You can not make this shit up...

[Fenris]

Just because my interpretation of "dogpiling" doesn't line up with your interpretation of "dogpiling," that doesn't make me wrong. That means you need to change your interpretation (in regards to this instance) or at least make an effort to understand where I'm coming from.

BUT ANYWAY, get back to the original topic, in a polite manner, if you would.

Off topic posts will be deleted. We're not going to go in circles. If you wish to continue to go in circles, PM/IM me.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

You remembered right.

The Crusades? Let's check what Jesus had to say on the matter once. Nothing on war? Okay, then.

The Crusades were pretty much entirely political and a case of




Or, in my own words, religion is in general a beautiful, pure thing; it's the people who are corrupt and muck it up.

One thing I really can't stand is how whenever a religion does a bad thing, it's the people who are to blame, but whenever it does a good thing, it's because religions are inherently positive movements at heart. That's just... I really can't think of a way to put it, but it's always irritated the hell out of me.

For the topic at hand, making a personal judgment, the 'religion' in question is founded on corrupt ideals. I'll plop myself right here and say I fully recognize it as a system of belief, but I do not recognize it as a religion.

Blues, you are not the supreme arbitor of what is or isn't religion. Coming up with narrow definitions of what is or isn't religion is outside the scope of your education, and when you do it you are definitely doing it as a way to exclude things you don't want to consider religions, rather than defining religion and then holding to that definition when evaluating others. There are plenty of religions I'd argue are corrupt or founded on corrupt ideas. Doesn't mean I don't acknowledge them as religions.

Oh, and on Buddhism, it's less a religion and more a philosophy. Just throwing that out there on the worship topic.

I'm not educated enough on Buddhism to really say one way or the other, but I'm sure there are plenty of Buddhists who would disagree with you, and I really wouldn't tell them, "No, you aren't a religion" if they claimed such.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Oh, and on Buddhism, it's less a religion and more a philosophy. Just throwing that out there on the worship topic.

what exactly are you basing this on? Wikipedia page you link refers to it as both a philosophy and a religion- it is referred to as religion in many places, so I want more evidence on this- or at least the specific bit of the article that I missed maybe?

Other than that mostly Noncon said. If you want to disparage this as a religion I want a clear definition of what defines a religion.

E: There was some copyright stuff but getting off topic so start a new thread if you reall care. Or read one of the million threads we hav ebeen over it.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by NonCon

One thing I really can't stand is how whenever a religion does a bad thing, it's the people who are to blame, but whenever it does a good thing, it's because religions are inherently positive movements at heart. That's just... I really can't think of a way to put it, but it's always irritated the hell out of me.

Religion is not what performs the actions, good or bad. Religion, at its base, advocates good actions, but is not directly responsible for them. People perform all the actions in the world. If they do good things their religion tells them to, then religion can be seen as at least a reason for it. If people do bad things religion tells them NOT to, then religion has no real bearing on the action, whatever they claim be damned.

Blues, you are not the supreme arbitor of what is or isn't religion. Coming up with narrow definitions of what is or isn't religion is outside the scope of your education, and when you do it you are definitely doing it as a way to exclude things you don't want to consider religions, rather than defining religion and then holding to that definition when evaluating others. There are plenty of religions I'd argue are corrupt or founded on corrupt ideas. Doesn't mean I don't acknowledge them as religions.

Was I claiming to be a theologist? I said as a personal judgment I did not consider them a religion and laid out my reasons throughout the thread. Obviously I can't arbitrarily declare anything for the world, but I can state my own beliefs. The fact that they were denied religious status by an impartial third party indicates that someone agrees with my opinion, if not necessarily my reasons.

I'm not educated enough on Buddhism to really say one way or the other, but I'm sure there are plenty of Buddhists who would disagree with you, and I really wouldn't tell them, "No, you aren't a religion" if they claimed such.

Sample size of one, my dad's new wife was very specific that it wasn't a religion and she's from Vietnam. I'd imagine others believe the same way she does, especially given the classification endowed to it in the first line of the linked article. But then in America, we're very loose on our treatment of it because I'm sure it shares legal status with religions and quite frankly rather ignorant about any religion that's not ours for the most part.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Religion, at its base, advocates good actions

How? How does it do this, Blues? How does it advocate anything? Through what mystical methods does it advocate anything, but through the people who comprise it?

Was I claiming to be a theologist? I said as a personal judgment I did not consider them a religion and laid out my reasons throughout the thread. Obviously I can't arbitrarily declare anything for the world, but I can state my own beliefs. The fact that they were denied religious status by an impartial third party indicates that someone agrees with my opinion, if not necessarily my reasons.

Politicians are not impartial.

Also, I am not a philosopher. I would not start telling people that something isn't a "real philosophy," because I am not educated on the subject. You are not a theologian. You should not be making arguments for why something isn't a religion. Especially as your points haven't been particularly strong.

Also, you never really added the "personal judgment" disclaimer. You just said it wasn't one.

Sample size of one, my dad's new wife was very specific that it wasn't a religion and she's from Vietnam. I'd imagine others believe the same way she does, especially given the classification endowed to it in the first line of the linked article. But then in America, we're very loose on our treatment of it because I'm sure it shares legal status with religions and quite frankly rather ignorant about any religion that's not ours for the most part.

I don't see how an anecdote is at all relevant.


ALSO: Because I said it in a convo with Fenris and he thinks I made my point better I'll post it here.

