Id wager you don’t actually *respect*, that is *honor*, peoples’ religions that you think are “irrational.” “Tolerate” may be a better word? Or do you really *honor* a Scientologist’s religion?
All major religions are “authoritarian”.
Irreligion does not logically follow from atheism. There are religions that are atheistic. Nor is a supern…
Id wager you don’t actually *respect*, that is *honor*, peoples’ religions that you think are “irrational.” “Tolerate” may be a better word? Or do you really *honor* a Scientologist’s religion?
All major religions are “authoritarian”.
Irreligion does not logically follow from atheism. There are religions that are atheistic. Nor is a supernatural parent universal to all human religion through history and cultures; and a single super natural “parent” is even less common than supernatural beings(that aren’t parents to humanity) in general. “God” -- the singular, often vague, inconsistently defined, abstraction that is now found in many societies — as an idea or word didn’t form in a human mind for millions of years after humans evolved. When surveying the history and anthropology of supernatural creatures imagined by humans, which includes gods, it’s important, to be accurate, not to overgeneralize or project modern concepts onto ancient beliefs.
Materialists also typically posit, ironically perhaps, the existence of non-material entities : minds. Even aside from that Materialism is religious.
I personally think everyone has religion, at least every functional person, although not everyone is aware of it.
UU used to respect all pursuit of faiths and doctrines so long as you applied it to yourself and didn't impose or abuse others. So there was a very secular aspect that was based on rejection of creeds and dogmas, and a focus on individual conscience and rational inquiry. There was also a strong belief of separation of church and state. And embracing science ands the scientific method. All of that is being abandoned.
UU has always had a strong moral and political perspective. Today, the stuff that it is “inclusive” about is no longer appreciated by some people, like yourself. The rhetoric it uses to describe itself hasn’t actually changed much. A lot of woke rhetoric actually fits nicely with the traditional rhetoric of UU. It’s all bullshit, but it matches.
It’s not surprising that UU was the first “Christian” church to be captured by woke ideology. It has traditionally been the Christian church that was most open to projecting whatever political and social values the members had into the Bible and then to any and all religious texts. UU simply began to use the reputation and authority of traditional religion to backup whatever political positions they had regardless of logic. They do that with the authority of “science” as well. Men are women become women because Jesus, Gotama, Krishna, Muhammad, and Darwin said so.
If the UU respected the scientific method they would have stopped suggesting their political, moral, and religious views are in any meaningful way supported by the Bible long ago.
One, not Christian, but originated with Christian churches. Two, being open and inclusive is not the same as forced diversity and to ignoring what peer review based science is saying. I don’t mind open debate. Now UU stifles debate.
UU “officially” still reveres the Bible and honors Jesus. Jesus threatened people with supernatural torture if they didn’t obey the god he believed in and worshiped, Yahweh, who in the Bible commands his followers repeatedly to commit genocide on people if they didn’t become his slaves. It’s valid to label any church “Christian” that is derived from explicitely Christian churches and reveres any of the main characters of Christian mythology. The label is irrelevant though and not meaningful to my argument.
I don’t know how open to debate UU was to its most cherished ideas (e.g climate change) before the woke capture and how much the woke capture just represents some new undebateable cherished ideas. I was never a member. And never personally tested the waters so to speak. I did attend one Sunday gathering though, and “rationality” was not a vibe I got. I do agree though that they seem to stifle debate now, based on what they are doing to people who aren’t on board with its current political platform.
And personally I think “peer reviewed based science” deserves skepticism like anything else. “The science”(tm) is something that is sometimes wrong and is quite often more complicated than how it is presented. And of course, people should be able to honestly debate it without any meaningful threat of having their lives destroyed.
The fact that you claim that UU believes in punishment for disbelief in Christ shows you know very little about UU. Don’t know where you ‘visited’ but UU fluctuates by region so the level of Christianity varies by local population. I did test the waters when I lived in Atlanta, and went to forums in the Church there. But there was a spike in obsession after the BLM explosion.
“that UU believes in punishment for disbelief in Christ”. I simply said UU reveres the Bible and Jesus.
If an organization reveres Hitler and reveres Nazi literature it’s reasonable to call the organization a Nazi organization. It doesn’t matter if that organization has managed to [ir]rationalize Hitler into a social justice warrior. While I’d concede that is relatively better than revering him for what he actually was, it’s still bad that he’s revered at all(aside from the problems with social justice fundamentalism). And it would be an absurdity for that organization to suggest it values reason and science. For it to demonstrate it honors reason, it would need to have a realistic view of him based on the literature and data we have of him. The same applies to UU with regard to Jesus. Its view of Jesus is deeply irrational. It’s understandable if someone hasn’t studied the Bible or history much, but it presents itself as being knowledgeable about the religions it reveres. It doesn’t appear to be simply a lack of knowledge, but rather irrational faith based on a desire to use popular religious figures to validate their arbitrary personal spiritual and political beliefs. That is an immature and intellectually dishonest approach to religion. For UU to truly embrace “reason”, it would no longer revere Jesus. That would be quite the startling revolution and progress.
