God and religion

[ManchesterBeth]

Anyway imho you have absolutely no right to complain about religious fundamentalism with this attitude.

For you it's acceptable that progressive muslims are involved in humanitarian causes because that is how they interpret their religion. And, without wanting to come across as insensitive, it's acceptable for Jews to be against zionism because that's how they interpret judaism. All you're doing is producing the same assumptions as Daesh/the state of Israel.

I find this deeply immoral.

 

[Humberto]

Anyway imho you have absolutely no right to complain about religious fundamentalism with this attitude.

For you it's acceptable that progressive muslims are involved in humanitarian causes because that is how they interpret their religion. And, without wanting to come across as insensitive, it's acceptable for Jews to be against zionism because that's how they interpret judaism. All you're doing is producing the same assumptions as Daesh/the state of Israel.

I find this deeply immoral.

You've added a good point to the debate but I don't see the problem that way. If you think Isis for example only exist because a large amount of people are on that end of the religious spectrum by some accident or dynamic of religion then I think you are simplifying. Both examples could equally be said to be irredentist reactions as well as other factors.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

For you it's acceptable that progressive muslims are involved in humanitarian causes because that is how they interpret their religion. And, without wanting to come across as insensitive, it's acceptable for Jews to be against zionism because that's how they interpret judaism. All you're doing is producing the same assumptions as Daesh/the state of Israel.

I don't quite get your logic here. If I understand you correctly, I reject your thinking on it. I don't applaud a progressive muslim who does good things for their interpretation of their religion. I applaud them for doing good things, and I don't credit their religion for getting them to do those things, even if they do - I credit them.

 

[frogwoman]

Ok ill try and put this better cos tbh its something im only really starting to come to terms with now.

For a religous person the personal is political. It is hard for the two to be totally separate. Like if you are jewish and you go on an anti fascist demo a lot of religious jews will justify it in terms of the religion being against racism, about god talking about helping the oppressed etc. About how all are gods children etc etc. If you go on a demo against attacks in gaza then you will justify it by saying i'm a jew and im shocked and appalled by the acts that the zionists are carrying out in my name, and we were treated like this not so long ago, the bible tells us not to kill people, etc. God tells us to help the poor and thats why I am going on this anti austerity march etc. You're supposed to bring religion into politics if you're religious, its quite rare to find a religious person who totally separates the two inside their heads tbh.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not strange at all. For religious people the personal is political. Even for moderates.

Not necessarily. Lots of moderately religious people don't take their religious belief particularly seriously. As has been commented on here many times before, this can be puzzling to atheists, who tend to take the beliefs and the problems with them far more seriously.

 

[phildwyer]

So I repeat again. Do you want to uphold the sanctity of the individual or do you want to move to a society based on communistic collectivism?

The sanctity of the individual for me please. The problem with capitalism is that it destroys the individual.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The sanctity of the individual for me please. The problem with capitalism is that it destroys the individual.

Yes, by upholding the sanctity of property, which is not the same thing. I would argue that the value (not a monetary one) of the individual can only be found within a system with collective ownership.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

The sanctity of the individual for me please. The problem with capitalism is that it destroys the individual.

Well that explains a lot dwyer.

 

[phildwyer]

Well that explains a lot dwyer.

What does it explain?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well that explains a lot dwyer.

I for one reject the premise behind the question.

 

[8ball]

Yes, by upholding the sanctity of property, which is not the same thing. I would argue that the value (not a monetary one) of the individual can only be found within a system with collective ownership.

Sounds like pinko talk to me...

 

[phildwyer]

Yes, by upholding the sanctity of property, which is not the same thing. I would argue that the value (not a monetary one) of the individual can only be found within a system with collective ownership.

The central problem is wage labor, which objectifies human life by translating it into financial terms.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Not necessarily. Lots of moderately religious people don't take their religious belief particularly seriously. As has been commented on here many times before, this can be puzzling to atheists, who tend to take the beliefs and the problems with them far more seriously.

Yes, that is exactly my point! Whether they take it seriously or not is entirely incidental!

I know many muslim LGBT activists who don't take their religion seriously. But they're not atheists or deists or whatever. They still operate within the epistemological framework of religion.

I find this deeply immoral.

 

[8ball]

I find this deeply immoral.

You would. Few people are so consistent.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, that is exactly my point! Whether they take it seriously or not is entirely incidental!

I know many muslim LGBT activists who don't take their religion seriously. But they're not atheists or deists or whatever. They still operate within the epistemological framework of religion.

I find this deeply immoral.

Ah ok. I think I'm with you now. I find it strange.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Yes, by upholding the sanctity of property, which is not the same thing. I would argue that the value (not a monetary one) of the individual can only be found within a system with collective ownership.

thats still capitalism. Nationalised capitalism and lack of private property is still capitalism, as the USSR and stalinist states have demonstrated.

Communism won't be about collective ownership as understood in that sense but social usufruct.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Usufruct is a new word to me. Looking it up I found the Mexican ejido system given as an example. That's the kind of thing I had in mind.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

What does it explain?

Your erratic oscillations between primitive Bakuninism and Kautskyian social democracy.

Might as well join a trot org. It's what all confused anarchos are doing these days.

 

[phildwyer]

Your erratic oscillations between primitive Bakuninism and Kautskyian social democracy.

Might as well join a trot org. It's what all confused anarchos are doing these days.

I'm neither confused nor an "anarcho." Would never join a Trot anything. Have no time for Bakunin or Kautsky. Try again.

 

[Doubledown]

Aside from the power, control and oppression, religion does give a person something to do when they've had a terrible medical diagnosis or have suffered a tragedy. I know what the Christian model is towards tragedy. But what is the Islamic teaching about illness and death?

