Is this for real ..... ?
- Thread starter Rhisiart
- Start date
ora
Registered
I doubt it looking at the front page but you never know, the USA is full people with unusual beliefs of one denomination or another. [edit] Wikipedia identify that site as satire.
On the other hand this is serious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE WARNING NSFW- this begins very offensively with clips of a sermon by the head of the Westboro baptist church being extremely homophobic and rather explicit - but gets fun when a reporter starts hitting on one of his flock at a protest. And yes, the church really does have those websites.
On the other hand this is serious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE WARNING NSFW- this begins very offensively with clips of a sermon by the head of the Westboro baptist church being extremely homophobic and rather explicit - but gets fun when a reporter starts hitting on one of his flock at a protest. And yes, the church really does have those websites.
nixgeek
Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
It's pretty obvious that whether you are a Christian or not, it's a satire page. Seems in line with sites like the Inq or The Register. You have to take it with a baseball-sized piece of rock salt. 
As for the YouTube video, they are far from a true Christian. Sadly, the fact that there are churches like this is unfortunate. Their attitude is very far from what Jesus was about. If you look at this passage, you'll see that these people are very much like the people that wanted to stone the adulterous woman. People that believe that they were living a much holier life than the rest of the world, forgetting that they themselves are still capable of sinning (and they are by their words and actions....there's no love in what they say). Jesus would have rebuked them just as he rebuked the people wanting to stone the adulterous person.
Their actions would be akin to Jesus leading the stoning of the adulterous woman, and that's totally opposite of what Jesus would do (or did according to the passage).
As it's said, love conquers all. This passage demonstrates that and it's very obvious that these "Christians" are not doing anything in love. They are just loud, clanging cymbals just making a lot of noise and benefitting no one.
As for the YouTube video, they are far from a true Christian. Sadly, the fact that there are churches like this is unfortunate. Their attitude is very far from what Jesus was about. If you look at this passage, you'll see that these people are very much like the people that wanted to stone the adulterous woman. People that believe that they were living a much holier life than the rest of the world, forgetting that they themselves are still capable of sinning (and they are by their words and actions....there's no love in what they say). Jesus would have rebuked them just as he rebuked the people wanting to stone the adulterous person.
Their actions would be akin to Jesus leading the stoning of the adulterous woman, and that's totally opposite of what Jesus would do (or did according to the passage).
As it's said, love conquers all. This passage demonstrates that and it's very obvious that these "Christians" are not doing anything in love. They are just loud, clanging cymbals just making a lot of noise and benefitting no one.
ora
Registered
Absolutely nix, I'm not a christian myself but I am well aware that this kind of vitriol is not typical. I would say I find the broad messages of Christ extremely sensible and i see this as a massive misreading by hate filled people.
Its the old question though, how to you get from something that preaches love to hate (these guys, the Northern Ireland conflict etc etc.). I feel similarly about radical pro-life action groups, their point of view is valid, killing people to make it isn't.
Here's to all the peace loving christians out there.
Its the old question though, how to you get from something that preaches love to hate (these guys, the Northern Ireland conflict etc etc.). I feel similarly about radical pro-life action groups, their point of view is valid, killing people to make it isn't.
Here's to all the peace loving christians out there.
Mikuro
Crotchety UI Nitpicker
This is one thing about religion that doesn't confuse me at all. It's only natural. Maybe I shouldn't say "religion" since it's so broad. "Monotheism" would be more specific (but perhaps too specific). Anyway, when you have people believing in absolutes which they're not even expected to try to understand, nothing they do should be surprising, no matter how stupid. The very concept of monotheism discourages rational thought and breeds hate.
That's certainly not to say all monotheists are irrational and/or hateful, but there have been a lot of people who've called themselves Christians, Jews or Muslims in history that have had irrational beliefs and they've done a great deal of damage. Today, it's hard to say what the majority it. I'd say the majority of the loud ones are certainly irrational, but then, the same can be said of just about any group...
bbloke
Registered
Very well put, nixgeek.
I hear this argument a lot, with people essentially saying the world would be better off and more peaceful without religion. I disagree. Now, playing Devil's Advocate... Believe it or not, the regimes that have been the most murderous have been atheist states, rather than religious states. The Stalinist Soviet Union killed between 9 and 60 million, and Maoist China killed between 30 and 40 million. Another example: the Khmer Rouge (which killed approximately 1.7 million people). They didn't take kindly to people who were Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist; these people were killed on a large scale. So, in parallel with the religion-causes-conflict stances I sometimes encounter, surely atheists are a barbaric bunch at heart, and this proves it. After all, I've experienced, first hand, churches being vandalized by non-believers and graves being desecrated, with anti-religious slogans being spraypainted on the buildings. So, it all goes to show atheism leads to much more murderous and intolerant behavior. Surely. Well, this is not actually the way I see things...
