Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose this is a chicken or the egg type of question. Which comes first? Do hateful beliefs elicit unkind behaviors from those who would not be unkind except for those beliefs? Or, do people who would be unkind anyway gravitate to those hateful beliefs that would justify their behavior? Personally, I think both are true.
Amen. It is really all about our attitudes toward others . . . not what we believe intellectually. The focus on intellectual beliefs as the justification exacerbates the problem.
I think you and Terryj have really hit on a big one here. I think it is particularly strong among the Abrahamic religions. As the story goes Abraham and his posterity was chosen by God to be a special people, God's chosen people. That automatically creates an us vs. them, and we are better because we have God on our side.
True . . . but here's a thought: How would this perspective differ if instead of referring to Abraham . . . it was about Homo Sapiens sapiens in his fight for dominance over the other hominid species, like Neanderthals, etc. . . . especially since we are ALL now Homo Sapiens sapiens?
True . . . but here's a thought: How would this perspective differ if instead of referring to Abraham . . . it was about Homo Sapiens sapiens in his fight for dominance over the other hominid species, like Neanderthals, etc. . . . especially since we are ALL now Homo Sapiens sapiens?
When you go that far back, who knows what those homo sapien sapiens thought about the other hominids they encountered or what their religion consisted of if they had any at all. Stone Age people living in remote places discovered in the past 100 years or so didn't believe in gods, much less a god, but in a form of animism.
1. Belief in G-d This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."
2. Prohibition of Improper Worship This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.
In my OP, I purposefully acknowledged people like you when I said, "Now, for many there is no contradiction here because they believe in a god that wants us to treat others well".
Hah, on me then. Sometimes I don't read closely enough, apologies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
So, my OP, isn't really about you and your brand of Christianity. I am talking about those who have religious beliefs that led them to treat others unkindly (i.e., condemn, shun, persecute, hate, or distance themselves from others; rejoice in the misfortune of others seeing it as a sign of God's displeasure; taking actions that destroy families by disowning "sinful" children or divorcing spouses because they no longer believe in their religion).
Older generation Catholics did shun people some. And I know others who see unkindness to sinners as necessary.
I believe there's a couple ideas on why. One is that it is something like "tough love." The sinner is to be disdained and avoided in order to "shame them" into getting back on track. In the secular world some essentially do the same for alcoholics or drug-addicts who refuse treatment. From the perspective of several religions certain behavior is similarly "self-destructive" even if the secular world would not see those behaviors that way.
Another is that you can not enable or support evil. From this perspective kindness to sinners might be taken by them, or society, as supporting their sin. The action is not meant as an unkindness to the person, but as a rebuke of their actions.
Then there's the idea that sinners will taint others. That it's something like a bacteria or virus. (Dawkinsian/Dawkinsite? notions of "memes" I suppose has some similarity) You withdraw contact to avoid being exposed or tempted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
Yesterday, I started another thread specifically about shunning others out of religious convictions. These things do happen. I am talking about treating people poorly, and I am not confusing that with believing certain behaviors are a sin. One can think working on the Sabbath is a sin and still treat people well. Or, one can think working on the Sabbath is a sin and treat those that do work on Sunday poorly. I haven't necessarily seen that; I use it as an example, since discussing other "sins" can become so emotional.
This is the reason I kind of got more interested in the Hutterites than the Amish. The Amish emphasis on shunning seems a little drastic to me.
Still, and despite what I said about being kind to sinners, I think there are times shunning makes sense. If the person is just "conning you", playing on your kindness to cheat you or others, or in a way something like the "contagion" idea. Although by "contagion" I mean if one person's wrongdoing consistently starts causing you problems and you can't make them stop. Like if a Mormon had a friend who constantly insisted they get drunk together, or worse spikes her drink, I would understand her saying "We can't hang out together if you keep doing this." Or if I had a friend who was obsessed with "getting me laid", with a male or female, I might have to break it off even if I thought they meant well by it. Although even then this shunning/breaking-off I don't think has to mean mistreating. In my case I think I would still be obliged, ideally though I'm so far from an ideal man I might not do it, to be merciful and humane to them.
And how, pray tell, would this "patron saint of homosexuals" help gay people? Surely you're not suggesting that he "fix" them and make them heterosexual? That's awfully close to "praying away the gay", IMO.
