Should we declare gods public enemy # 1.? Do you understand

Post Reply New Topic

Also if I were to be really concise on why a morality about beliefs question makes no sense to me - for me morality is in what people do, not what they believe.

Plenty of LaVeyan satanists are decent hard-working people. I know a lot of Thelemites and regardless of what sort of reputation Aleister Crowley has they do good charitable work and have a very internalized and psychological interpretation of things like Book of the Law. I know Christians who can either be very decent people or very duplicitous people hiding behind faith, both are evolutionary strategies and the later is qualitatively more mendacious but evolution has no problem with lying, underhandedness, etc., it's a strategy as good as any other - only speaking at the functional level here - and some people will take underhanded strategies so long as they don't get caught.

It's much easier as well to abuse or hide behind a mainstream religion if that religion is said to have an unusual degree of faith and credit to its name in the country you live in (as Christianity does here, as Islam does in the Middle East). If you're in the minority, or especially in the minority and in an organization that has a scary name, you actually have to prove to people what you're made of - and in a way I think that leaves people in a better position than costing along with what's popular, wrecking their lives and the lives of others, and then having buy-in from other people when they say 'Jesus will forgive me'. It's like the rich kid problem of 'my dad will bail me out'.

At this point I personally wouldn't go back to Catholicism for structure in my life, for me it would be a big step backward, but I do know people where that was the best choice that they were capable of. I'm not them, don't know what kinds of internal resources they had or didn't have, and coming at it from the conclusion that people generally do the best they have and seeing them come up short is seeing the edge of their limitations.

I'd have to add another Peterson concept since you're bringing him up:

Life's complex, most people are struggling to keep their heads above water (sometimes that involves trading bits of truth for survival), and you really better well understand something inside and out before criticizing it to the point of demanding its annihilation. Even then its only helpful when the criticisms are of a variety that help move society forward.

I do not recall the name but will check it out.

IMO, local churches, still have a place in some areas today but their usefulness is getting smaller yearly. Some form of organization for those would be helpful but I do not favor the organized religions of today because of their homophobia and misogyny and hugely expensive hierarchies.

Those T V evangelist fraudsters also have to go.

My own Gnostic Christian tradition had priests but encouraged all to preach/teach of whatever new knowledge they had acquired. We also had Bishops to help the small churches stay in the club, so to speak, but those travelling Bishops were not the rich bastards that the Inquisitions had that annihilated most of Gnostic Christianity. Being human centered instead of an imaginary god centered makes a big difference.

Regards
DL

Hope you enjoy reading some J.Krishnamurti.

I did not ask if something was true or not.

"Did you have an opinion on the moral position of the O.P.?"

That was the question.

Do you see Yahweh and Allah as moral entities?


-----

"Also if I were to be really concise on why a morality about beliefs question makes no sense to me - for me morality is in what people do, not what they believe."

You are brighter than this, usually.

Homophobia and misogyny, as well as all other religious evil and immoral practices, as well as in the political arena, begin in the mind and in what is believed.

To allow vile beliefs to go unchallenged is to invite actions from the belief.

That thinking is ancient and even biblical.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Imagine a world where we did not correct each others poor thinking. We would still be living in trees and caves.

Regards
DL

I have heard some of his talks. Quite eloquent as compared to my poor renderings.

Then again, this media is prone to bring the bullies out and I admit to being reactive. I am a W I P.

Regards
DL

This is like asking 'On a scale of Casey Anthony to Jared from Subway - how much do you like children?' and... I don't know... you might veer off from five to say four or six based on which of the two you thought was more repugnant?

Its a bit of an Orwellian choice when 'they don't exist' or 'no one has a clue what they're talking about when they say those names' aren't on the menu.




People who don't or can't think like this tend to stop and gawk at people who do or can with amazement. I used the word Orwellian already so that's already spent. I guess I just have the same question anyone does from the outside looking in - what exactly in you tells you that by some divine fiat if the world worked according to you, ie. if you could take a bar of soap and wash out the brains of seven billion people and cleanse them of such wrong-think, that it wouldn't just rapidly spiral into your own private hell or dystopia not to mention a hell or dystopia for all you so gallantly spoke for?



The only way in heck that you do better is to speak to being in all of its complexity - which I promise you, you have a long ways to go on.



Maybe that's what caused me to drop in on this thread rather than just rolling my eyes and pretending that it - and the whole heap like it - didn't exist for a day or so.

(post removed by moderator)

Regrads
DL

You're more than welcome to speak that way, to anyone you chose for as long as you would like.

The result - you'll be something like the amusing childs toy or spinning top that mostly collects dust when people aren't intensely drunk, bored, or stoned.

That's a hell of a life and not the sort of thing I'd want to consign myself to but - if it's your cup of tea it's your cup of tea.

I don’t listen or respond well to people who are rude to me. I’d imagine most people are like that.

Yeah, it's not how civilization works.

OP you might want to consider studying the art of persuasion. Sometimes the gentle use of persuasive questioning (Socratic method) can be very effective.

Fundamental Christians who are verbally attacked will feel persecuted, and it will be impossible to get through to them.

Fundamentals are already brain dead. All sheeple are, hence the term sheeple.

When your sweet little lying sugar coated tongue persuades a fundamental homophobe and misogynous Christian to repent and mend his immoral ways, let me know.

Chances are, like a good sweet friend of mine who would not say crap if he had a mouthful, took even more brain dead sheeple crap than I did till he just got fed up and quit trying to bring sheeple to their senses.

I miss him.

I also prefer to be honest instead of a hypocrite who cannot call a spade a spade of an immoral practice an immoral practice.

Regards
DL

So if you don’t think that fundamentalists can change and are “brain dead,” I fail to see the purpose of this thread.

I am a former fundamentalist, so I know a little something about change and how that change can happen.

The use of gentle persuasion is not lying. It’s really the only effective method of getting through to people.

If you just attack them like you seem to be doing in this thread, people will just think you’re crazy which probably isn’t what you’re going for.

Put a tangled custed knot in boiling water and it'll unravel eventually.

I say the same for all ideologues, they can only buried up to their eyeballs in better ideas so long before the light bulb switches on.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 11 Aug 2018, 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Are you suggesting we boil fundamentalists?