Since we've gotten told to stop talking generally about religion twice in the Homosexuality and Religion thread and were told that, if we want to talk generally about religion, we need to make a new thread, I have made a new thread.
Full disclosure: I am an agnostic atheist and anti-theist, but I'm very interested in theology and religion.
Mod Edit: All right, there are a couple of ground rules here:
- This is not a thread for mindless bashing of religion or of atheism/agnosticism etc. All view points are welcome here. Let's have a civil debate.
- Religion is a volatile subject. Please don't post here if you can't manage a civil discussion with viewpoints you disagree with. There will be no tolerance for people who can't keep the tone light hearted.
- There is no one true answer for this thread. Don't try to force out opposing voices.
edited 9th Feb '14 1:01:31 PM by Madrugada
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
You never just attack a person. Every attack is an attack on the state itself, considering the state is made of citizens. It also posits the concept of the law above the purpose of the law (protecting people). So yeah, I disagree that attacking LE Os should warrant more severe punishments.
No, they deserved to be mocked.
I also disagree that not questioning authority was ever a good thing.
Aha! So you agree that there exists a higher, abstract, difficult-to-define entity that protects itself once it is threatened at the slightest provocation? 
I also feel that I'm being misunderstood. I never advocated for not questioning the authority and blind obedience. Just stated that for the laws to be effective there should exist an authority (of any kind).
To put the thread slightly back on topic, do you think that the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment and the great French Revolution was what diminished the role of religion in the society (Western, at least), and why?
It is related to the post above, since that was the point in human history when people started questioning the authority en masse, but it's not like they didn't have the arguments for questioning earlier: the clergy was what was preserving (and expanding in some cases) the humanity's knowledge, and some of the great minds that started the Age of Enlightenment were priests themselves. Not to mention how the Islamic Golden Age contributed greatly to the scientific progress. What are your thoughts on the correlation, or lack thereof?
edited 15th Apr '18 2:12:25 AM by Millership
Spiral out, keep going.
Then there’s the matter of those cowards who, too cowardly to actually undermine the authority of the state will attack its puny human representatives instead, which warrants some extra protection for the latter, though not in the form of impunity.
Now, assuming your loving, omniscient, omnipotent, merciful, compassionate Deity loves all Her creation, then considering the way earthlings treat that creation, including each other, and that we are still alive despite of it all, then one can assume Deity cares little for mockery and deals with it just fine.
Or we could have some ever-petty yet almighty overfiend up there, in which case we’re doomed for being damned whatever we do.
edited 15th Apr '18 3:07:57 AM by AlityrosThePhilosopher
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
Like, why do only LEO's warrant special protection? Teachers, doctors, nurses, clerks and postwomen... the state directly employs other professions that represent it. If it's about defending the idea of the state, why don't they deserve special protection?
The only ones deserving of special protection are those who are disadvantaged. The more powerful you are, the less protection you actually need. And if you're all powerful, you don't need any protection because nothing can harm you.
As for priests furthering scientific progress, it's kind of a given for the class with the best education to be able to do so. Religious people aren't dumber than anyone else. At least not in all fields.
If I had to wonder about what would offend the sight of the Almighty personally, mockery wouldn’t top my list.
Speaking in His name, ordering around and lording over others in His name, and acting in His name (and often violently so), would come closer to it.
For that is probably the worst case of taking His name in vain, which I’m told He wouldn’t appreciate.
edited 15th Apr '18 4:36:25 AM by AlityrosThePhilosopher
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
If we go into specifics, at least in the country where I'm from, there's a caveat at getting prosecuted with attacking a LEO. The LEO must be in the line of duty at the moment of the attack. Out of duty they are in the same position as the regular citizens. So in theory, if you are prosecuted, then either you're a criminal who's resisting arrest, and frankly have it coming to you, or you just randomly attacked a police officer who's been performing his job that has nothing to do with you and thus what you've just done is a wanton obstruction of Justice, which is just stupid.
And compared to teachers, doctors, nurses, clerks and postwomen, law enforcement officers are in a disadvantage by the virtue of doing a job that has everyday life-threatening risks. Risks that come from the very citizens they're supposed to be protecting, as opposed to the firemen and other high-risk emergency services. The protection that the State warrants to the policemen also extends to their families by proxy.
Spiral out, keep going.
Who Am I?