I think the truth is more complex. I agree that a lot has been done in the name of religion, but I believe that the root cause is not actually religion. Religion has been used as an excuse in the past for all sorts, but really as a cover up for basic human issues (eg. fighting over resources, xenophobia, and so on). But it doesn't change the real motivations or causes. I think that whether atheist, monotheist, or polytheist, we are all human. We are susceptible to the same human flaws. Anyone who believes they are much better than the person next to them is guilty of arrogance, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of.
Using the troubles in Northern Ireland as an example, I don't think the Republicans and the Unionists were arguing over the finer points of theology! To put it perhaps a bit simplistically, it was much more of a case of one group (represented by their religion) historically representing the invaders from times gone by and another group, again represented by a different religion, representing the former enemy. The descendants were brought up in an atmosphere of resentment and mistrust on both sides. The culture developed over many generations and populations kept themselves fairly separate. It has been pure tribalism. Religion was only a flag to rally behind, and the religions themselves were essentially irrelevant.
So, my take on this is: we're all the same species, we have the same character flaws, we have similar motivations at heart, and any sort of group (whether religious, sporting, or whatever) will have its fringe elements. We all know of people in our perceived "groups" who we feel don't represent us in any shape or form. Unfortunately, the more vocal and more unpleasant elements tend to attract the attention of others, while the more decent deeds go relatively unnoticed.
Wow, I really disagree with this, or, at least, I hope I've misunderstood what you meant. I'm not quite sure where to begin with this, as I think it is a massive stereotype. Briefly, one will find a number of prominent scientists were/are strong believers in their own religions, as one sort of example; I don't believe rational thought was pushed to the backs of their minds. As for breeding hate, one will find that the message of the New Testament, as one religious example, is to love others, even when we disagree with them, when they have treat us badly, or when some have been treated them as outcasts.Mikuro said:
Mikuro said:
I hear this argument a lot, with people essentially saying the world would be better off and more peaceful without religion. I disagree. Now, playing Devil's Advocate... Believe it or not, the regimes that have been the most murderous have been atheist states, rather than religious states. The Stalinist Soviet Union killed between 9 and 60 million, and Maoist China killed between 30 and 40 million. Another example: the Khmer Rouge (which killed approximately 1.7 million people). They didn't take kindly to people who were Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist; these people were killed on a large scale. So, in parallel with the religion-causes-conflict stances I sometimes encounter, surely atheists are a barbaric bunch at heart, and this proves it. After all, I've experienced, first hand, churches being vandalized by non-believers and graves being desecrated, with anti-religious slogans being spraypainted on the buildings. So, it all goes to show atheism leads to much more murderous and intolerant behavior. Surely. Well, this is not actually the way I see things...
I think the truth is more complex. I agree that a lot has been done in the name of religion, but I believe that the root cause is not actually religion. Religion has been used as an excuse in the past for all sorts, but really as a cover up for basic human issues (eg. fighting over resources, xenophobia, and so on). But it doesn't change the real motivations or causes. I think that whether atheist, monotheist, or polytheist, we are all human. We are susceptible to the same human flaws. Anyone who believes they are much better than the person next to them is guilty of arrogance, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of.
Using the troubles in Northern Ireland as an example, I don't think the Republicans and the Unionists were arguing over the finer points of theology! To put it perhaps a bit simplistically, it was much more of a case of one group (represented by their religion) historically representing the invaders from times gone by and another group, again represented by a different religion, representing the former enemy. The descendants were brought up in an atmosphere of resentment and mistrust on both sides. The culture developed over many generations and populations kept themselves fairly separate. It has been pure tribalism. Religion was only a flag to rally behind, and the religions themselves were essentially irrelevant.
So, my take on this is: we're all the same species, we have the same character flaws, we have similar motivations at heart, and any sort of group (whether religious, sporting, or whatever) will have its fringe elements. We all know of people in our perceived "groups" who we feel don't represent us in any shape or form. Unfortunately, the more vocal and more unpleasant elements tend to attract the attention of others, while the more decent deeds go relatively unnoticed.
Rhisiart
Registered
No it's not funny. It is tasteless, crap satire.
Mikuro
Crotchety UI Nitpicker
bbloke, I agree with most of what you said.