I got your gist without all the pretty words. Basically what you are saying is that because you are an atheist, they are idiots for believing different faiths and must think like you do. Me, I could care less what people’s faiths are so long as it gives them a sense of peace and it doesn’t bother anyone else. And if the UU allows for people to explore other faiths and be more tolerant while not pushing any religion, including wokism, I could care less whether an atheist feels superior intellectually and logically. I remain agnostic and respect any that respect that of me.
Being a theist doesn’t make a person an idiot. Thomas Paine was a theist. I don’t think he was an idiot. He detested the god of Moses. You sound as if you think there is only one possible god. I’ve been talking about the evil of Yahweh specifically.
And being an atheist doesn’t make someone immune from being an idiot. Exhibit A: Sam Harris.
“Me, I could care less what people’s faiths are so long as it gives them a sense of peace and it doesn’t bother anyone else.”
Yet you have so much contempt for Scientology. You contradict yourself.
“And if the UU allows for people to explore other faiths and be more tolerant while not pushing any religion, including wokism, I could care less whether an atheist feels superior intellectually and logically.”
But they do push religion. They always have. They revere the Bible. They revere Jesus. They revere Gotama. They don’t revere L Ron Hubbard. They pick and choose who they think are “wise” and what texts they consider “sacred”. They are “intolerant” of people who don’t “respect” what they expect them to, and they will admonish them for it, just like what you are doing to me right now. And they market themselves. They push their religion.
Here is me writing that a professor should be allowed to discuss intelligent design in a science class:
Oh brother, I could care less for scientology if it didn’t behave like a cult and treated people badly it deemed apostate. I don’t respect any religion that has that type of restrictions. That includes Christian sects like Jehovah Witness. UU historically has not done that. So, no, I don’t contradict myself.
Would you consider what the UU did to the author of the OP “treating people badly it deemed apostate”?
I for one don’t respect any religion’s reverence of the Bible. It repeatedly encourages murder of apostates(Scientology doesn’t have it as a commandment in its literature to murder apostates as far as I’m aware). And it threatens people with torture for not worshipping the god it promotes. Any religion that reveres such literature deserves disrespect for that. Just like any religion that revered Nazi literature would deserve disrespect for that. It’s good that UU has historically been better toward apostates than some other religions, but it’s still bad it reveres a book that encourages detestable behavior. The adoption of woke ideology is not surprising to me, nor is the treatment of the OP. It aligns with its historical trajectory.
Wager whatever you like. You don’t know me and are in no position to tell me what I actually believe. We’ve both thought a lot about the purpose of religion and have come to different conclusions. That's all.
I'm not sure how you overlooked the essential qualifier in my comment: "Speaking for myself, ABSENT ATROCITIES AND AUTHORITARIANISM, I choose to respect people's religions." Atrocities and authoritarianism define Scientology, which is in its own unique category of corruption and cruelty. The behavior of pathological miscreant and leader David Miscavige alone could serve as Exhibit A. But you probably know all that already. Now I'm really and truly done here. Have at it.
So you think atrocities and authoritarianism define Scientology but not Christianity, a religion that is primarily based on the Bible, which has as its main character a deity that commands his followers to commit genocide and threatens people with supernatural torture if they don’t become his slaves? And whose worshippers, over the past thousands years have, other than the massacres in the book they revere, repeatedly carried out atrocities that are not in the same “category” as what Scientologists have done. From what I know L Ron Hubbard never commanded his followers to invade Nevada and commit genocide on all its inhabitants, enslave the female virgins, and kill the donkeys.
Your contempt for Scientology is incongruent with the “respect” you apparently have for other religions like Christianity. I’m not suggesting you ditch your contempt for Scientology, but that you evaluate your “respect” for Christianity. If you have a problem with David Miscavige, it’s inconsistent to be okay with Moses or Jesus. You do realize Moses commands genocide in the Book of Numbers right? You do realize Jesus, in the gospels, commanded his followers to sell all their stuff and support his mission to tell Jews he was the messiah and that anyone who didn’t follow him would be tortured? The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t a coincidence.
A religion is anything that provides four functions:
1. Meaning, especially meaning for pain.
2. Purpose.
3. A sense of community.
4. Ritual.
Human beings need religion. We can turn nearly anything into a religion. Football is a popular religion, for example. We tend to turn things into religion until our need for religion is sated. Human beings experience significant adverse mental and physical health effects within a few months if they don't have ANY religion.
Jeffrey, you've expressed your loathing and disgust for anything even tangentially related to Christianity repeatedly in this thread. I personally think it's inappropriate to use such judgemental language towards a third of the global population, but we may disagree on this point.
My question is this: what is your religion or religions?
1. What meaning to you ascribe to painful or unpleasant experiences, and why?
2 What do you think defines your purpose?
3. What is your community?
4. What are your rituals and traditions?
It appears that you think your religion is vastly superior to Christianity. Enlighten us all, please.
I am expressing my disparagement toward the ideology of the Bible. Fortunately a lot of Christians are much better than the book they claim to follow. There are generally respectable Christians, but the book they revere is not.
