To my understanding at least one religion promotes peace through unified belief (more or less) where the only way the religion is peaceful and loving is if you're a part of the religion. If you believe something different, you're a heretic and must die, for peace.
IDK, killing people in the name of peace seems counterintuitive. There are times that you need to kill warmongers to promote peace, but killing them for peace because their sky friend is different than your sky friend seems like it's a bad philosophy.
I've been aware of this for a while and I have yet to be told I'm wrong, or have anyone provide evidence that I don't understand what it says. I have, however had people verify the concept to me several times. I'm always on edge around people of that religion because if they're being told that people from other religions, and people who won't accept their sky friend as the one true sky friend, should be killed. I'm almost never sure if they're going to try to kill someone to progress their religion by removing heretics. I just can't relax while people from that religion are present because of this. Unless I know them pretty well and know that they reject that philosophy.
Due to this, I'm kind of opposed to "religion is fine as long as it's believers are peaceful" and I'm more in favor of the concept that all religions should be disbanded as a relic of an era where we couldn't comprehend a lot of things that science has since explained away.
I don't subscribe to any religion because they can't all be correct, if any are, and because there's no differentiating information that lends any scientific validity to any one religion, and in the absence of a "God" giving some kind of indicator as to which one is correct, I'm forced to assume that with the plethora of conflicting ideologies, that none of them are correct. I have to believe that if there is a God who wants you to believe and obey one specific set of beliefs, that (s)he would make some kind of effort to clarify which one is correct; this leads me to think that either God doesn't exist, or doesn't care. Given that, I just try not to be a "bad person" and live a moral life, and if I die and find out there is a God, and (s)he wants humanity to believe a certain set of gospel, then I'll have some not so nice words to say to them. Until then, as long as no further information is available about what "God" may actually want us to do, I'll continue down this path indefinitely, and trying to be nice to my fellow man whenever possible, not because they deserve it, but simply because I want to be treated nicely as a person and not promote the suffering that is already far too common in humanity.
I mean the trouble is most religions have been used to spread peace and war. The problem is not religion, it's just the tool. The ruling class will pick up another tool of propoganda to convince the oppressed to act outside their best interests. Feeling smug about being unreligous leaves you vulnerable to alternative methods.
Racism, sexism, nationalism, homophobia, and ageism all serve to divide us whether on a religious or "scientific" basis. No matter the justification we must examine what the end goal of all methods of social control is.
Its just an excuse to in group/out group. Controlling people with religion wields a tremendous amount if power. Weaponizing climate change denial is another example
Pearls Before Swine has become one of my all-time favorite mainstream comic strips. Stephan Pastis is both a comic genius and an insightful commentator. This is one of my favorites:
That's not really what most of them are theoretically about, but many of their followers treat it as such. I don't accredit that to religion though, I think some people are simply going to try to opress others regardless of whatever reasoning they use. There are bad people and good people in every population, and blaming the actions of those bad people on their larger group is (usually) to be avoided.
Imagine a nascent nomadic cult of a fictional kingdom called Canaan, grown and composed of the downtrodden of its society, that when the kingdom begins to encounter problems beyond its control because it does not know how to or cannot treat them, like plagues and disease, the cult begins blaming the rest of society for not worshiping their god, El, enough nor in the right way by their real name, and begin eulogizing killing the rest of society off in extremely violent ways after they manage to survive the plague and disease due to their seclusion.
Imagine then how no one would ever want to admit to being a Canaan because of the risk of getting persecuted when the cult begins to conquer territory, and imagine this happening to such an extent that even the members of the cult, now a full-fledged religion due to its conquests and expansion, denies any relation to said society, making up a story instead about coming from some far off kingdom like Egypt that most people in the region would know of but would not really know the specifics about. It would sound similar enough to already preexisting mythos.
Imagine if this sort of attitude didn't just persist into the "modern" world, but involved offsprings of that very same cult holding power and influence in governments throughout the world. It would be a testament to a cultural unwillingness to overcome its own collective ego and overextended fictional narratives to recognize its flawed conception.
