FAFO

[UNCatTech]

You know that a lot of democrats are religious too, right?

Yes. I try very hard to respect people's beliefs. Sometimes it is hard to not believe in something and respect those who do.

I have a lot of respect for those who demonstrate those beliefs, while i struggle with those that seem to believe their belief in a God makes them superior.

I believe it is clear which camp those that believe they are superior and should make decisions for others more often fall into.

 

[TarSpiel]

Yes. I try very hard to respect people's beliefs. Sometimes it is hard to not believe in something and respect those who do.

Well you might start by dialing back your mocking characterizations of those beliefs. It's way more nuanced than just "talking snakes" and "Santa Claus".

Belief in a creator has probably been the default religious belief of humanity, from deep in our evolutionary past, and across culture. To me, it shouldn't be all that challenging at a basic level to have respect for those who share that belief.

 

[Milk and Cookies]

Well you might start by dialing back your mocking characterizations of those beliefs. It's way more nuanced than just "talking snakes" and "Santa Claus".

Hard disagree. In order for society to progress it is imperative that we protect the ability to attack bad ideas in the public square and even mock them if warranted. Not the people but the ideas themselves. And any book making claims of talking snakes, talking donkeys, flat earth, etc. has done more than enough to warrant mocking characterizations of beliefs in its historicity. It doesn't matter how many people believe it or how strongly they believe it. They are ridiculous claims that deserve mocking.

 

[finesse]

You know that a lot of democrats are religious too, right?

Fewer and less likely to be either fundies or evangelicals.

 

[TarSpiel]

Fewer and less likely to be either fundies or evangelicals.

Yet way more likely to be black.

 

[TarSpiel]

And any book making claims of talking snakes, talking donkeys, flat earth, etc. has done more than enough to warrant mocking characterizations of beliefs in its historicity. It doesn't matter how many people believe it or how strongly they believe it. They are ridiculous claims that deserve mocking.

You know that many rabbis and Christian interpreters have read those stories as folktales and allegories that express a moral lesson - rather than actual literal historical events - right?

 

[heelinhell]

Well you might start by dialing back your mocking characterizations of those beliefs. It's way more nuanced than just "talking snakes" and "Santa Claus".

Belief in a creator has probably been the default religious belief of humanity, from deep in our evolutionary past, and across culture. To me, it shouldn't be all that challenging at a basic level to have respect for those who share that belief.

As you know I have great respect for you and your insight/perspective when it comes to religious discussions.

And I can understand and respect the need for those to believe in a creator, but would you agree with me that those beliefs in a creator are closely connected to the belief in an afterlife ?

Put another way, how many who believe in a creator also believe there is no after life ?

 

[duluoz]

Belief in a creator has probably been the default religious belief of humanity, from deep in our evolutionary past, and across culture. To me, it shouldn't be all that challenging at a basic level to have respect for those who share that belief.

Eh. For the most part, belief in a creator, ipso facto, neither commands nor loses my respect. How that belief is carried, and how one wears it day to day — that’s what influences how much respect for them (if any) I’ll have.

But just because all the sheep who ever lived would follow this or that particular shepherd doesn’t mean they’re headed in the right, or *only* direction. Hardly. But listening to many (most?) of them, you’d think that’s the case.

So anything non-scientific being a “default” belief doesn’t win any points in my estimation. The major religions and their creator beliefs are no less subject to interrogation, and therefore potential loss of respect, as something like Scientology or Heaven’s Gate or any of the newer kook cults that come along. The popular religions are just older and more accepted, that’s all.

That doesn’t command my respect unless it’s presented in a worldview that is tolerant and not at odds with their diverse and varied neighbors. Haven’t seen much of that around lately… so when the mocking characterizations arise, that’s where they come from.

 

[TarSpiel]

As you know I have great respect for you and your insight/perspective when it comes to religious discussions.

And I can understand and respect the need for those to believe in a creator, but would you agree with me that those beliefs in a creator are closely connected to the belief in an afterlife ?

Put another way, how many who believe in a creator also believe there is no after life ?

I really don't know. I think in earlier religions, like Hinduism and early Judaism and Greek religion, the afterlife was just a shadowy place (Yam, Sheol, Hades) that everyone went to regardless if you were good or bad. I think early indigenous traditions had a sort of view of an underworld or afterlife too, especially the Australian aborigines. But none of those had a "hell" as a counterpart, they weren't attached to morals or beliefs.

The attachment to morals or beliefs came during the Axial age (500 BC), when Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Zoroastrian and Greek traditions all began to conceive of *two* afterlives, one of the good guys and one for the bad guys. And of course both Christainity and Islam, since they came later, inherited that view.

But I don't think there's any intrinsic connection between belief in a Creator and hope for an afterlife. Lots of Jews throughout history have not believed in an afterlife, and yet they still worship the Creator.

 

[UNCatTech]

Well you might start by dialing back your mocking characterizations of those beliefs. It's way more nuanced than just "talking snakes" and "Santa Claus".

Belief in a creator has probably been the default religious belief of humanity, from deep in our evolutionary past, and across culture. To me, it shouldn't be all that challenging at a basic level to have respect for those who share that belief.

I believe if you read my posting history on the subject I have always been respectful. I do think about those of faith who are not maga loyalist when I post about religion. This specific thread and topic makes that a little more challenging when the basic belief of so many of the magas is that they were ok with Trump's rhetoric and plans as long as it didn't impact them personally.

I've even read and participated in threads you and others have started on the subject. Though you are much more knowledgeable in the area than i will ever be, which leads me to be more of a reader than a participant.