The quantity of people who claim to revere a book and revere a man does not have any impact on how we should judge what they claim to revere. If 1/3 of the population were Nazis, would you say that people shouldn’t harshly judge the ideology of Hitler? You *judging* me for judging an ideology that promotes obedient worship of a genocidal slaver is wrong. Yes, we certainly disagree about my “judgemental language”.
The psychological well being that a religion promotes does not justify it is worth respecting. Again, Nazism could very well provide community and other elements of “religion” but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be condemned. It is appropriate to use judgmental language. Not to use it is vice — well once you learn about it. Paul went around preaching supernatural torture for everyone who didn’t join his community. For some reason you would have no problem with that judgemental language which targeted 99.9% of the population at the time, but you would chastise me for saying that was wrong because lots of people now revere Paul. That is a bad judgement. Thats one contribution to how cruel tyrannical ideologies stay popular. Jesus stated that only a “few” wouldn’t end up being supernaturally tortured for not following him, which sounds like he is being way more judgmental toward much more of the population than myself. Have a problem with Jesus?
My religion is irrelevant to the immorality of Christianity or the validity of my moral judgements toward it. An alligator could be writing what I’m writing and it would still be valid.
But, actually I do think I am religious. I think everyone is religious, although I don’t share your definition of religion, which I think is unclear. Thus the health effects claim is garbage. You write it like you’re referring to scientific research or something. I’d be fascinated to see what you are basing it on. One meaningful and purposeful tradition of mine is pointing out horseshit.
I agree though more generally that we have social needs, and without them satisfied it will eventually make most humans miserable but I don’t see the relevance to my judgements about Christianity.
Another tradition I have is denouncing people who claim to speak for gods who demand absolute obedience from humans and threaten them with torture if they don’t comply. You should consider picking it up. It’s honorable. As opposed to shamefully being their apologists.
Honestly, your claim seems to be that theism in general and Christianity in particular is a sin and the source of all evil and suffering in the world. And that people should recite daily mantras to free themselves of this sin and obtain enlightenment.
That's a religious claim. The extreme language, aggressive tone, and general scorn for any other opinions is a poor approach to apologetics for your religion if you actually wish to make converts. I suggest trying some different tactics.
Of course, making converts may not be your goal. Bible thumping street preachers often enjoy the combination of feeling superior and feeling persecuted. They simply don't care that their approach doesn't work. That may be the case for you as well.
But if you're actually TRYING to represent your faith well and bring people around to your religion, reconsider your tactics. These ones don't work.
I have only referred to gods who demand absolute obedience from humans and threaten them with torture if they don’t comply. Not “theism in general”. Thomas Paine(the guy who wrote Common Sense, which sparked the American Revolution) was a theist. He didn’t worship such a god though. He didn’t believe in Yahweh. He wrote an entire book that dripped with disdain for the Bible. You need to work on your reading comprehension badly. Your perception of me is a projection of your own prejudices.
The “aggressive” language I have used comes no where near the language that is used repeatedly in the Bible, and from the mouths of mythological characters in it, which you seem zealously to defend from any dishonor and insult.
I don’t suspect I’ll be able to convince you of much. You seem to be beyond the reach of reason.
Here is your beloved Yahweh commanding his followers to commit genocide of Amalekites, which Netanyahu recently referred to regarding his military actions in Palestine:
1 Samuel 15:2
“This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
Go ahead and shamefully rationalize it. I think it is profane; but I’ll wager you think it is “sacred.”
Paul was arguably the first “Bible thumping” Christian, since Christianity was largely his invention, and he was quite successful unfortunately. After all he and his followers have convinced you to defend his religion of human sacrifice.
Here is Paul hexing people who teach something different than him:
Galatians 1:6
“ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.”
Surely you think Paul, the inventor of Christianity, should have used different tactics???Right???? No I bet you will defend it. Go at it.
Most religion has been spread and maintained through violence or the threat of it. Simple historical fact. I have done neither here, but you seem to dislike me immensely nonetheless. You don’t like my “tone”. Do you prefer the tone when Jesus tells people that his imaginary god will torture them for being angry?
Check out the Hawaiian gods. They also demand obedience and are quite direct about enforcement. Pele makes her displeasure known with lava.
Human sacrifice has been a normal part of most religions up to a few thousand years ago. Absolute obedience to the gods, up to and including the sacrifice of your own children, has been normal. The story of Abraham and Isaac is the story of a god that refused human sacrifice. It was a rather radical departure from the norms of the time. It was a popular development, and a big part of the success of the Abrahamic religions. It was a substantial "carrot", and more than made up for the "stick" of potential damnation. Especially since most other religions also have some form of divine punishment, in this world or the next.
Perhaps you have a lovely new religion that is the next step in human advancement. If so, you're doing a poor job of sharing it. Your argument is all stick, no carrot.
There are plenty of ancient societies where no evidence of human sacrifice exists or demands for absolute obedience to gods. And just because some religions practiced human sacrifice in the region and the time of Judaism doesn’t mean all religions did. Nor does it mean that because it was not as evil as some religions around it that we should revere it now. That’s asinine. It’s like saying that because the Nazis were worse than the soviets Stalin should be honored. Furthermore, while Abraham didn’t sacrifice his child, enemies of Yahweh were sacrificed. Human sacrifice was practiced by Judaism.