I feel we are drifting off topic here.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Is there any mythological creature that is a chameleon, or at least related to chameleons? I'm trying to come up with a name for Snake People with Chameleon Camouflage as a natural ability.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
@Millership: Given that the only major shift in how people viewed religion with the Age of Enligtment was France, I don't think you can blame that on the present secularism. Christianity continued to dominate social norms and mentalities in most parts of the West until approximately the 1950s.
Life is unfair...
Organized Canine Bureau Special Agent
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/c04005/?pnum=1
Sharing this about Japanese women who married Muslim men and coverted afterwards. It also explains the challenges Muslims face since they’re a minority and they’re stereotyped.
"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"
What is the issue that some Christians have with horror fiction?
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That's a bit vague. Could you elaborate?
Who Am I?
Never heard that before.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
To elaborate - I noticed that some evangelical Christian groups treat horror movies as generally inappropriate for Christian viewing, partly due to common supernatural themes and the presence of magic and how they're treated as real forces in-universe. Especially movies involving Satan, demons, witchcraft, etc.
For example, there's a series of Christian books along the lines of Goosebumps where none of the monsters are real and it's always either a misunderstanding or a "Scooby-Doo" Hoax, and the back of the book places emphasis on how ghosts and monsters are only imaginary.
edited 3rd May '18 2:32:42 PM by Raptorslash
Some christian groups do have a very strict standard for what they consider "wholesome" media and anything that's too violent (like a lot of horror films) fall into that category.
What's funny is that a lot of these films are ultimately pro-christian; The Exorcist for example has a christian priest as the ultimate hero who is able to exorcise the demon from the little girl.
"Christian" is not really a thing you can speak about absolutely.
There's a billion with a million separate groups.
The Fundamentalist tend to prefer wholesome family entertainment with horror movies considered to glorify in sex, violence, and the occult (which is a real thing to many groups). Mind you, it's not quite as overstated as people think. While they don't read Harry Potter, every single Fundamentalist Kid I know except those in the actual cults was raised on Disney and Marvel or now just Disney I guess.
edited 3rd May '18 2:39:04 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
How do they feel about Doctor Strange?
And come to think of it, plenty of Disney protagonists have magical or even divine help.
edited 3rd May '18 3:05:02 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!
Honestly, the hysteria goes through cycles.
ROCK AND ROLL IS EVIL!
DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS IS EVIL!
HARRY POTTER IS EVIL!
VIDEO GAMES ARE EVIL!
And so on and so on.
They don't get whipped up in a frenzy about these things as much as they used to because the children inevitably grow up and realize it's stupid. Then they find something else to pearl clutch about.
I was basically a Goth Kid who dressed like everyone else to avoid being persecuted but got suspended for once bringing my Vampire: The Masquerade books to school.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Well, it just goes down to the simple fact that horror stories tend to be about violence, evil, and the occult-which are topics fundementalists usually don't want discussed even in a negative light.
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"
As a Christian troper here: - Dr Strange was awesome, and I really enjoyed it.
- I love Universal Horror, and see no problem with it.
- Kaiju movies are the best.
The screaming and yelling from the Fundies is mostly some idiotic Moral Guardians panic that ruins the fun for everybody else.
edited 3rd May '18 4:50:44 PM by TheWildWestPyro
This statement brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.
This all just makes me think of Anne Rice, author of pretty notable books about BDSM and vampires, who then converted to Christianity and disowned all of her great work. ...And then disowned (mainline) Christianity for being awful to her gay son and returned to writing about BDSM and vampires.
Let he who is without sin, realize there's nothing wrong with being gay.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
How long has mainline Christianity been associated with anti-LGBTQ+ policies? I know the bits of the Bible used as justification are bits of Leviticus and a passage in Romans (and I see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah brought up sometimes).
True, but attacking a random schmuck and attacking a LEO warrant different punishments. When attacking a LEO you're not just attacking a person. You're attacking the State itself. So by this logic:
A god that punishes people for mocking it deserves to be mocked.
..you think because the punishmet for attacking the LE Os is disproportionate, that the LE Os, the Law and the State they represent are all unjust and evil and deserve to be attacked? Surely not. Why is the punishment disproportionate? Because of the following:
True. And for most of the humanity's history human rulers authority was what allowed the society to function, for the laws to have effect. If your lawmen are a joke, why follow their laws?
Most of the modern societies have replaced the God as the ultimate authority, the religious values with secular ones, the power allocation became a lot wider, but the rule-abiding dynamics stayed essentially the same: you need some ideal, something intangible for the rule-abiding to be meaningful, even if it's just Law for the Order's sake.
edited 15th Apr '18 1:10:11 AM by Millership
Spiral out, keep going.