Considering that this is a thread about people's choices and the consequences of those choices, I believe that what people attribute those choices to is open for discussion.

I'm not in the group that is worshipping our current president. In not in the group that has anointed him as an answer to prayer and claim him to be sent by God. Maybe you should direct your ire at those people. You know the ones. Those that tell me my daughter is an abomination. Those that tell me I'm going to hell for not believing as they do. Those that mock unbelievers with disdain.

I'm sorry if my opinion was offensive to you, you are not in the group I was considering when I posted that.

In our current political environment, with our president tweeting like he believes he's Billy Graham reincarnated, I don't believe my lack of faith and non belief are really that concerning. What is concerning is Christianity today reporting on the topic of how many Christian leaders voted for Trump. Or the article from Arizona Christian University where they are clearly proud and taking credit for the Christian vote carrying trump to victory. Or the Pastor that ran for governor of NC for the Republican Party. How does this support for trump demonstrate the love and acceptance that is an overarching theme of most religions?

I wonder who Joel Osteen voted for.

 

[TarSpiel]

But just because all the sheep who ever lived would follow this or that particular shepherd doesn’t mean they’re headed in the right, or *only* direction. Hardly. But listening to many (most?) of them, you’d think that’s the case.

Oh, have you listened to most of them?

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on especially the non-western people who believe in a creator. Indigenous religions all over the world, Shinto, Taoism, Hindus, Tengriism, bronze age polytheism, african tribal religion, Mesoamerican tribal religion, etc. You've found all of them to be "sheep" who insist that their understanding of the creator is the *only* true one?

 

[UNCatTech]

You know that many rabbis and Christian interpreters have read those stories as folktales and allegories that express a moral lesson - rather than actual literal historical events - right?

How do those numbers compare to those who claim every word to be from good and unquestionably true?

And yes, I believe that those who spend a lot of time studying the text and the history are far less absolute in their proclamations that the religious text are perfect.

 

[TarSpiel]

I'm sorry if my opinion was offensive to you, you are not in the group I was considering when I posted that.

It wasn't offensive to me, and I know you're a good dude.

I just think there are better ways of talking about religion than simply equating it to its worst representatives.

 

[TarSpiel]

How do those numbers compare to those who claim every word to be from good and unquestionably true?

And yes, I believe that those who spend a lot of time studying the text and the history are far less absolute in their proclamations that the religious text are perfect.

Biblical literalism is a relatively new phenomenon, which started to arise with mass literacy in the 19th century, and in response to scientific findings that seemed to obviate some passages and texts. Before that, nobody really much cared....scripture was considered "inspired," not "inerrant" or "literally and factually true in every sentence"

 

[Milk and Cookies]

You know that many rabbis and Christian interpreters have read those stories as folktales and allegories that express a moral lesson - rather than actual literal historical events - right?

Good for them. You do know millions and millions and millions of people hold the belief that many or all of those claims are literal, right? Plenty of christians believe plenty of supernatural claims in the bible. Those beliefs have earned mocking characterizations.

The belief that snakes talked, donkeys talked, the earth is covered by a dome, light was created before stars, the universe is 6,000 years old, people rose from their graves and walked through Jerusalem, adam and eve were the first humans, anyone is born of a virgin, the whole world flooded, a man and his family had two of every species on a boat, on and on and on are not some protected class of claims just because they are found in a religious book.

The fact of the matter is that book is held up as the infallible inspiration of a deity and it is chock full of bad ideas. Owning other humans as property is a bad idea. Stoning women to death who don't bleed the first time they have sex is a bad idea. Punishing innocent people for the wrongdoing of others is a bad idea. And the claim someone can determine on their own which parts of that book should be followed strictly as the law of a god and which parts are just allegory is a bad idea too.

 

[TarSpiel]

Good for them. You do know millions and millions and millions of people hold the belief that many or all of those claims are literal, right?

Sure.

All I'm saying is don't conflate the two.

 

[UNCatTech]

Oh, have you listened to most of them?

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on especially the non-western people who believe in a creator. Indigenous religions all over the world, Shinto, Taoism, Hindus, Tengriism, bronze age polytheism, african tribal religion, Mesoamerican tribal religion, etc. You've found all of them to be "sheep" who insist that their understanding of the creator is the *only* true one?

Interesting.

I don't have enough knowledge of those indigenous religions to answer, but in the US each religion seems to preach that their god is the one true God and that all the others are false. Even when presented with evidence that so many of the stories in their texts are not original to their text.

 

[mynameisbond]

Jesus was apolitical. He unconditionally forgave anyone willing to accept forgiveness and redemption. He did not condone claims of moral superiority and judgement of non-believers by his followers. That is a counter-doctrinal construct. Whether you believe in creation, the resurrection and an afterlife or not, the world would be a better place if his teachings on love and forgiveness were followed.

 

[Milk and Cookies]

Sure.

All I'm saying is don't conflate the two.

I wasn't conflating. I made specific mention of beliefs about the fantastical parts of the bible being historical (ie literal).

 

[UNCatTech]

It wasn't offensive to me, and I know you're a good dude.

I just think there are better ways of talking about religion than simply equating it to its worst representatives.

Ok.

I'll admit that my emotion and feelings tend to influence my responses. When I come across more harshly, it's typically because I'm not putting in a much though because of some life event. It's something I work on but am not good at. It's also why I often delete my post when I later read them.

My post wasn't meant to be so much about religion or belief rather the nature of maga people to tend to be followers. I guess I didn't do a good job in expressing that point and I can understand your response.