The bible says homosexuality is a sin, right?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I don't know the answer. There are plenty of historical figures who opposed injustice based on their Christianity; I like to think they would listen to Jesus now. Many fundamentalist Christians don't seem to think of Jesus as a radical activist for social justice, but that's what he was. Similarly, many atheists dismiss Jesus as an activist and completely overlook the Christians who drove the abolition movement in the U.S. or died in concentration camps for actively opposing Hitler. Go figure. |
Anonymous
I agree. To some extent, the right wing and social conservatives have taken over the religion banner. Meanwhile, liberal dems (like me) tend to vote on whether a candidate is progressive on the economic issues, but we try to keep our religion out of it, so you don't hear much from us. |
Anonymous
I like to think those people acted as they did because they were good people (Christians or not) who were doing what was right for humanity -- not simply because the deity they worshipped would guarantee a place in heaven for them if they followed the example set forth for them in an ancient book, and who would otherwise send them to hell |
Anonymous
good question, but really his views didn't get a whole lot of traction in his lifetime and look what happened to him. At least today, he'd be put in a looney bin and not crucified. |
Anonymous
You have your own "beliefs" about what motivated these people, then, and according to your "beliefs," religion couldn't have played a role, also religion is only about the fear of hell. However, if you asked them, though, they'd probably tell you that their innate moral sense and their religious beliefs were acting in concert, in fact their religious beliefs informed their sense of morality and justice. |
Anonymous
No according to my "beliefs" it wasn't necessary for religion to play a role. some people were motivated by their religious beliefs, but others without those beliefs and/or with different beliefs,were motivated to do the same things, because they were simply good, humanistic things to do -- that's the "innate moral sense" you mention - beliefs in a supernatural deity with a set of ancient rules attached to it are not needed for this. |
Anonymous
I'm the PP you're quoting and this response is an excellent example of the kind of thinking I referred to. If this statement truly expresses your understanding of religion and you have any genuine intellectual curiosity about this, you might want to read a bit about the centrality of religion in the lives of some of humanity's most transformative figures. Gandhi would be a good place to start. He saw all gods as part of one spirit, and he emphasized -- you guessed it -- "acceptance of the brotherhood of mankind." One cannot separate Gandhi's actions from his religion. |
Anonymous
You're actually a great example of conflict between the facts and your own beliefs. I second the other PP in suggesting that you read up on historical figures (abolitionists, Civil Rights workers, Ghandi, others) who wrote and spoke eloquently about the importance of religion in guiding their moral values. Key here is that they talk about how their motivation came from the religious values themselves, not just the fear of hell that you want to use as a convenient way to dismiss religion. You simply can't "choose to believe" that religion played no role, or merely a negative role (fear), in these peoples' lives. |
Anonymous
Sounds like Gandhi was a humanist |
Anonymous
I'm saying that these motivations are basically humanistic, irrespective of the religious garb that covers them. The message is that all humans should be treated with respect. Jesus said something like that -- so did revered figures from other religions. But religions can also include a lot of conflicting beliefs are are not humanistic and are in fact cruel. It's the common humanistic beliefs that positively motivate religious people to do good for others. |
Anonymous
Gandhi was in fact a deist. Although he was a practicing Hindu, he believed all religions are one. Have you really never read Gandhi? |
Anonymous
That is your interpretation of others' motives. We have a clear historical record, however, as figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King wrote and spoke extensively about the role religion played in their activism. I particularly like what King said of Gandhi: "Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. . . . Christ furnished the spirit and motivation, and Gandhi furnished the method." I think that's pretty clear. |
Anonymous
You seem to be conflating altruism, religion and humanism, and I'd argue that you don't seem to understand any of these very well. In fact, some would argue that altruism itself is motivated by survival instincts, and is passed by genes in various species to different extents. These people would argue that it makes no sense to assume either (a) religious OR (b) secular humanist motives. So they'd accuse you of babbling about the existence of secular humanist motives. But I digress. Your main problem here is understanding categories, and the idea of things being "mutually exclusive." If I could draw a Venn diagram I would, but maybe this will work. (a) Nobody has to be altruistic. (b) There is, however, a universe of altrustic people. (c) For the universe of altruistic people, the motivation is (1) a religion; or (2) a secular humanist philosophy. Note that (1) and (2) are the sources of these altruistic values . But also, (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive. Clear now? |
Anonymous
|
I think what atheist PP is trying to say is:
(1) there is no God, so religion is just people putting mystical interpretations on a natural humanist motive. Which is fine, that's her position on faith in general. What's not fine is when she makes a huge logical misstep and translates this into: (2) therefore, nobody (Gandhi, MLK, so many more) could ever think that they are doing good for religious purposes. |
Anonymous
nobody said that -- but you, above. religion - good religion - that is -- may have been their motivator -- but I see humanism - going unto others, irrespective of their religion race etc. etc. as a kind of good religion -- religion that's all about helping people in their lives here on earth - in other words, humanism. |