I'm very far from being a nihilist. I believe in things that can actually be verified. I believe in some people and some ideals.
I just don't base my beliefs on self-contradictory and often batshit insane orders from long dead idiots and wielders of unearned authority pretending to represent a fictional being that's its own dad.
In another comment you kept linking Christianity with paedophilia, which is a big strawman. And trying to ask me why I didn't drown nonce priests like I am in charge of a completely different denomination which I am not even a member of.
you kept linking Christianity with paedophilia, which is a big strawman
No. There is a shitload of evidence of widespread child rape committed by Christian churches. There's no evidence of me being a nihilist and there wouldn't be since I'm not.
And trying to ask me why I didn't drown nonce priests
That was obviously a facetious rhetorical question.
Yes, but there's evidence of athiests being nihilists and claiming that 'nothing matters' and believing in subjective morality, which has led to atrocities. So suddenly Christianity represents the actions of all Christians but Athiesm doesn't represent the actions of all Athiests?
So if you're using various Christian institutions as arguments against Christianity, then I could easily point to large Athiest countries like Maoist China and Soviet Russia who murdered millions. Or Nazi Germany (Don't try and claim Hitler was a Christian; he most certainly was not and was only using the label to get votes) who tried to dehumanise humans into being less than animals.
Nope. Not believing in religion is not the same thing as not believing in anything. Far from it.
claiming that 'nothing matters' and believing in subjective morality
Another ridiculous strawman 🙄
which has led to atrocities
Nope. If any beliefs have led to atrocities, it's religious ones. In fact, religion is probably the number two cause of murder after greed.
So suddenly Christianity represents the actions of all Christians
No, I specifically said the church, not all Christians. Unlike you, I'm not a bigot who thinks all members of a group are the same.
Athiesm doesn't represent the actions of all Athiests?
Correct.
I could easily point to large Athiest countries like Maoist China and Soviet Russia who murdered millions
You could, but you'd be stupid to do so. Those millions died because of politics, not a lack of religion.
Don't try and claim Hitler was a Christian; he most certainly was not
He was and then he wasn't. He was never an atheist, though:
During the beginning of his political life, Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards Christianity, but later totally rejected it. Most historians describe his later posture as adversarial to organized Christianity and established Christian denominations. He also criticized atheism.
who tried to dehumanise humans into being less than animals.
Which the worst Christian bigots do to this day. It's debatable whether or not Donald Trump is a Christian himself, but he's referred to groups of people he doesn't like as vermin and his Christian bigot followers cheered.
No, I specifically said the church, not all Christians. Unlike you, I'm not a bigot who thinks all members of a group are the same.
Okay. What Church? The Roman Catholic church? That has nothing to do with me and little to do with the teachings of Christianity as a whole, there are many Christian churches.
And Ironically, how come I am a bigot all of a sudden? Is it because I am Christian? Why do you think that? Do you think that we're all the same?
And yeah, Trump has said abhorrent things. He is an abhorrent person. But he hasn't followed the teachings of Jesus, such as the rich man and lazarus.
Not every single local chapel or whatever, but all of the denominations. Catholic, Orthodox, Southern Baptist, First Baptist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist etc. You name one and there's been clergy raping children. Including whichever sect you belong to.
how come I am a bigot all of a sudden? Is it because I am Christian?
No, it's because of your bigoted statements, such as your automatic assumption that all atheists are nihilists and that atheism leads to evil.
Trump has said abhorrent things. He is an abhorrent person. But he hasn't followed the teachings of Jesus, such as the rich man and lazarus.
The vast majority of the people who worship him call themselves Christians, though. Are they all lying?
You said including whatever sect I belong to, yet I don't belong to any of them. The church I regularly attend has no known cases of child abuse. If there was and it wasn't handled appropriately, I would be among the first to leave.
Athiesm is inherently evil by the Christian definition because it leads people away from God.
The church I regularly attend has no known cases of child abuse.