 

[gentlegreen]

Best to ignore the advice given by Bronze age religions about the disease though ...

 

[butchersapron]

Best to ignore the advice given by Bronze age religions about the disease though ...

Have you some examples?

 

[gentlegreen]

You know full well I'm not a Biblical (or any other kind of) scholar so all I have off the top of my head is epilepsy being "possession by demons" ...cataracts being curable by the use of dirt and spit .... I suppose we have to actually blame Aristotle for the centuries it took for germ theory to emerge but Ancient Greek and Xtain bullshit converged and strangled science for centuries .. the Arabs came up with some good stuff before Islam crushed their thinking processes.

 

[butchersapron]

Both of these examples are of a single divine person curing a condition through miraculous means rather than the positions of a religion - and they're most certainly not advice either Judaism or Christianity offer anyone today. And more to the point, they're both metaphors for coming to spiritual awakening/cleansing.opening of eyes - they're not actually suppose to be medial diagnosis and prescription.

 

[gentlegreen]

Both of these examples are of a single divine person curing a condition through miraculous means rather than the positions of a religion - and they're most certainly not advice either Judaism or Christianity offer anyone today. And more to the point, they're both metaphors for coming to spiritual awakening/cleansing.opening of eyes - they're not actually suppose to be medial diagnosis and prescription.

Perhaps they were metaphors 2,000 years ago - as are many of the Biblical writings (even "Lot's daughters / angels / Sodom and Gomorrah" for example as an extreme example) - much as it's perversely pleasurable to throw such disgusting stories back at unthinking fundies, the nett result is there are still people with the mindset that this stuff is to be taken as literally true.

 

[butchersapron]

So you've retreated from your original point then? Or are you doubling down on it with that bolded were in order to suggest that what was once metaphor is now reality and Judaism and Christianity say that blindness can and should be cured by non-divine spit, and epilepsy by exorcism?

On what basis have you decided what is most believable in the bible? You must have some grounds right - so what are they? You know that believability has nothing whatsoever to with biblical scholarship right? Why don't you read some? It would do you the world of good. Such dogmatic insistence on ignorance is baffling to me.

 

[Doubledown]

You know full well I'm not a Biblical (or any other kind of) scholar so all I have off the top of my head is epilepsy being "possession by demons" ...cataracts being curable by the use of dirt and spit .... I suppose we have to actually blame Aristotle for the centuries it took for germ theory to emerge but Ancient Greek and Xtain bullshit converged and strangled science for centuries .. the Arabs came up with some good stuff before Islam crushed their thinking processes.

My enquiry has been misunderstood. A dying person who is Christian may be able to tell themselves they are emulating the suffering of Christ or going to be going to glory. I know it's all bunk but does a Muslim pray for healing. How does Islam explain tragedy to the individual. I'm just curious if anyone knows.

 

[gentlegreen]

I've picked up a few things recently by hanging out in places where ex-Christian survivors wrestling with great personal damage in some cases - argue with fundie nutters and I'll occasionally look up the references. I struggle to tolerate that sort of derp undiluted or for sustained periods of time.

The paucity of evidence for Jebus is the thing I have found most spectacular - having grown up with a notion that he might at least have been a decent sort of reformist thinker of his day - but ultimately apparently concocted after the event by Romans.
Not actually being interested in History or the Humanities generally, the only thing I know to look for in old writings is "unwitting testimony" - so the absence of such corroborative / contemporaneous writings seems telling

It annoys me that it took me so long to finally shake off any lingering belief in the supernatural - given I was raised in a 60s/70s household where religion was never discussed, perhaps I have to blame Father Christmas and Uri Geller ...

At the end of the day my perspective is that of a slightly fascistic naturalist and I only dabble in this area because of the horrors perpetrated in its name - but mainly when it wilfully conspires to crush intelligent thought.

And I'm far too lazy even to study science in any great depth.

</incoherent rambling>

 

[Doubledown]

I've picked up a few things recently by hanging out in places where ex-Christian survivors wrestling with great personal damage in some cases - argue with fundie nutters and I'll occasionally look up the references. I struggle to tolerate that sort of derp undiluted or for sustained periods of time.

The paucity of evidence for Jebus is the thing I have found most spectacular - having grown up with a notion that he might at least have been a decent sort of reformist thinker of his day - but ultimately apparently concocted after the event by Romans.
Not actually being interested in History or the Humanities generally, the only thing I know to look for in old writings is "unwitting testimony" - so the absence of such corroborative / contemporaneous writings seems telling

It annoys me that it took me so long to finally shake off any lingering belief in the supernatural - given I was raised in a 60s/70s household where religion was never discussed, perhaps I have to blame Father Christmas and Uri Geller ...

At the end of the day my perspective is that of a slightly fascistic naturalist and I only dabble in this area because of the horrors perpetrated in its name - but mainly when it wilfully conspires to crush intelligent thought.

And I'm far too lazy even to study science in any great depth.

</incoherent rambling>

I know it's not a trendy point of view and I know all the wrong that's been done in the name of religion. But my attitude is, exploring any religion to see if it is beneficial to oneself is nothing to do with anyone else or anyone else's baggage. The problem with pure reality, is that it ends the discussion. If one has been told one has 6 months to live, what's wrong with a weaving fairytales in one's mind and encountering mystic updraughts of spiritual love, real or imagined.

 

[phildwyer]

One of the main things with this Daesh stuff for me is that its led me to become increasingly disgusted with religion.

The problem is not with religion but with literalism. And atheist fundamentalists are as guilty of literalism as religious ones.