Additionally, Christianity is a religion *centered* on human sacrifice. Jesus is a willing human sacrifice.
I don’t need to provide an alternative religion here when criticizing Christianity anymore than someone has to provide an alternative medicine when criticizing blood letting for the flu. But I have actually here honored reason, independent thinking, and the resistance toward tyranny, three values that should be a part of anyone’s “religion”.
Your statement toward me criticizing the Bible is like someone who hears someone condemn Nazism and says “perhaps you have a lovely new ideology that is the next step in human advancement.” Its grotesque. Judaism, Christianity, and Nazism were not advancements, they were just slightly different forms of degeneracy. The notion of moral progress though that you just revealed demonstrates that you likely think *you* have some sort of advanced religion, which is laughable. You are going to have to learn to read before you get beyond your slave religion.
I’ll give you a carrot once you say something that deserves it. Otherwise expect a lot of dung.
1. The idea that there's a universal morality comes from the Abrahamic worldview. A dualistic, pluralistic, or relativistic worldview rejects the concept of an objective morality. So your worldview and religion is HIGHLY relevant to claims about morality or immorality. It would be so for an alligator too!
2. There is a fascinating amount of science regarding religion, actually. "Ritual: How Seemingly Senseless Acts makes life worth living" by Dimitris Xygalatas is an excellent place to start. No religious claims, just scientific analysis of the physiological effects of ritual, as measured in real time by wearable monitoring gear.
3. The definition of religion comes from
"Strange Rites: New Religions for a Godless World" by Tara Isabella Burton. Another useful book is "Cultish, the language of fanaticism", by Amanda Montell.
“ The idea that there's a universal morality comes from the Abrahamic worldview. ”
No it doesn’t. “Universal moralities” existed prior to Judaism and aside from
Judaism. Most major ancient civilizations had universal moralities. Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, Chinese, Mesopotamians. Small societies also show them.
“ A dualistic, pluralistic, or relativistic worldview rejects the concept of an objective morality. So your worldview and religion is HIGHLY relevant to claims about morality or immorality. ”
Metaethical theory is not needed to make moral claims. I’d have no problem discussing this with you, but it’s not necessary for what we are talking about.
"Ritual: How Seemingly Senseless Acts makes life worth living"
Looks like it could be a neat book. But I don’t think it includes your *specific* claim about health and religion. If it does I suspect the “science” is garbage. But you are welcome to actually cite the study it provides. Unfortunately people present bad interpretations of unreplicated, sloppy research as “the science” when it’s not. My hypothesis is that is what you did.
After all, the definition you provided seems like it comes from a different book? Did the ritual book’s research that it cites all use that same definition? Which doesn’t seem actually like a particularly good one to me.
Have you actually read any original “religious” literature yourself? Like the Old and New Testaments, thoroughly? Homer? Hesiod? The Epic of Gilgamesh? The Hammurabi Code? The Gita? The Upanishad’s? The Book of the Dead? The Quran?
It seems like you are simply regurgitating commentary. For example the notion that universal morality comes from Abrahamic religions is a very ignorant statement and sounds like it came from someone like Jordan Peterson or a televangelist.
Jesus was a bad man. Threatening other people with supernatural torture if they don’t absolutely obey a god who commands his followers to massacre suckling infants is bad. My metaethics are irrelevant. Just as my metaethics are irrelevant were I to say Hitler was a bad man. I suspect you understand my sentiments well enough. If you want a ritual — put “Jesus is bad man” on your Alexa to repeat once a day at noon and echo it yourself.
You claim that Jesus threatened other people with supernatural torture if they don't massacre suckling infants. You seem to imply that he not only made this claim, but originated it.
Please cite chapter and verse from the new testament to back up this claim. The new testament is quite short, it should be an easy read to find...if it's there.
“ You claim that Jesus threatened other people with supernatural torture if they don't massacre suckling infants.”
I didn’t claim that. Please reread my comment. Read carefully.
This is what I wrote:
“Threatening other people with supernatural torture if they don’t absolutely obey a god who commands his followers to massacre suckling infants is bad.”
If you need help breaking down that sentence, let me know. Your last try would get you an F. The fact that you did so horribly gives me the impression that your reading skills are not sufficient for reading the Bible. I suggest you take some remedial reading classes.
Ancient Egyptian morality was DIFFERENT than the morality of, say, early Chinese dynasties. Deities were also generally local, although they could be moved or stolen. To the best of my knowledge, the idea of making a universal moral claim for all of humanity originated with the Abrahamic religions. Love it or hate it, that's also the origin of proselytizing.
I've read a great many sacred texts, yes.
The definition of religion I used came from Strange Rites.
All those ancient civilizations I listed had religion that promoted universal morals no less than Judaism. And Abrahamic religions were not the only or original proselytizers.
I suggest you read about Zoroastrianism. That should be sufficient to dispel your ignorance.
