Hate the Religion - not the Religious

MehGuy · Jun 30, 2015

bhsmte said:
Yes, people are partly shaped by circumstances; their experiences, their environment and likely probably partly genetics.

I have always viewed nature and nurture as two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.

morningstar2651 · Jul 1, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
When some religious person does something evil, stupid, or whatever, I often hear advice such as "don't condemn the religion; those people weren't really following Islam, Christianity, ...".

My opinion is the opposite. People are shaped by circumstances. Nobody is innately good or innately evil. Under slightly different circumstances, Joseph Stalin might have become a priest or a baseball commentator or almost anything. Society shapes the individual. When we see people from a certain society behaving badly, we cannot simply blame the individuals; we must blame their society. When religion is an important part of their society, then we must blame their religion.

Obviously we need to punish individuals, because that deters misbehavior. However, we need to look at the true causes of misbehavior - psychological, early childhood, poverty, ... and in some cases religion. Blaming the individual is pointless, because it is very possible that nobody has free will.

I think a good number of Christians are in agreement with you.

What is their saying? Hate the sin love the sinner?

Soyeong · Jul 1, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
Nobody decides, because nobody has free will.

Newton Crosby: It's a machine, Schroeder. It doesn't get ____ off. It doesn't get happy, it doesn't get sad, it doesn't laugh at your jokes.

Newton Crosby, Ben Jabituya: [in unison] It just runs programs.

A chess computer doesn't care if you win, lose, or cheat, so why should anyone care whether anyone doesn't live up to a completely arbitrary standard of behavior?

Jane_the_Bane · Jul 1, 2015

Soyeong said:
If a religion teaches people not to steal and someone who claims to be a member of that religion steals something, then I don't see how you could blame the religion for that person's actions.

True. But if a religion teaches people that non-believers and other-believers are either deceived by pure evil or else actively promote it, and followers then treat these others accordingly, I *can* and *should* blame the religion for those people's actions.
If a religion teaches that escaped slaves should return to their "rightful" owners, and holds that these owners should not be punished if they abuse their "property" as long as "it" recovers within three days, then I blame the religion.
If a religion teaches that same-sex couples are an abomination that ought to be discriminated against, then I blame the religion.
If a religion teaches that good deeds are worthless filth, and adherence to this faith is everything, then I blame the religion.

As for your final observation: crimes are symptoms of things that go wrong in a society. BOTH individuals AND the societal faults that influenced and shaped these individuals are to blame.
If you embrace a pitiless "dog eat dog/pull yourself up by the bootstraps"-ethos, and the poorest within your culture are left destitute in some ghetto, expect crime rates to rise.

Jane_the_Bane · Jul 1, 2015

There's also a fundamental problem with authoritarian ethics, i.e. the assumption that the moral nature of an action is determined by some powerful being rather than by the ethical implications of the act as such.
In that case, "murder the heathens" becomes a completely moral and acceptable command as long as it is uttered by the proper authority figure.

Also, understanding morality as authoritarian-objective rather than intersubjective and consequences-based makes it more difficult to truly comprehend human behaviour and diverse cultures, making a consensus more difficult and accounting insufficiently for those who "overstep".

cloudyday2 · Jul 1, 2015

Another problem might arise from believing that the only important thing in this life is securing a spot in the next life. Of course it depends what a person thinks secures that spot in the next life.

cloudyday2 · Jul 1, 2015

Soyeong said:
Newton Crosby: It's a machine, Schroeder. It doesn't get ____ off. It doesn't get happy, it doesn't get sad, it doesn't laugh at your jokes.

Newton Crosby, Ben Jabituya: [in unison] It just runs programs.

A chess computer doesn't care if you win, lose, or cheat, so why should anyone care whether anyone doesn't live up to a completely arbitrary standard of behavior?

What if the chess software includes a feature to make it curse and throw a tantrum when it loses?

Soyeong · Jul 1, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
What if the chess software includes a feature to make it curse and throw a tantrum when it loses?

Then the computer would act in a similar way to how someone acts when they are angry, but it wouldn't be angry. If you want to suggest that humans are highly advanced machines that have been programmed to perfectly simulate what it is like to have free will and experience emotions, but without having them, then I fail to see the point.

Soyeong · Jul 1, 2015

Jane_the_Bane said:
True. But if a religion teaches people that non-believers and other-believers are either deceived by pure evil or else actively promote it, and followers then treat these others accordingly, I *can* and *should* blame the religion for those people's actions.
If a religion teaches that escaped slaves should return to their "rightful" owners, and holds that these owners should not be punished if they abuse their "property" as long as "it" recovers within three days, then I blame the religion.
If a religion teaches that same-sex couples are an abomination that ought to be discriminated against, then I blame the religion.
If a religion teaches that good deeds are worthless filth, and adherence to this faith is everything, then I blame the religion.

As for your final observation: crimes are symptoms of things that go wrong in a society. BOTH individuals AND the societal faults that influenced and shaped these individuals are to blame.
If you embrace a pitiless "dog eat dog/pull yourself up by the bootstraps"-ethos, and the poorest within your culture are left destitute in some ghetto, expect crime rates to rise.

Yay for rabbit tails. I hope you're not implying anything about Christianity.

cloudyday2 · Jul 1, 2015

Soyeong said:
Then the computer would act in a similar way to how someone acts when they are angry, but it wouldn't be angry. If you want to suggest that humans are highly advanced machines that have been programmed to perfectly simulate what it is like to have free will and experience emotions, but without having them, then I fail to see the point.

Yep, in my more atheist moments that is what I believe. However, we don't need to go that far for this discussion.

