Timeline for when religion will be obsolete.

[zapatos]

Obviously you've never heard of a hyperbole.

 

Except in Christianity, you're not suppose to kill them.

 

But going to a church doesn't matter.

It's how you are as a person.

 

You took it wrong.

I doubt that you are the definitive authority on the the meaning of the Bible. To suggest that you can know the 'correct' way to interpret a specific passage in the Bible is astounding. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

[DrP]

He's taking a pretty standard line on Christianity from what I can see. I studied it for years.

 

I suppose it depends on what denomination you are, but pretty all of them take the New Testament as gospel that supercedes/fulfils the old.

[Raider5678]

I doubt that you are the definitive authority on the the meaning of the Bible. To suggest that you can know the 'correct' way to interpret a specific passage in the Bible is astounding. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

My "arrogance" and "definitive authority" on the meaning of the bible, is what the majority of Christianity believe.

To suggest that you can tell other people in other religions what their own spiritual text means without being a part of it is astounding.

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

[dimreepr]

My "arrogance" and "definitive authority" on the meaning of the bible, is what the majority of Christianity believe.

To suggest that you can tell other people in other religions what their own spiritual text means without being a part of it is astounding.

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

 

The arrogance is believing your churches interpretation is the correct 1 among more than 30,000 different christian denominations/interpretations.

Edited June 5, 2017 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

 

The arrogance is believing your churches interpretation is the correct 1 among more than 30,000 different christian denominations/interpretations.

Unless you have some proof otherwise that the majority of Christians are killing anyone who disobeys them, I suggest you believe my "arrogant" belief that the majority of Christians do not kill anyone who disobeys them.

 

The GENERAL interpretation, that the majority of Christians believe.

You aren't even of the religion. So unless you can tell me more accurately what they believe, why are you arguing against this?

It's not far fetched at all.

 

I'm willing to say, arrogance and all, that more then 50% of Christians will not actually cut out their eye. That more then 50% do not actually kill their children.

If you disagree, you should do some research.

 

Additionally, who said that was my churches interpretation?

 

Again.

That is generally how most denominations interpret that piece of scripture.

Some would disagree.

 

But that would be equivalent to me pointing to atheists who believe that religious people should be executed(I know one) and saying that there are many different kinds of atheists, and that it's arrogant to say that you have the correct atheist view.

It shows no understanding of the basic principles of atheism, it's wrong, and it's also contradictory.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Raider5678

[zapatos]

To suggest that you can tell other people in other religions what their own spiritual text means without being a part of it is astounding.

I had twelve years of Christian schooling. The Bible was my spiritual text for longer than you've been alive. You are not the definitive authority on me, either.

[KipIngram]

None of us are the definitive authority on any of the others. I get quite amazed at how quickly people start telling me how to think. Each one of us is entirely unique and individual and more familiar with their own life than anyone else breathing.

[dimreepr]

Unless you have some proof otherwise that the majority of Christians are killing anyone who disobeys them, I suggest you believe my "arrogant" belief that the majority of Christians do not kill anyone who disobeys them.

 

The GENERAL interpretation, that the majority of Christians believe.

You aren't even of the religion. So unless you can tell me more accurately what they believe, why are you arguing against this?

It's not far fetched at all.

 

I'm willing to say, arrogance and all, that more then 50% of Christians will not actually cut out their eye. That more then 50% do not actually kill their children.

If you disagree, you should do some research.

 

Additionally, who said that was my churches interpretation?

 

Again.

That is generally how most denominations interpret that piece of scripture.

Some would disagree.

 

But that would be equivalent to me pointing to atheists who believe that religious people should be executed(I know one) and saying that there are many different kinds of atheists, and that it's arrogant to say that you have the correct atheist view.

It shows no understanding of the basic principles of atheism, it's wrong, and it's also contradictory.

 

What have I missed?

 

Can you point to the post that leads you to this reply?

 

Once in the 1990s, before there really was a web but when there were early chat-type things online, I fell into a random chat with a young woman in the middle east. She said the very thing - told me point blank that it was the teaching of her religion that disbelievers should be killed. So, I didn't really "meet" her in person, but I did encounter someone who held that belief. I questioned her about it, along the lines of didn't the idea of killing bother her. Her reaction was more or less a "shrug" - all she was focused on was what her faith told her to do.

 

My point is, it's very rare (unless you live in an extreme/radical community) and your anecdote would seem to illustrate that, given that your only contact is virtual.

Edited June 5, 2017 by dimreepr

[KipIngram]

Yes, I do believe it's very rare. I think the people that try to tell us that the majority of Islamic people are radicals are purely trying to manipulate us to their own ends. Examples were requested, though, and I had one so I shared.

[dimreepr]

Thanks

[KipIngram]

Also, given that I had just that one brief exposure to the person, it's entirely possible they were trolling me. No way to be sure, is there?

[dimreepr]

Not online.