Id wager you don’t actually *respect*, that is *honor*, peoples’ religions that you think are “irrational.” “Tolerate” may be a better word? Or do you really *honor* a Scientologist’s religion?
All major religions are “authoritarian”.
Irreligion does not logically follow from atheism. There are religions that are atheistic. Nor is a supernatural parent universal to all human religion through history and cultures; and a single super natural “parent” is even less common than supernatural beings(that aren’t parents to humanity) in general. “God” -- the singular, often vague, inconsistently defined, abstraction that is now found in many societies — as an idea or word didn’t form in a human mind for millions of years after humans evolved. When surveying the history and anthropology of supernatural creatures imagined by humans, which includes gods, it’s important, to be accurate, not to overgeneralize or project modern concepts onto ancient beliefs.
Materialists also typically posit, ironically perhaps, the existence of non-material entities : minds. Even aside from that Materialism is religious.
I personally think everyone has religion, at least every functional person, although not everyone is aware of it.
UU used to respect all pursuit of faiths and doctrines so long as you applied it to yourself and didn't impose or abuse others. So there was a very secular aspect that was based on rejection of creeds and dogmas, and a focus on individual conscience and rational inquiry. There was also a strong belief of separation of church and state. And embracing science ands the scientific method. All of that is being abandoned.
UU has always had a strong moral and political perspective. Today, the stuff that it is “inclusive” about is no longer appreciated by some people, like yourself. The rhetoric it uses to describe itself hasn’t actually changed much. A lot of woke rhetoric actually fits nicely with the traditional rhetoric of UU. It’s all bullshit, but it matches.
It’s not surprising that UU was the first “Christian” church to be captured by woke ideology. It has traditionally been the Christian church that was most open to projecting whatever political and social values the members had into the Bible and then to any and all religious texts. UU simply began to use the reputation and authority of traditional religion to backup whatever political positions they had regardless of logic. They do that with the authority of “science” as well. Men are women become women because Jesus, Gotama, Krishna, Muhammad, and Darwin said so.
If the UU respected the scientific method they would have stopped suggesting their political, moral, and religious views are in any meaningful way supported by the Bible long ago.
One, not Christian, but originated with Christian churches. Two, being open and inclusive is not the same as forced diversity and to ignoring what peer review based science is saying. I don’t mind open debate. Now UU stifles debate.
UU “officially” still reveres the Bible and honors Jesus. Jesus threatened people with supernatural torture if they didn’t obey the god he believed in and worshiped, Yahweh, who in the Bible commands his followers repeatedly to commit genocide on people if they didn’t become his slaves. It’s valid to label any church “Christian” that is derived from explicitely Christian churches and reveres any of the main characters of Christian mythology. The label is irrelevant though and not meaningful to my argument.
I don’t know how open to debate UU was to its most cherished ideas (e.g climate change) before the woke capture and how much the woke capture just represents some new undebateable cherished ideas. I was never a member. And never personally tested the waters so to speak. I did attend one Sunday gathering though, and “rationality” was not a vibe I got. I do agree though that they seem to stifle debate now, based on what they are doing to people who aren’t on board with its current political platform.
And personally I think “peer reviewed based science” deserves skepticism like anything else. “The science”(tm) is something that is sometimes wrong and is quite often more complicated than how it is presented. And of course, people should be able to honestly debate it without any meaningful threat of having their lives destroyed.
Perhaps it’s time for a schism.
The fact that you claim that UU believes in punishment for disbelief in Christ shows you know very little about UU. Don’t know where you ‘visited’ but UU fluctuates by region so the level of Christianity varies by local population. I did test the waters when I lived in Atlanta, and went to forums in the Church there. But there was a spike in obsession after the BLM explosion.
No where did I say
“that UU believes in punishment for disbelief in Christ”. I simply said UU reveres the Bible and Jesus.
If an organization reveres Hitler and reveres Nazi literature it’s reasonable to call the organization a Nazi organization. It doesn’t matter if that organization has managed to [ir]rationalize Hitler into a social justice warrior. While I’d concede that is relatively better than revering him for what he actually was, it’s still bad that he’s revered at all(aside from the problems with social justice fundamentalism). And it would be an absurdity for that organization to suggest it values reason and science. For it to demonstrate it honors reason, it would need to have a realistic view of him based on the literature and data we have of him. The same applies to UU with regard to Jesus. Its view of Jesus is deeply irrational. It’s understandable if someone hasn’t studied the Bible or history much, but it presents itself as being knowledgeable about the religions it reveres. It doesn’t appear to be simply a lack of knowledge, but rather irrational faith based on a desire to use popular religious figures to validate their arbitrary personal spiritual and political beliefs. That is an immature and intellectually dishonest approach to religion. For UU to truly embrace “reason”, it would no longer revere Jesus. That would be quite the startling revolution and progress.
I got your gist without all the pretty words. Basically what you are saying is that because you are an atheist, they are idiots for believing different faiths and must think like you do. Me, I could care less what people’s faiths are so long as it gives them a sense of peace and it doesn’t bother anyone else. And if the UU allows for people to explore other faiths and be more tolerant while not pushing any religion, including wokism, I could care less whether an atheist feels superior intellectually and logically. I remain agnostic and respect any that respect that of me.