Would you agree that if a majority of members in a particular society behave "negatively", then we should assume that something about that particular society is causing the "negative" behavior - not something about all those individuals? If we are trying to eliminate the "negative" behavior, then shouldn't we try to change the society - including the religion if necessary?

Soyeong · Jul 1, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
Yep, in my more atheist moments that is what I believe. However, we don't need to go that far for this discussion.

Would you agree that if a majority of members in a particular society behave "negatively", then we should assume that something about that particular society is causing the "negative" behavior - not something about all those individuals? If we are trying to eliminate the "negative" behavior, then shouldn't we try to change the society - including the religion if necessary?

For instance, society teaches us that we shouldn't be selfish, but I don't think babies need to be taught to be selfish, so there is also something within us that causes us to do what we want regardless of what society wants. The reason reverse psychology works is that there is something in us that wants to do the opposite of what we're told to do, but that fault lies with us, not with being told to have a positive behavior. If the majority of members in a particular society are behaving negatively, then something is wrong with both the people and the society, but that is not the fault of a religion that teaches people not have that behavior.

ETA:

Even when we know what the right thing to do is, we often don't do it, so again the fault lies with us.

cloudyday2 · Jul 1, 2015

Soyeong said:
For instance, society teaches us that we shouldn't be selfish, but I don't think babies need to be taught to be selfish, so there is also something within us that causes us to do what we want regardless of what society wants. The reason reverse psychology works is that there is something in us that wants to do the opposite of what we're told to do, but that fault lies with us, not with being told to have a positive behavior. If the majority of members in a particular society are behaving negatively, then something is wrong with both the people and the society, but that is not the fault of a religion that teaches people not have that behavior.

I would argue that society does NOT teach selflessness. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't sound selfless.

Soyeong · Jul 1, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
I would argue that society does NOT teach selflessness. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't sound selfless.

It's not just that you have that right, but that everyone has it, so the focus is on everyone just as much as it is on you. But in any case, I don't that we teach babies to be selfish, so at least at that stage, we're all on the same board about teaching them to play nice with the others. To add to my last post, even when we know what the right thing to do is, we often don't do it, so again the fault lies with us.

cloudyday2 · Jul 1, 2015

According to Genesis, God demanded that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac, and Abraham obediently complied. After God was convinced that Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, He told Abraham that a ram would be satisfactory. If this happened today, Abraham would probably lose custody of both Isaac and Ishmael and be committed to a mental hospital. But Judaism, Christianity, Islam, ... all praise Abraham's obedience and faith. This story glorifies extremism - extreme faith and obedience to God - even when the instructions seem evil and absurd. I'm just brainstorming though. Judaism seems very moderate today in spite of the story of Abraham's extremism. Obviously there are lots of factors involved.

Robban · Jul 1, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
According to Genesis, God demanded that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac, and Abraham obediently complied. After God was convinced that Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, He told Abraham that a ram would be satisfactory. If this happened today, Abraham would probably lose custody of both Isaac and Ishmael and be committed to a mental hospital. But Judaism, Christianity, Islam, ... all praise Abraham's obedience and faith. This story glorifies extremism - extreme faith and obedience to God - even when the instructions seem evil and absurd. I'm just brainstorming though. Judaism seems very moderate today in spite of the story of Abraham's extremism. Obviously there are lots of factors involved.

Isaak was 37 years old at the time.

Robban · Jul 1, 2015

Sarah was 90 yrs old when she gave birth to Isaak,
The same day Abraham was to sacrifice him,

Sarah passed on at the age 127 yrs old.

90 from 127 leaves 37.

Robban · Jul 1, 2015

Robban said:
Sarah was 90 yrs old when she gave birth to Isaak,
The same day Abraham was to sacrifice him,

Sarah passed on at the age 127 yrs old.

90 from 127 leaves 37.

One story has it that on that day she was looking for Abraham,
she stopped Og and asked him if he had seen Abraham,
Og pointed up at the hill,
just as Abraham lifted the knife,
on seeing this, she died of a heartattack.

Robban · Jul 1, 2015

Robban said:
One story has it that on that day she was looking for Abraham,
she stopped Og and asked him if he had seen Abraham,
Og pointed up at the hill,
just as Abraham lifted the knife,
on seeing this, she died of a heartattack.

It was Abrahams final test.
He had been preaching for about a hundred years to the idol worshipers that,
it wrong to offer humans in sacrifice.

Suddenly he was told to sacrifice his promised son,

He did not protest, maybe he thought,
Well what do know, all these years and I got it wrong.

But no, he had not got it wrong, so it was a test and a confirmation.

cloudyday2 · Jul 1, 2015

Robban said:
Isaak was 37 years old at the time.

That is interesting. So maybe Isaac was old enough that Abraham no longer had legal custody. Genesis doesn't specify the age of Isaac though.

The Book of Genesis does not tell the age of Isaac at the time. The Talmudic sages teach that Isaac was thirty-seven, likely based on the next biblical story, which is of Sarah's death at 127[Genesis 23:1], being 90 when Isaac was born[Genesis 17:17, 21].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac

Robban · Jul 1, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
That is interesting. So maybe Isaac was old enough that Abraham no longer had legal custody. Genesis doesn't specify the age of Isaac though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac

There is a lot that is not in the written Torah,

Moses Went up the moutain Three times, one time to recieve explainations, the oral Torah.

For example,
How is Shabbat to be observed?

Clock out on friday and take in a Movie?
take the family on a picnic?

Slaughtering an animal, how?

And so on.

(I don,t use Wiki)

Hate the Religion - not the Religious

A member of the less neotenous sex..

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Gaia's godchild

Gaia's godchild

Generic Theist

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

Generic Theist

-----------

Similar threads