I specifically said sect and denomination, not church as in the building. Don't try to play even more dumb than you are. Name your denomination and I'll be able to find at least one child abuse scandal.
An environment where they'll be an unquestioned authority figure with the power of heaven and hell as far as the children know and lots of time alone with said miniature slaves is the perfect opportunity for a child molester. Especially in the completely inhumane sects where they expect them to be celibate for life as soon as they enter the priesthood.
Athiesm is inherently evil by the Christian definition because it leads people away from God.
Fun fact: the vast majority of atheists started out religious and then decided for themselves to leave your cult. Some people not sharing your delusions isn't some grand conspiracy to corrupt you and other "righteous" zealots.
I'm not going to doxx myself by telling you the name of that church, but it's low-church. Meaning that it has nothing to do with other churches in the denomination (unlike high Church like Roman Catholic or the Church of England where it's one big institution)
Fun fact: the vast majority of atheists started out religious
And? Athiesm is a new concept, since most of the world is religious, people emerge with athiesm. And a lot of athiests grow up in a lukewarm religious environment anyway.
I'm not going to doxx myself by telling you the name of that church, but it's low-church. Meaning that it has nothing to do with other churches in the denomination (unlike high Church like Roman Catholic or the Church of England where it's one big institution)
Ah, so you're in a Christianity-derived cult. The unhinged zealotry makes more sense now.
Athiesm is a new concept
No, atheism is the default condition of human beings before anyone indoctrinates them.
since most of the world is religious, people emerge with athiesm
Other way around. Literally every single human on earth is born an atheist and then 99.99% of the people who become religious do so because others told them they had to.
And a lot of athiests grow up in a lukewarm religious environment anyway.
Maybe because it's easier to escape a cult that's less intense about the threats of eternal hellfire and shunning from society? Just a thought.
Ah, but see, if you don't call him by his real name, wackytoodlerpops, you are committing blasphemy by worshipping a false idol. Ergo, free grounds for some chop chop in my cult, at least until we get to the religious stage and actually have to establish a stable society which has to consider things like trade from and mingling with the outside world. That's sort of why Scientology has had to tone down on its fair game policy.
Imagine if this sort of attitude didn't just persist into the "modern" world, but involved offsprings of that very same cult holding power and influence in governments throughout the world. It would be a testament to a cultural unwillingness to overcome its own collective ego and overextended fictional narratives to recognize its flawed conception.
I would say its a testament to the fact that humanity isn't so stupid they will opress the followers of a peaceful religion for crimes their ancestors supposedly commited.
That's a lot of pseudo-intellectual nonsense to mask your obvious antisemitism. The way you snake around your point and avoid naming the religion you are condemning would almost be impressive were it not so awful.
I feel like I'm the only person who actually bothered to read that and didn't just mindlessly upvote it.
I think it's pretty clear not only what religion I'm referring to, but what branched off sects and eventually separate religions I'm referring to. I think it pretty much has a lot to do with being an atheist, although I guess you consider those the ultimate antisemites as well for seeing the world outside of a fictional religious shell.
Which peaceful religion are you referring to? I'm having trouble seeing through all the blood.
Not only are you not the only person, you are the norm of this sad trend.
I think it pretty much has a lot to do with being an atheist, although I guess you consider those the ultimate antisemites as well for seeing the world outside of a fictional religious shell.
If you think Jews should not be allowed in positions of power, you are an antisemite. I literally could not give less of a shit what you believe in. I've been an atheist for most of my life, and I'm not an antisemite.
The peaceful religion I'm referring to is Judaism, the religion thats entire point is to spread good. Before you point out instances of Jews doing terrible things, I am aware that they are capable of wrongdoing like every other group of people.
think it's pretty clear not only what religion I'm referring to, but what branched off sects and eventually separate religions I'm referring to.
So are you referring to all abrahamic religions? If so, you should have maybe just said that instead of writing almost exclusively about the Israelites. Regardless, I still disagree with everything you said regardless of how many religions you drag into it.
Not only are you not the only person, you are the norm of this sad trend.