No you don’t get my gist.
Being a theist doesn’t make a person an idiot. Thomas Paine was a theist. I don’t think he was an idiot. He detested the god of Moses. You sound as if you think there is only one possible god. I’ve been talking about the evil of Yahweh specifically.
And being an atheist doesn’t make someone immune from being an idiot. Exhibit A: Sam Harris.
“Me, I could care less what people’s faiths are so long as it gives them a sense of peace and it doesn’t bother anyone else.”
Yet you have so much contempt for Scientology. You contradict yourself.
“And if the UU allows for people to explore other faiths and be more tolerant while not pushing any religion, including wokism, I could care less whether an atheist feels superior intellectually and logically.”
But they do push religion. They always have. They revere the Bible. They revere Jesus. They revere Gotama. They don’t revere L Ron Hubbard. They pick and choose who they think are “wise” and what texts they consider “sacred”. They are “intolerant” of people who don’t “respect” what they expect them to, and they will admonish them for it, just like what you are doing to me right now. And they market themselves. They push their religion.
Here is me writing that a professor should be allowed to discuss intelligent design in a science class:
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/intelligent-design-and-extradimensional
Oh brother, I could care less for scientology if it didn’t behave like a cult and treated people badly it deemed apostate. I don’t respect any religion that has that type of restrictions. That includes Christian sects like Jehovah Witness. UU historically has not done that. So, no, I don’t contradict myself.
Would you consider what the UU did to the author of the OP “treating people badly it deemed apostate”?
I for one don’t respect any religion’s reverence of the Bible. It repeatedly encourages murder of apostates(Scientology doesn’t have it as a commandment in its literature to murder apostates as far as I’m aware). And it threatens people with torture for not worshipping the god it promotes. Any religion that reveres such literature deserves disrespect for that. Just like any religion that revered Nazi literature would deserve disrespect for that. It’s good that UU has historically been better toward apostates than some other religions, but it’s still bad it reveres a book that encourages detestable behavior. The adoption of woke ideology is not surprising to me, nor is the treatment of the OP. It aligns with its historical trajectory.
Your last sentence is irrelevant both to UU and to what this page is about.
Wager whatever you like. You don’t know me and are in no position to tell me what I actually believe. We’ve both thought a lot about the purpose of religion and have come to different conclusions. That's all.
You are welcome to prove my wager wrong by telling us you honor Scientology.
I'm not sure how you overlooked the essential qualifier in my comment: "Speaking for myself, ABSENT ATROCITIES AND AUTHORITARIANISM, I choose to respect people's religions." Atrocities and authoritarianism define Scientology, which is in its own unique category of corruption and cruelty. The behavior of pathological miscreant and leader David Miscavige alone could serve as Exhibit A. But you probably know all that already. Now I'm really and truly done here. Have at it.
So you think atrocities and authoritarianism define Scientology but not Christianity, a religion that is primarily based on the Bible, which has as its main character a deity that commands his followers to commit genocide and threatens people with supernatural torture if they don’t become his slaves? And whose worshippers, over the past thousands years have, other than the massacres in the book they revere, repeatedly carried out atrocities that are not in the same “category” as what Scientologists have done. From what I know L Ron Hubbard never commanded his followers to invade Nevada and commit genocide on all its inhabitants, enslave the female virgins, and kill the donkeys.
Your contempt for Scientology is incongruent with the “respect” you apparently have for other religions like Christianity. I’m not suggesting you ditch your contempt for Scientology, but that you evaluate your “respect” for Christianity. If you have a problem with David Miscavige, it’s inconsistent to be okay with Moses or Jesus. You do realize Moses commands genocide in the Book of Numbers right? You do realize Jesus, in the gospels, commanded his followers to sell all their stuff and support his mission to tell Jews he was the messiah and that anyone who didn’t follow him would be tortured? The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t a coincidence.
It seems like you may be a Protestant atheist.
A religion is anything that provides four functions:
1. Meaning, especially meaning for pain.
2. Purpose.
3. A sense of community.
4. Ritual.
Human beings need religion. We can turn nearly anything into a religion. Football is a popular religion, for example. We tend to turn things into religion until our need for religion is sated. Human beings experience significant adverse mental and physical health effects within a few months if they don't have ANY religion.
Jeffrey, you've expressed your loathing and disgust for anything even tangentially related to Christianity repeatedly in this thread. I personally think it's inappropriate to use such judgemental language towards a third of the global population, but we may disagree on this point.
My question is this: what is your religion or religions?
1. What meaning to you ascribe to painful or unpleasant experiences, and why?
2 What do you think defines your purpose?
3. What is your community?
4. What are your rituals and traditions?
It appears that you think your religion is vastly superior to Christianity. Enlighten us all, please.
I am expressing my disparagement toward the ideology of the Bible. Fortunately a lot of Christians are much better than the book they claim to follow. There are generally respectable Christians, but the book they revere is not.