[KipIngram]

I hope it won't be OT for me to make a couple of points here. I think it's 100% clear that religion gives us some extremists. On the Christian side you have people like the aforementioned Westboro Baptists, who are some of the hateful people I've ever read about. On the Islamic side you have people who have certainly killed, and on a large scale (9/11 was large scale by anyone's standards, and then we have the recent events in Britain). But I think it's just utter nonsense to presume that characterizes the religion as a whole. As I noted above, that notion is fed to us by manipulative people on both sides of the aisle.

 

Additionally, there are some people (a couple of whom I've encountered here on this forum), who seem to want to "cherry pick" problems like extremist behavior in a politically selective way. They've identified their "targets," and even mentioning examples of extremism from the other end of the spectrum seems to absolutely enrage them. This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Extremism is a general concept that applies all over the place, and seems to uniformly lead to problems (maybe that's a good way to define extremism - being so wound up over something that you're willing to lie, cheat, maim, and kill in the name of your particular beliefs). It's the extremism that's the problem - not the underlying institution that the extremism is built on.

 

To me this sort of cherry picking behavior is no more rational that telling someone who's very philanthropic that they're not charitable because they don't contribute to one particular charity. "Being charitable" is a generic quality that has to do with sacrificing your own resources to help others, and extremism is a general trait that I've proposed a definition for above. The details don't really matter.

 

One of the best things about our world is that we just do not get to tell one another how to think.

What I just described is really quite ironic, when you note that in science we usually consider identifying a general principle that applies in diverse areas to be a good thing.

[dimreepr]

All extremists have a reason (motivation) to think the way they do, but that can never be an excuse for violence or hatred.

[KipIngram]

All extremists have a reason (motivation) to think the way they do, but that can never be an excuse for violence or hatred.

 

Exactly - totally agree. Believe what you wish, and campaign for your beliefs, but there are certain lines that just can't be crossed.

[seriously disabled]

Religion is dangerous in my opinion because it deludes people into believing that there is a God or Gods that cares about them when in fact there is none.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that a higher power that cares about humanity exists (or has ever existed).

 

Religion is based on false hopes and this is why it is dangerous.

 

I believe that humanity is doomed one way or another and religion can do nothing more than create false hopes in people.

 

The evidence really shows that humans are really a very insignificant species and could disappear tomorrow and religion can do nothing to prevent humanity's eventual demise.

Edited June 5, 2017 by seriously disabled

[KipIngram]

Religion is dangerous in my opinion because it deludes humanity into believing that there is a God or Gods when in fact there is none.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that a higher power that cares about humanity exists.

 

Religion is based on false hopes and this is why it is dangerous.

 

I believe that humanity is doomed one way or the other and religion can do nothing more than create false hopes in people.

 

The evidence really shows that humans is really a very insignificant species and could disappear tomorrow and religion can do nothing to prevent humanity's ultimate demise.

 

Some would argue that a person that lived and died with hope in their heart was better off than one who felt "doomed."

 

I don't think that sort of thing represents "danger" - we're talking about things much more tangible than that like people who kill others in the name of their religion. That's danger.

[dimreepr]

I believe that humanity is doomed one way or another and religion can do nothing more than create false hopes in people.

 

What's false about hope?

[DrKrettin]

 

Some would argue that a person that lived and died with hope in their heart was better off than one who felt "doomed."

 

 

Hope for what? Hope of something better than a crap life on Earth? Would it not be more constructive to embrace life and accept reality?

[seriously disabled]

Some would argue that a person that lived and died with hope in their heart was better off than one who felt "doomed."

How is he better off? He is dead regardless.

 

I don't think that sort of thing represents "danger" - we're talking about things much more tangible than that like people who kill others in the name of their religion. That's danger.

Religion is dangerous regardless if people kill each other over it or not. People will continue to kill each other regardless of religion because it's human nature and religion cannot change the human condition.

 

Religion is based on nothing more than lies and false hopes and dreams and this is why it is dangerous.

[dimreepr]

 

Hope for what? Hope of something better than a crap life on Earth? Would it not be more constructive to embrace life and accept reality?

 

I hope that more people just accept that people are people rather than judging them for believing something you don't.

Edited June 5, 2017 by dimreepr

[KipIngram]

He was better off during his life, due to a higher state of contentment.

 

Well, I disagree with your use of the word "dangerous." But that's ok - we each get our own opinion.

[dimreepr]

How is he better off? He is dead regardless.

 

 

Religion is dangerous regardless if people kill each other over it or not. People will continue to kill each other regardless of religion because it's human nature and religion cannot change the human condition.

 

Religion is based on nothing more than lies and false hopes and dreams and this is why it is dangerous.

 

People and politics are dangerous, books are just readable.

[seriously disabled]

People will hurt and kill each other regardless of religion and that's because of the human condition.

 

Religious beliefs cannot really change the human condition and the eventual demise of humanity.

Edited June 5, 2017 by seriously disabled

[zapatos]

People will hurt and kill each other regardless of religion and that's because of the human condition.

 

Religious beliefs cannot really change the human condition and the eventual demise of humanity.

Given that you believe in the eventual demise of humanity, you may want to embrace religion and any other institution that gives hope. If we must crash and burn, let's at least go down fighting.