Well being Catholic I guess it would be help them to live chaste lives in pursuit of virtue and holiness. Like every unmarried person is to do. Although homosexuals have some differences from unmarried heterosexuals, but those might be of benefit in a chaste life. Some of the holiest people were different in some way and saw life in a different fashion. Maybe homosexuals have some gifts they can apply to a chaste life. (I'm not sure what those are. Possibly homosexuals think more on gender so maybe they could be good at helping men understand women or vice versa, but I'm not certain of that. Also from a Catholic perspective it is a "disorder" so maybe they could work with the autistic, manic, alcoholic, gambling-addicted, or help empathize to other disorders. Although I'm disabled with ssa's and I've not always been just real compassionate to people like that, but that's one of my many faults and failings. Possibly I could have the potential to develop a greater empathy there than I've shown)
I don't think someone who is really gay can be "cured." I'm not even fully gay, but my attempts to end any homoeroticism in me went nowhere and I long gave up the idea. In some ways I think it was good to find that side of myself. It was humbling and I think I'm less judgmental than I once was. Many gay and lesbian people I've known are very sweet and I don't think chastity would kill that. Although I am aware it can be difficult so I'd be forgiving of occasional slip-ups.
1. Belief in G-d This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."
2. Prohibition of Improper Worship This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.
Yes, of the ten commandments those are the first two, but are you not familiar of Jesus' answer when asked which commandment was most important?
Matthew 22:34-40
Quote:
34But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
That belief that obedience to God outranks kindness to others can be stated many ways. "The first commandment is to love God, and the second is like unto it, love your neighbor as yourself". But, they say the second commandment is second for a reason, if ever the two commandments are in conflict, one should serve God before providing service to other people. Again, that doesn't lead to the mistreatment of others unless you also believe in a god that condones the mistreatment of others.
I'll leave you with a quote from the Dali Lama, "My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness."
That is an oxymoron...if you are serving and loving others...which is exactly what we are supposed to be doing...we are, in effect, serving and loving God. Jesus said (and I'm paraphrasing here) what you do unto others you also do unto me. We love God by loving our neighbors as ourselves...these two commandments cannot be separated for they are the same and I find that it is the hatefulness in ones heart that says they are separate...for they will use it as an excuse to exlude, judge and condemn others...and it is done regularly in the Christian community. Just saying...
I'll leave you with this: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."-- Mahatma Gandhi
We love God by loving our neighbors as ourselves...these two commandments cannot be separated for they are the same and I find that it is the hatefulness in ones heart that says they are separate...for they will use it as an excuse to exlude, judge and condemn others...and it is done regularly in the Christian community. Just saying...
Older generation Catholics did shun people some. And I know others who see unkindness to sinners as necessary.
I believe there's a couple ideas on why. One is that it is something like "tough love." The sinner is to be disdained and avoided in order to "shame them" into getting back on track. In the secular world some essentially do the same for alcoholics or drug-addicts who refuse treatment. From the perspective of several religions certain behavior is similarly "self-destructive" even if the secular world would not see those behaviors that way.
Another is that you can not enable or support evil. From this perspective kindness to sinners might be taken by them, or society, as supporting their sin. The action is not meant as an unkindness to the person, but as a rebuke of their actions.
Then there's the idea that sinners will taint others. That it's something like a bacteria or virus. (Dawkinsian/Dawkinsite? notions of "memes" I suppose has some similarity) You withdraw contact to avoid being exposed or tempted.
Thank you for this analysis. It was helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Still, and despite what I said about being kind to sinners, I think there are times shunning makes sense. If the person is just "conning you", playing on your kindness to cheat you or others, or in a way something like the "contagion" idea. Although by "contagion" I mean if one person's wrongdoing consistently starts causing you problems and you can't make them stop. Like if a Mormon had a friend who constantly insisted they get drunk together, or worse spikes her drink, I would understand her saying "We can't hang out together if you keep doing this." Or if I had a friend who was obsessed with "getting me laid", with a male or female, I might have to break it off even if I thought they meant well by it. Although even then this shunning/breaking-off I don't think has to mean mistreating. In my case I think I would still be obliged, ideally though I'm so far from an ideal man I might not do it, to be merciful and humane to them.
I see this as different from what I have been talking about. When I have been talking treating people unkindly through shunning, I mean that sanctimonious judging of a person and declaring them unclean or unworthy to be in our presence or our family, etc.
I think you can recognize that a friendship or relationship isn't good for you or brings out the worst in you without looking down your nose at that person. I think you can recognize that you need to spend less time with that person without trying to make them feel like crap for who they are or the choices they make. You are not trying to shame them into changing. You accept who they are and simply recognize that you need to go in a different direction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