The quantity of people who claim to revere a book and revere a man does not have any impact on how we should judge what they claim to revere. If 1/3 of the population were Nazis, would you say that people shouldn’t harshly judge the ideology of Hitler? You *judging* me for judging an ideology that promotes obedient worship of a genocidal slaver is wrong. Yes, we certainly disagree about my “judgemental language”.
The psychological well being that a religion promotes does not justify it is worth respecting. Again, Nazism could very well provide community and other elements of “religion” but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be condemned. It is appropriate to use judgmental language. Not to use it is vice — well once you learn about it. Paul went around preaching supernatural torture for everyone who didn’t join his community. For some reason you would have no problem with that judgemental language which targeted 99.9% of the population at the time, but you would chastise me for saying that was wrong because lots of people now revere Paul. That is a bad judgement. Thats one contribution to how cruel tyrannical ideologies stay popular. Jesus stated that only a “few” wouldn’t end up being supernaturally tortured for not following him, which sounds like he is being way more judgmental toward much more of the population than myself. Have a problem with Jesus?
My religion is irrelevant to the immorality of Christianity or the validity of my moral judgements toward it. An alligator could be writing what I’m writing and it would still be valid.
But, actually I do think I am religious. I think everyone is religious, although I don’t share your definition of religion, which I think is unclear. Thus the health effects claim is garbage. You write it like you’re referring to scientific research or something. I’d be fascinated to see what you are basing it on. One meaningful and purposeful tradition of mine is pointing out horseshit.
I agree though more generally that we have social needs, and without them satisfied it will eventually make most humans miserable but I don’t see the relevance to my judgements about Christianity.
Another tradition I have is denouncing people who claim to speak for gods who demand absolute obedience from humans and threaten them with torture if they don’t comply. You should consider picking it up. It’s honorable. As opposed to shamefully being their apologists.
Honestly, your claim seems to be that theism in general and Christianity in particular is a sin and the source of all evil and suffering in the world. And that people should recite daily mantras to free themselves of this sin and obtain enlightenment.
That's a religious claim. The extreme language, aggressive tone, and general scorn for any other opinions is a poor approach to apologetics for your religion if you actually wish to make converts. I suggest trying some different tactics.
Of course, making converts may not be your goal. Bible thumping street preachers often enjoy the combination of feeling superior and feeling persecuted. They simply don't care that their approach doesn't work. That may be the case for you as well.
But if you're actually TRYING to represent your faith well and bring people around to your religion, reconsider your tactics. These ones don't work.
I have only referred to gods who demand absolute obedience from humans and threaten them with torture if they don’t comply. Not “theism in general”. Thomas Paine(the guy who wrote Common Sense, which sparked the American Revolution) was a theist. He didn’t worship such a god though. He didn’t believe in Yahweh. He wrote an entire book that dripped with disdain for the Bible. You need to work on your reading comprehension badly. Your perception of me is a projection of your own prejudices.
The “aggressive” language I have used comes no where near the language that is used repeatedly in the Bible, and from the mouths of mythological characters in it, which you seem zealously to defend from any dishonor and insult.
I don’t suspect I’ll be able to convince you of much. You seem to be beyond the reach of reason.
Here is your beloved Yahweh commanding his followers to commit genocide of Amalekites, which Netanyahu recently referred to regarding his military actions in Palestine:
1 Samuel 15:2
“This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
Go ahead and shamefully rationalize it. I think it is profane; but I’ll wager you think it is “sacred.”
Paul was arguably the first “Bible thumping” Christian, since Christianity was largely his invention, and he was quite successful unfortunately. After all he and his followers have convinced you to defend his religion of human sacrifice.
Here is Paul hexing people who teach something different than him:
Galatians 1:6
“ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.”
Surely you think Paul, the inventor of Christianity, should have used different tactics???Right???? No I bet you will defend it. Go at it.
Most religion has been spread and maintained through violence or the threat of it. Simple historical fact. I have done neither here, but you seem to dislike me immensely nonetheless. You don’t like my “tone”. Do you prefer the tone when Jesus tells people that his imaginary god will torture them for being angry?
Check out the Hawaiian gods. They also demand obedience and are quite direct about enforcement. Pele makes her displeasure known with lava.
Human sacrifice has been a normal part of most religions up to a few thousand years ago. Absolute obedience to the gods, up to and including the sacrifice of your own children, has been normal. The story of Abraham and Isaac is the story of a god that refused human sacrifice. It was a rather radical departure from the norms of the time. It was a popular development, and a big part of the success of the Abrahamic religions. It was a substantial "carrot", and more than made up for the "stick" of potential damnation. Especially since most other religions also have some form of divine punishment, in this world or the next.
Perhaps you have a lovely new religion that is the next step in human advancement. If so, you're doing a poor job of sharing it. Your argument is all stick, no carrot.
There are plenty of ancient societies where no evidence of human sacrifice exists or demands for absolute obedience to gods. And just because some religions practiced human sacrifice in the region and the time of Judaism doesn’t mean all religions did. Nor does it mean that because it was not as evil as some religions around it that we should revere it now. That’s asinine. It’s like saying that because the Nazis were worse than the soviets Stalin should be honored. Furthermore, while Abraham didn’t sacrifice his child, enemies of Yahweh were sacrificed. Human sacrifice was practiced by Judaism.
