🇳🇱
Just a reminder, being a horrible person shoukdnt be tolerated simply because they claim their religion says so.... **YOU** choose one of any number of interpritations of your religion that caused you to be a horrible person. Thats not your religions fault, thats just you finding an excuse to be a shit human. No one needs to tolerate you being a shit human just because your a religious shit human.
That is all...
@freemo I find the multiple interpretations or treating religion as a buffet argument often quite insincere and intellectually dishonest.
You call yourself a believer of a religion. The religion has some scripture and some history.
Those say that believers should act certain way, say certain things, perform certain rituals to appease their deity. But you do absolutely none of that. At that point what makes you any different from an unbeliever who acts the same way you do?
Yes there are different interpretations, a lot of parts of religion are intentionally vague so that they can't be proven false. There are things lost in translation. But rarely are those direct negations.
Yes you can have a discussion on if various food rules etc make sense to uphold if they were made to prevent disease and we now know how to do it better, but that's not the case with social or political stuff, humans haven't changed.
If I write a book and call it Scripture 2.0 and just negate the original belief, I didn't make a new interpretation, I'm just wrong.
Also, the responsibility for actions one takes belongs to the one acting. We can discuss how they were trapped by their place of birth & their society or religion or whatever but the responsibility is theirs. Any other mental framework does not work out one way or another.
Well no. Most religions are divided into many different interpritations, each group that exists is sometimes very popular sometines not. You have christianity, which is a faith based on thr bible, thrn you have thousands of interpritations, some are popular enough to have names, some arent. Juat because sometimes people choose the same interpritation doesnt meant its suddenly has some official status.
Catholic and orthodox christians are separate and "official". Personal interpretations are not the same as those.
it's not just a dude on the road screaming the end is near, it's millions of people
So its an interpritation that enough people share that someone gave it a name... still an interpritation and aside from being a popular interpritation it is nothing special.. all religions are just interpritations of some set of canon texts, in some cases it is one person, in others its many people, but its all the same thing.
That was that religion is no excuse for being an asshole. I think we agree on that
But numbers do count. Being practical, when it's a dude's interpretation being criticized nobody cares. if it's a million dudes' interpretation you can find yourself cheek to cheek with a suicide bomber with bad teeth smiling at you while pulling a cord.
Also, the fact that an asshole is religious and attributes his actions to his religion does two things:
a) it does not absolve him of being an asshole for doing asshole things
b) it does not absolve the religion from pushing people to do asshole things.
So, asshole believer and asshole religion, both
I will concede that most of the current religious beliefs come from some book or a tradition and are interpretations of something that came before. Now and thousands of years ago.
All religions, but yea, its a set of canon with some interpritation attached to it. The interpritation typically evolves from earlier interpritations but not always.
> But numbers do count. Being practical, when it's a dude's interpretation being criticized nobody cares. if it's a million dudes' interpretation you can find yourself cheek to cheek with a suicide bomber with bad teeth smiling at you while pulling a cord.
Numbers do "count" in the sense that it has some relevance to many issues, specifically the sense of peer-pressure it might produce.. I am not saying the numbers dont count, I am saying its harmful to think numbers are what define if something is a religion or not... You have popular interpritations and unpopular ones, thats it, aside from that there isnt much difference except in what effects come from something being popular at all (and yes that may effect if someone is a suicide bomber or not for sure).
> Also, the fact that an asshole is religious and attributes his actions to his religion does two things:
a) it does not absolve him of being an asshole for doing asshole things
b) it does not absolve the religion from pushing people to do asshole things.
>
> So, asshole believer and asshole religion, both
This is where we disagree a bit. Of course we agree on point A, but not B.. Religions cant be an asshole, ir cant push anyone anywhere, it is an interpritation, and either through peer pressure or ones own conviction a person adops that interpritation. If its through peer pressure than the blame is (partly) on the practitioners of the religion, not the religion itself. If it is ones personal conviction then there is no one to blame but the person.
This makes no sense.
If a belief is forced on the individual by society, we first judge the belief. If it's an asshole belief, then both it and the individual are assholes.
The same way, if a religion mandates being an asshole, both you for following it and itself are assholes.
I think I've overdone it with the assholes. Maybe I should pivot to another body part
No one says "that beleif is an asshole"... it doesnt even make sense gramatically. We judge a person to be an asshole if they adopt belifs that only an asshole would hold. But the beleif isnt hte asshole.