If all of the normal people think you're a lunatic, you may want to consider the idea that you simply are a lunatic. But you aren't mentally capable of comprehending the fact you're just an asshole, so you say every normal person is just a braindead sheep following a sad trend.
You can say that to any argument regardless of how accurate it is. To prove I have misrepresented your point, you have to show how I did that. Simply saying I did does not add anything of value to this conversation.
it is possible I misunderstood what you were saying, or you wrote something unintentionally misleading. If this is the case, please elaborate and explain where the misunderstanding occurred. Until then, I'm going to assume your accusation is simply a method of making yourself look correct without actually having to come up with an argument.
My "higher power" is myself. I don't believe that Satan is real. He's a mythic figure that I draw inspiration from. He stood up to a tyrant who's the most powerful force in the universe, got thrown into Hell, and just stood up and said, "Okay, I'll make my kingdom here."
Satanists don't really believe in Satan. The Satanic Temple is basically the religious embodiment of the ACLU. They're currently raising funds for The Samuel Alito's Mom's Satanic Abortion Clinic. They also run After School Satan in schools that have religious based after school programs.
The Church of Satan is an outlier and shouldn't be counted.
okay I understand everyone's modern definition of Satanism but why are they claiming a title that has traditionally been defined as the source of sorrow and eternal suffering and fire and eternal punishment?
A big part of organized Christianity is covering for and otherwise enabling child rapists, though. Not so for education.
Besides, not that it makes a single rape acceptable, of course, but education has many positive aspects that can't be found outside of education. Christianity doesn't have even one.
Christianity has the positive aspects of saving people's soul. Child rape is not a "big part" of Christianity. It is not proscribed in the Bible nor in any catechism. It literally says that if you harm a child, that it would be better for you to be drowned in the sea than to face the wrath of God.
Christianity has the positive imaginary aspect of saving people's soul.
Fixed it for you.
Child rape is not a "big part" of Christianity.
It might not be in theory but it is in practice. Christian authority figures keep raping children with impunity and their bosses keep sweeping it under the rug.
It is not proscribed in the Bible nor in any catechism. It literally says that if you harm a child, that it would be better for you to be drowned in the sea than to face the wrath of God.
So why aren't you drowning all those child molesting priests in the sea? Don't you believe in what your silly book says you have to do?
So why aren't you drowning all those child molesting priests in the sea? Don't you believe in what your silly book says you have to do?
It is saying that the pain for them drowning in the sea would be less than the pain that God will subject them to in hell. Not necessarily saying we should drown them. But I have very little objection to giving paedophiles the death penalty 😂
My concerns would be the usual concerns over the death penalty, eg "what if they aren't guilty", etc
I was being facetious. Murder is murder no matter who does it and no matter what heinous deed the murdered person committed or, as you rightly pointed out, is falsely convinced of committing.
There's another tradition called Romantic Satanism which was a 19th-century literary movement. It's basically what happens when a bunch of post-Enlightenment writers go "Hey, what if Satan was actually the good guy?"
Around this time was a lot of rebellion against both monarchy and the church, and they felt some kinship with the rebel of the story, not the despotic deity he was opposing. (God's actions in the Old Testament would be considered horrifying if they were carried out by a human.)
Modern Satanism's myth of Satan is a kind of reinterpretation or re-imagining, like a feminist retelling of a princess fairy tale.
It’s mostly reclaiming a title that zealots use for anyone they don’t like. We take what they call us and make it a positive force for change and justice.
That's objectively untrue on both counts. The Abrahamic God, if you assume he is real (which is a stretch to begin with) has ruined and killed a lot more folks, as written in the Bible, than Satan.
Satan caused death to exist in the first place. And basically all of the deaths that were "caused" by God were actually to do with that person's own actions.
I think it also depends on how ppl understand the concept of the word "satanism". I am an atheist and used to live in a asia country, we don't use any word like satan like you said "to define as the source of sorrow..." And I don't think we even have that word in native language. We have something else comparable to that but still what I want to say is that Satanism may sound bad to you but for others ppl It's not.
