective of my own upbringing in fundamentalist Christianity, and the experience of growing up and reading for myself and realizing how many of the scriptures were glossed over/ignored/re-interpreted from the simplest, most obvious readings in the New Testament. People can do that if they want to, of course. I also agree that the portrayal of Jesus is not necessarily the reality. Especially with the multiple language translations, the word-of-mouth transfer of information over the first 100 (?) years or so--didn't we learn anything from the Telephone Game?--and then Paul's letters and the whole creation of a religion out of it all. Surely some of what is missing or added is relevant. (I actually have "The Zealot" on my e-reader. Maybe I should move it farther up on the tbr list.) I still view that as just a word game. Give the current ultra-PC sentiments floating around in the West, it often makes some people uncomfortable to blame Islamic beliefs for anything negative. It's almost a taboo at this point, so they sugar-coat it or dance around it by bringing in "western foreign policy" or "political ideology" and other such things so it doesn't sound like they're attacking the PC crowd's current golden calf of Islam. I absolutely agree with this. People who have no problem calling out the WBC for their bigoted protests will squirm out of pointing to ISIS's religious beliefs as motivation for their actions. You can say they're interpreting their holy books wrong (and that's the number one reason I ultimately rejected religion - anyone can interpret it to mean whatever they want). I'd argue that there are passages in the Quran that validate everything they do, even if other Muslims interpret those passages differently, or choose to emphasize the more peaceful parts of the book. Just like the Bible, if you select the right passages, validates everything the WBC and other bigoted preachers say and do. I call acts of bigotry and violence what they are - bigotry and violence. For people like the WBC, I feel like I have some authority to disagree with their interpretations, cherry-picking, and lack of context when they claim the Bible justifies their behavior. Clearly, we are supposed to love our neighbors and return good for "evil" - how do they reconcile their cruelty with that? It's like if someone took a passage out of the Lord of the Rings and decided something completely contrary (and batshit, like Sauron is the good guy or something) to what the vast majority of readers understood the passage to be. I think we'd all say - um, yeah, no. That's not what that sentence means, or, you have to keep this other thing in mind, you have to keep reading and connect this to that, whatever. When it comes to Islam, I have never read the Quran. I have read/listened to what moderate Muslims say and it sounds similar to what I've encountered in Christianity. I think they are the best ones to critique the extremists. And I think the "PC" people can indeed take it too far, but by the same token, we need (in society, I mean) to be aware of how many people take broad brushes to minority groups, and seek to use correct language when denouncing bigotry, violence, and hate. I personally like "bigotry, violence, and hate," whether we're talking about WBC or ISIS. If extreme PC people won't use those words against *some* extremists, then they're wrong, I agree. The title of this thread is "why we need to elect more atheists." I know it's mostly or maybe even all humor, but there's an underlying belief (heh) there for a lot of people - that god beliefs are fucking everything up as often as not, and we'd all probably be better off without them. Hell, even I've thought it, usually when I get frustrated with family members. So maybe I'm somewhat arguing with myself. Anyway, I respect all of your opinions and thanks for letting me attempt to express mine.
|
|