L:ikewise religions dont mandate anything, they are interpritations. You are choosing to adopt an interpritation that claims **god** mandates something. That isnt the religion mandating it, that is you interpriting gods wishes.
Alternative body parts to use instead of "asshold":
* Dick
* Shit head
* piece of shit
* Butt head
* Shit face
* Poopy head
Feel free to choose :)
You claim religions don't mandate things?
Don't kill people - commandment
Isn't that a mandate?
Nope, not in and of itself... I need to choose what it means and how I interprit it. I may, if i were a christian, think the old testamant is no longer valid due to jesus creating new rules (very common among christians), I may think the gematria meaning of the text implies something different than the plain words indicate. I may take it as a rule. I may take it as something that applied only to Moses and the jews and not to all people...
How I interprit the meaning, and then what I choose to do with that interpritation depends on if it is a commandment or not. The words existing on a page do not command anyone to do anything on their own unless theperson reading it interprits it as such.
a) religions don't exist, they're all ideas
b) religions can have any sort of belief and should be judged for them
no and no
No Iam not saying either...
Religions do exist. A religion is any set of canon texts/stories and some interpritation attached to them. That combonation exists and is very real. But interpritations dont have feelings or thoughts and dont make commandments. You as a follower may, however, draw conclusions from the interpritation and thus act a certain way as a result of that. But that is a choice of the follower, no one commanded him to it.
And no religions cant have "any sort of beleif"... again they arent people, they dont beleive anything themselves. However you as a reader of the religion may choose to have beleifs as a result of your interpritation.
You are injecting the interpretation layer to justify your exclusive individual responsibility argument retroactively.
A religion can be judged on its tenets, no exceptions.
> i tried to reply and it said the post i replied to was deleted and the reply was lost. i'll summarize: religions are not a combo of beliefs and interpretation. Religions are only beliefs (traditions included).
I never said religion was a comonation of beleif and interpritation. I said it was a combination of Canon text and ones interpritation of it.
Religions can **not** be a belief or even have a beleif. You need to be a thinking human to beleive anything, a book doesnt have a beleif, nor does an interpritation have a beleif.
What you mean is that you must **beleive** the religion (specifically the interpritation and choice of canon) in order to be considered a member of that religion. But it is the person who has the belief that makes him a member, the religion doesnt, and cant, beleive anything, it isnt a person.
> You are injecting the interpretation layer to justify your exclusive individual responsibility argument retroactively.
I am doing nothing of the sort, without interpritation then there is no difference between a catholosism and the protestant religion. Their only difference is how they interprit the same canon. Without the interpritation aspect the only thing a religion has left are the texts.
> A religion can be judged on its tenets, no exceptions.
A religion doesnt have tenants, its members do, and not always the same tenants. You cant judge a religion on something it doesnt have.
I agree, I cannot fathom your mental gymnastics on this.
My guess is you are refering to organized religion, and specifically the organization part and not the religion itself at all.
You have three levels
1) Religious Canon (the texts themselves)
2) Religion (The texts coupled with a specific interpritation)
3) Organized religion (A group of people that practice and enforce a specific interpritation)
lol, troll
Your the only troll in the room. I have been respecful and consjderate with how i interacted with you the whole time. You have thrown a little tantrum and acted like a 9 year old cause someone had a different opinion than you. Trust me its not just me you are looking like an asshat to, its everyone seeing you post right now.
People who are idiots and think they are smart.
This is why I am annoyed, cause you dragged this out so much, providing little slivers of hope that it could actually be a serious conversation, only for it to end up in an idiotic, totally incoherent word salad that anyone with a shred of sense can understand is nonsense.
I'm pissed that I fell for your grift, yes. Lesson learnt.
Calling you a troll is a courtesy. It means you don't actually believe that drivel, I was offering you an out cause the alternative is you are simply brain damaged or a progressive zealot (which is actually worse).
Now you try to take the high moral ground like a proper troll. So I'll settle on the troll hypothesis. You're good troll. I fell for it. A+
@Corfiot @matrix @freemo @hasmis
Nice conversation, I have learned a few things about religion.
I believe @freemo was quite precise and informative and that your reaction is excessive.
Anyways, you should always try to get the best out of a discussion, even when you're discussing with an idiot. You should choose a subject of discussion which is interesting to both and conduct the discussion in a way that is appreciated by both.
If you don't like the discussion, you failed to make it interesting. I'm not saying the other person has no responsibility, but all you can control are your actions. It's generally possible to get a good conversation even with a troll.