Additionally, Christianity is a religion *centered* on human sacrifice. Jesus is a willing human sacrifice.
I don’t need to provide an alternative religion here when criticizing Christianity anymore than someone has to provide an alternative medicine when criticizing blood letting for the flu. But I have actually here honored reason, independent thinking, and the resistance toward tyranny, three values that should be a part of anyone’s “religion”.
Your statement toward me criticizing the Bible is like someone who hears someone condemn Nazism and says “perhaps you have a lovely new ideology that is the next step in human advancement.” Its grotesque. Judaism, Christianity, and Nazism were not advancements, they were just slightly different forms of degeneracy. The notion of moral progress though that you just revealed demonstrates that you likely think *you* have some sort of advanced religion, which is laughable. You are going to have to learn to read before you get beyond your slave religion.
I’ll give you a carrot once you say something that deserves it. Otherwise expect a lot of dung.
1. The idea that there's a universal morality comes from the Abrahamic worldview. A dualistic, pluralistic, or relativistic worldview rejects the concept of an objective morality. So your worldview and religion is HIGHLY relevant to claims about morality or immorality. It would be so for an alligator too!
2. There is a fascinating amount of science regarding religion, actually. "Ritual: How Seemingly Senseless Acts makes life worth living" by Dimitris Xygalatas is an excellent place to start. No religious claims, just scientific analysis of the physiological effects of ritual, as measured in real time by wearable monitoring gear.
3. The definition of religion comes from
"Strange Rites: New Religions for a Godless World" by Tara Isabella Burton. Another useful book is "Cultish, the language of fanaticism", by Amanda Montell.
To be continued...
“ The idea that there's a universal morality comes from the Abrahamic worldview. ”
No it doesn’t. “Universal moralities” existed prior to Judaism and aside from
Judaism. Most major ancient civilizations had universal moralities. Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, Chinese, Mesopotamians. Small societies also show them.
“ A dualistic, pluralistic, or relativistic worldview rejects the concept of an objective morality. So your worldview and religion is HIGHLY relevant to claims about morality or immorality. ”
Metaethical theory is not needed to make moral claims. I’d have no problem discussing this with you, but it’s not necessary for what we are talking about.
"Ritual: How Seemingly Senseless Acts makes life worth living"
Looks like it could be a neat book. But I don’t think it includes your *specific* claim about health and religion. If it does I suspect the “science” is garbage. But you are welcome to actually cite the study it provides. Unfortunately people present bad interpretations of unreplicated, sloppy research as “the science” when it’s not. My hypothesis is that is what you did.
After all, the definition you provided seems like it comes from a different book? Did the ritual book’s research that it cites all use that same definition? Which doesn’t seem actually like a particularly good one to me.
Have you actually read any original “religious” literature yourself? Like the Old and New Testaments, thoroughly? Homer? Hesiod? The Epic of Gilgamesh? The Hammurabi Code? The Gita? The Upanishad’s? The Book of the Dead? The Quran?
It seems like you are simply regurgitating commentary. For example the notion that universal morality comes from Abrahamic religions is a very ignorant statement and sounds like it came from someone like Jordan Peterson or a televangelist.
Jesus was a bad man. Threatening other people with supernatural torture if they don’t absolutely obey a god who commands his followers to massacre suckling infants is bad. My metaethics are irrelevant. Just as my metaethics are irrelevant were I to say Hitler was a bad man. I suspect you understand my sentiments well enough. If you want a ritual — put “Jesus is bad man” on your Alexa to repeat once a day at noon and echo it yourself.
You claim that Jesus threatened other people with supernatural torture if they don't massacre suckling infants. You seem to imply that he not only made this claim, but originated it.
Please cite chapter and verse from the new testament to back up this claim. The new testament is quite short, it should be an easy read to find...if it's there.
“ You claim that Jesus threatened other people with supernatural torture if they don't massacre suckling infants.”
I didn’t claim that. Please reread my comment. Read carefully.
This is what I wrote:
“Threatening other people with supernatural torture if they don’t absolutely obey a god who commands his followers to massacre suckling infants is bad.”
If you need help breaking down that sentence, let me know. Your last try would get you an F. The fact that you did so horribly gives me the impression that your reading skills are not sufficient for reading the Bible. I suggest you take some remedial reading classes.
Ancient Egyptian morality was DIFFERENT than the morality of, say, early Chinese dynasties. Deities were also generally local, although they could be moved or stolen. To the best of my knowledge, the idea of making a universal moral claim for all of humanity originated with the Abrahamic religions. Love it or hate it, that's also the origin of proselytizing.
I've read a great many sacred texts, yes.
The definition of religion I used came from Strange Rites.
All those ancient civilizations I listed had religion that promoted universal morals no less than Judaism. And Abrahamic religions were not the only or original proselytizers.
I suggest you read about Zoroastrianism. That should be sufficient to dispel your ignorance.