Nonsy Callahan: My personal view on most religions is that they're thinly veiled attempts to manipulate the masses through unprovable shit that people made up specifically for that purpose.
Nonsy Callahan: And that while there are certainly plenty in this religion that are using it as a shield, conventional religions get used as shields all the time, and that has never invalidated them because people who disagree with the use of them as a shield just say "Well, in this instance it's the people at fault."
Nonsy Callahan: And while they may not believe the "spiritual" aspects of this religion, they may believe the moral ones, which is enough in my eyes to qualify it as a religion, because I'm sure there are people who attend religions because of their moral lessons, rather than about how God got a girl pregnant and stuff.
Nonsy Callahan: And that drawing made up lines as to "this is a religion" and "this isn't a religion" isn't a very good idea and serves no purpose. If people want to claim their beliefs are a religion, more power to them. Catholicism won't suddenly not be a religion just because Scientology exists.
Nonsy Callahan: And I'm not even justifying that they should be able to use their religion as a legal shield, since I think all religions should be taxed and shouldn't get special legal treatment anyways

[TDK]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Let's check what Jesus had to say on the matter once. Nothing on war?

Matthew 10:34

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

And Luke 19:27

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Or, in my own words, religion is in general a beautiful, pure thing; it's the people who are corrupt and muck it up.

Okay I can buy that you think wanting to explain the unexplained is a good thing. (Man, if only there was some kind of way to do that in a provable fashion. Perhaps with some kind of empirical method.)

But "Hey this guy created the universe. SUBMIT TO HIS ULTIMATE WHIM AND PROVIDE CONSTANT PRAISE OR YOU WILL BURN FOREVER IN ETERNAL AGONY", this strikes you as "pure and beautiful"? (Using christianity as an example)

For the topic at hand, making a personal judgment, the 'religion' in question is founded on corrupt ideals. I'll plop myself right here and say I fully recognize it as a system of belief, but I do not recognize it as a religion.

Seriously?

Its like

I don't even

"Well they believe different things than I do therefore they are objectively wrong"


And what exactly is the difference between a "system of beliefs" and a religion? Lemme pull up a definition here.

"A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Re: Religion promotes good actions.
Let's take christianity- I'm fairly well versed in the bible, it's various translations, the history behind its composition and it authors and pretty much universally the values it promotes are pretty mixed- they are very much the product of its times and their "goodness" today is highly disputable.
As one example- most scholars read a passive approach to the kingdoms of man as the ideal course of action proscribed by the Bible, which depending on your viewpoint is somewhere between good and ruinously terrible- but other more radical writes read deep subversion in the Bible, promoting revolution. It's a hodgepodge of iron age proto-ideas that could go anyway you want and aren't even all that
relevant.
And this is even being nice and not picking on the clearly outdated ideas of marriage and sex and criminality and other gods that are rampant throughout.

Moving beyond that you can say that religion is codified by the Church these days. But then you have to deal with the Church positions on say condoms or homosexuality which I think most people would say aren't morally good.

It's dart throwing. I really don't know how you came to the conclusion that it is good in general. My personal opinion is that throwing out the radical interpretations of Bloch and Milibank (who see the bible as in many ways deeply subversive) I think it promotes a ruinous passivity, condeming the world and those who live in it to ruinous misery, compounding by a dangerous slavery to an unimpeachable, non-interrogable, non-understandable overlord whose very distance means his name can justify anything and whose lack of clarification only hieghtens the dangerous passivity.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Religion is not what performs the actions, good or bad. Religion, at its base, advocates good actions, but is not directly responsible for them. People perform all the actions in the world. If they do good things their religion tells them to, then religion can be seen as at least a reason for it. If people do bad things religion tells them NOT to, then religion has no real bearing on the action, whatever they claim be damned.

Whether or not they're right in their way to read a specific religious passage doesn't really make the viewpoint that they're using religion to justify their actions any less valid, or by that viewpoint the religion any less at fault.

Jefferson Davis was quoted several times as stating that the Bible fully supported Slavery and that the confederacy was performing God's will.
Was he right? Was he wrong? Neither has much bearing on the fact that he was using religion to make sure he and his country could continue doing horrible things to people without feeling bad about it.

Sample size of one, my dad's new wife was very specific that it wasn't a religion and she's from Vietnam. I'd imagine others believe the same way she does, especially given the classification endowed to it in the first line of the linked article. But then in America, we're very loose on our treatment of it because I'm sure it shares legal status with religions and quite frankly rather ignorant about any religion that's not ours for the most part.

You can practice the tenants of Buddhism without religious structure or worship, but there is a Buddhist religion. It has deities and everything.

Personally my favorite is Bishamonten, and not just because I really like Uesegi Kenshin as a historical figure.

[bluestarultor]

You know what, I'm just going to leave this at this point. Again, being dogpiled, not high on my list.

Honestly, putting the "burden of proof on religion" on me, while I stepped right into it trying to be reasonable, ignores that these people, for all intents and purposes, are trying to form a religion based on file sharing, knowing full well it's against the law predating the formation of it, and are trying to use it to sidestep said law.

That's about as charitable as I feel towards this thread at the moment, so barring me being incredibly bored and impulsive, I'll let you guys flounder without more bait.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

You know what, I'm just going to leave this at this point. Again, being dogpiled, not high on my list.

This line bugs me. I'll let someone else address it if they feel like it.

Honestly, putting the "burden of proof on religion" on me, while I stepped right into it trying to be reasonable, ignores that these people, for all intents and purposes, are trying to form a religion based on file sharing, knowing full well it's against the law predating the formation of it, and are trying to use it to sidestep said law.

It doesn't ignore it. I addressed this. I was very clear on the matter.

Futhermore, you are very clearly ignoring the many valid points made in this thread. I think I'm being more than reasonable by saying that's kinda frustrating.

It is especially annoying see as you're accusing us of ignoring stuff while you ignore us.

That's about as charitable as I feel towards this thread at the moment, so barring me being incredibly bored and impulsive, I'll let you guys flounder without more bait.

Well, that's rude.