To ppl who doesn't have any prejudice against Satanism, the Satanic temple does indeed provide good causes, especially even more now given how bad others religions are (I don't want to name them but I am sure we know who)
It's one part reclaiming and one part stirring up controversy. Normalizing the idea that demonic Satan doesn't exist and it's our own faults and sins to blame while also getting free publicity whenever the Christians get mad and talk about Satanism on the news.
The problem is, it makes it far too easy to brush it away from a point of ignorance and people who consider themselves devout will never look into it. It serves the interests of Christianity and edginess more than it serves something that would identify itself as, say, biblical scholars. Plus, if they become Satanists, which you may consider a joke label, people who would have had a degree of legitimacy in the eyes of Christians who might be convinced to begin questioning their beliefs can now be much more easily discarded because "Oh, didn't you know, he's a Satanist!"
Trying to argue for the term is akin to arguing identifying as a Nazi not because you really support WWII Nazis but want to reclaim the term of socialism within the national perspective as something that can be realistic without the hate, racism, eugenics, and populism. You would be doing more harm to the point you are trying to argue for. It will get views, yes, but are those the views you want?
I don't get the downvotes, you made a really good point. The Hells Angels used to use Nazi iconography not because they were sympathisers, but because they thought it looked cool and it pissed people off. Not the brightest idea if you ask me.
While I get the idea behind adopting Satan, I don't think it'll do any favors against Christians other than call them out. This is why I prefer to call myself an Atheist than Satanist, it gets my point clearer.
Bikers and Nazi paraphernalia have a deeper connection than "it looks cool and pisses people off." The biker movement and aesthetic arose from WW2 veterans. They were traumatized by the war and often felt they had no place in society when they returned. Many joined biker gangs in an attempt to find common community with other vets. Many wore plundered Nazi gear as evidence of their service to society and protest against the shit they dealt with from other citizens.
For sure some were neo Nazis or shit stirrers.
At the same time, it's worth examining the narrative Satanists apply to the fallen angels. They see the rebellion of the angels as an act of revolution and bid for freedom against a tyrannical force. They don't believe in a literal god or Satan but that story has appeal when they see an ascendant Christianity in American politics enforcing Christian dogma on the rest of us.
I think there's more reason and purpose in both contexts than they are usually given credit.
Comparing Satanists to Nazis is really weird. Hitler was a real person who committed genocide. Satan isn't real, and he never committed genocide, not even in the Bible.
Christians, on the other hand, have committed genocide, and so has the Christian God, according to the Bible, but that doesn't seem to have harmed Christianity at all. Additionally, the Nazis endorsed Christianity, not Satanism; but, again, that association doesn't seem to have harmed Christianity.
I grew up a Christian. Many apply the label Satanist liberally to biblical scholars and other legitimate criticizers. I honestly don't think the label does them much harm. The ability to stand as a "religious" legal barrier against Christian Nationalism is served by their apparent distastefulness. If putting the ten commandments in front of the legal building also requires putting a statute of baphomet in front of the building they might think twice.
Idk about other branches of Satanism, but The Satanic Temple uses Satanic imagery to get Christians to vote against their own legislation and promote the separation of church and state.
For instance, in many US courtrooms, the ten commandments are displayed. So The Satanic Temple began to display Satanic statues in courtrooms, because our constitution makes it so it's either all religions are allowed in the courtroom, or none are. This got many Christian people to vote for removal of the Ten Commandments in their state courthouses just so they didnt have to see Satanic statues. This is just one example of many.
It's basically just symbolism to make Christians feel the same way they make non-Christians feel when they force their religion on everyone.
But those cases illustrate how what's working out is its implied negativity, not how it's getting those Christians to really inform themselves. I would even argue that part of it is what's driving parties and political leaders to try to introduce religion more and more into governments, to get rid of the separation of church and state, which even New York's current mayor seems to argue for nowadays. It's a short term victory, and a long term loss that's very beneficial to the rhetoric of certain parties.