I certainly don't believe that the New Testament condones hate or ignorance. It's always hard to explain my thoughts on religion without playing word games. Is there a difference between "discouraging rational thought" and "promoting irrational thought"? Yes, there is, and I suppose I meant the latter more than the former. And is there a difference between "promoting irrational thought" and "creating irrational thought"? Same answer. I could go on like this all day.
I do believe the basic concept of monotheism contributes to irrationality. The intent of the religion is really of no consequence, because anything that can be interpreted can and will be misinterpreted. So while I think the intent of Jesus and the New Testament is good, it's completely beside the point I was trying to make, which was not to judge any particular religions.
The problem I have with monotheism, and the reason I feel that its instances (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) are so often perverted, is that it is based on absolutes. God is right, bu definition. God is good, by definition. If you switched the characteristics of God and the Devil, you would switch the definitions of Good and Evil, just like that. Rational thought is not a factor. As soon as you deal with absolute rulings, you take the responsibility of thought and decision-making away from the individual. Once you do that, there's nothing they won't do. If they're told to kill even by their own misinterpretation then they will. Why? Because the absolutist structure of monotheism does not require rational thought or consideration. It doesn't require the believer to understand anything it just requires them to believe and obey. Good is Good only because the religion says so, and that's really all there is to it.
To me, this is really not about any religions in particular. It's just about structures of logic. And the structure of logic monotheism works with is, IMHO, outdated at best and just plain evil at worst. That doesn't necessarily mean that any particular instance of monotheism are outdated, evil, or anything in between in most fields, instances can overcome the inherent weaknesses of their species/class. That's why I didn't mention any religions specifically.
I do NOT believe that rationality and whichever specific form of monotheism can't or don't go hand in hand. I just believe it's easy for IRrationality and monotheism to go hand in hand. And I believe it's a lot more common, too. Keep in mind that just because a monotheist acts decently doesn't mean they do it for rational reasons. I don't draw a clear logical distinction between a murderous zealot and friendly zealot. It's the same disease, just different symptoms.
That's why I think many people actually judge terrorists too harshly. From where I'm standing, it looks like Americans have all the same flaws, but the circumstances make those flaws manifest themselves in less damaging ways. Actually, I think Christianity agrees with me. "We're all sinners" and all that.
I certainly don't believe that the New Testament condones hate or ignorance. It's always hard to explain my thoughts on religion without playing word games. Is there a difference between "discouraging rational thought" and "promoting irrational thought"? Yes, there is, and I suppose I meant the latter more than the former. And is there a difference between "promoting irrational thought" and "creating irrational thought"? Same answer. I could go on like this all day.
I do believe the basic concept of monotheism contributes to irrationality. The intent of the religion is really of no consequence, because anything that can be interpreted can and will be misinterpreted. So while I think the intent of Jesus and the New Testament is good, it's completely beside the point I was trying to make, which was not to judge any particular religions.
The problem I have with monotheism, and the reason I feel that its instances (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) are so often perverted, is that it is based on absolutes. God is right, bu definition. God is good, by definition. If you switched the characteristics of God and the Devil, you would switch the definitions of Good and Evil, just like that. Rational thought is not a factor. As soon as you deal with absolute rulings, you take the responsibility of thought and decision-making away from the individual. Once you do that, there's nothing they won't do. If they're told to kill even by their own misinterpretation then they will. Why? Because the absolutist structure of monotheism does not require rational thought or consideration. It doesn't require the believer to understand anything it just requires them to believe and obey. Good is Good only because the religion says so, and that's really all there is to it.
To me, this is really not about any religions in particular. It's just about structures of logic. And the structure of logic monotheism works with is, IMHO, outdated at best and just plain evil at worst. That doesn't necessarily mean that any particular instance of monotheism are outdated, evil, or anything in between in most fields, instances can overcome the inherent weaknesses of their species/class. That's why I didn't mention any religions specifically.
I do NOT believe that rationality and whichever specific form of monotheism can't or don't go hand in hand. I just believe it's easy for IRrationality and monotheism to go hand in hand. And I believe it's a lot more common, too. Keep in mind that just because a monotheist acts decently doesn't mean they do it for rational reasons. I don't draw a clear logical distinction between a murderous zealot and friendly zealot. It's the same disease, just different symptoms.
That's why I think many people actually judge terrorists too harshly. From where I'm standing, it looks like Americans have all the same flaws, but the circumstances make those flaws manifest themselves in less damaging ways. Actually, I think Christianity agrees with me. "We're all sinners" and all that.