If you think an ideology or religion is immoral and evil, should you actively oppose it?

[Greatest I am]

If you think an ideology or religion is immoral and evil, should you actively oppose it?

 

Christians and Muslims seem to think so as evidenced by Inquisitions and Jihads.

 

I am a Gnostic Christian and we have always seen it as part of our belief system to oppose immoral and evil belief systems. We are not pacifists but historically have done our ideological fighting with good arguments instead of violence.

 

 We have also called on all good people to actively oppose religions and ideologies that they feel are immoral and not deserving of their respect. That is a take-off on the adage that for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing. Gnostic Christians believe in spreading good ideologies.

 

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and good moral arguments and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them a better and more moral ways. Some of Christianity has adopted these better ways of late but Islam is lagging and fighting against ideological reform.

 

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

 

Gnostic Christians did call them out for their evils in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

 

In whatever belief system you follow, be it humanist, secular, atheistic or religious, does your ideology require you to fight other ideologies or religions you find immoral or harmful to society?

 

Please specify what ideology you follow in your reply.

 

Regards

DL

[LogicalFallacy]

21 minutes ago, Greatest I am said:

If you think an ideology or religion is immoral and evil, should you actively oppose it?

 

Yes, however we run into problems of figuring out how to define immorality or evilness - it's subjective. For example I think that indoctrinating children about stuff that is not demonstrably true is evil. My parents disagree. Which of us is right? How can we can which of us is right? We'd need well defined definitions of immorality and evil in order to get a unified approach to bad ideologies and evil.

 

Does evil even exist as an abstract force?

 

Quote

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and good moral arguments and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them a better and more moral ways. Some of Christianity has adopted these better ways of late but Islam is lagging and fighting against ideological reform.

 

Agreed - Islam is current going through the stage Christianity was going through some 200-500 years ago. It could be a few centuries yet before Islam really settles down.

 

However you are painting Christianity with a very broad brush stroke. This is a mistake, a big one. If you bowl up to a liberal Christian and spout your first line to them they will rightly tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about and that their religion is about love and peace and accepting their fellow man.

 

Quote

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

 

It is recorded that Jesus said xyz. Most of us here put as much stock in the accuracy of what Jesus said as we do in the Noah's flood myth. You have no idea what Jesus would say. I think if you examine yourself closely you'll find that you are projecting your ideas and beliefs onto an historical figure. Not to worry, this is actually very common - the writers of the bible did this all the time.

 

 

Quote

In whatever belief system you follow, be it humanist, secular, atheistic or religious, does your ideology require you to fight other ideologies or religions you find immoral or harmful to society?

 

No. My values tell me to be respectful of other humans, to be truthful, not be an arsehole and generally try and be a decent person.

 

I do not subscribe to ideologies. I accept ideas from many ideologies that pass my internal decency and bull-shit-o-meter test. I feel that once you subscribe to an ideology you are required to defend it against all attacks, reasonable or not. I went through that as a Christian, and I'm not doing it again. Either the tenants of an ideology stand on their own merit or they don't.

 

I argue against religion on the grounds that it can be shown to be false and I don't like people believing false things. I argue against ideologies that have no reasonable grounds for acceptance for the same reason. 

 

Cheers

LF

[midniterider]

52 minutes ago, Greatest I am said:

If you think an ideology or religion is immoral and evil, should you actively oppose it?

 

Christians and Muslims seem to think so as evidenced by Inquisitions and Jihads.

 

I am a Gnostic Christian and we have always seen it as part of our belief system to oppose immoral and evil belief systems. We are not pacifists but historically have done our ideological fighting with good arguments instead of violence.

 

 We have also called on all good people to actively oppose religions and ideologies that they feel are immoral and not deserving of their respect. That is a take-off on the adage that for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing. Gnostic Christians believe in spreading good ideologies.

 

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and good moral arguments and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them a better and more moral ways. Some of Christianity has adopted these better ways of late but Islam is lagging and fighting against ideological reform.

 

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

 

Gnostic Christians did call them out for their evils in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

 

In whatever belief system you follow, be it humanist, secular, atheistic or religious, does your ideology require you to fight other ideologies or religions you find immoral or harmful to society?

 

Please specify what ideology you follow in your reply.

 

Regards

DL

 

My ideology is agnosticism. Christianity was harmful to me so I removed it from my life. Other people thrive on it. I dont actively oppose it...other than posting here...or pointing out some flawed religious concept on Facebook.

 

Pentecostals (or other denominations) may stand on street corners with megaphones yelling about whatever ideology they oppose. I prefer not to waste my time like that.

 

[Greatest I am]

On ‎05‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:25 PM, midniterider said:

 

My ideology is agnosticism. Christianity was harmful to me so I removed it from my life. Other people thrive on it. I dont actively oppose it...other than posting here...or pointing out some flawed religious concept on Facebook.

 

Pentecostals (or other denominations) may stand on street corners with megaphones yelling about whatever ideology they oppose. I prefer not to waste my time like that.

 

If Christianity was harmful to you, and you think of yourself as a normal person, then you should see it as harmful to all. You do not seem to be applying the Golden Rule. Should you?

 

I do not advise a street corner but there are many places where you might have a curative impact for those who need the enlightenment you went through.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

On ‎05‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 9:26 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Quote

 

 

 

Yes, however we run into problems of figuring out how to define immorality or evilness - it's subjective. For example I think that indoctrinating children about stuff that is not demonstrably true is evil. My parents disagree. Which of us is right? How can we can which of us is right? We'd need well defined definitions of immorality and evil in order to get a unified approach to bad ideologies and evil.

 

 

Those terms are well defined in any dictionary and I am sure you can argue well for your position as you have ----1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

You should consider ---- Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth. --- and show your love.

 

On ‎05‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 9:26 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Quote

Quote

Does evil even exist as an abstract force?

I don't think I would call it a force. Perhaps concept because, as you rightly say, it is subjective.

 

Quote

 

Agreed - Islam is current going through the stage Christianity was going through some 200-500 years ago. It could be a few centuries yet before Islam really settles down.

 

Agreed.

 

Quote

 

 

 

However you are painting Christianity with a very broad brush stroke. This is a mistake, a big one. If you bowl up to a liberal Christian and spout your first line to them they will rightly tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about and that their religion is about love and peace and accepting their fellow man.

 

 

If they fly the same cross then they must take the heat or praise that that flag brings them. All who contribute to the cross are contributing to the religion as a whole. I agree that some denominations are better than others but they all contribute to the whole.

 

If they say they are accepting and peaceful, a reminder of their Inquisitions should be all you need for you to show that history belies what they are telling you.

 

Quote

 

Quote

It is recorded that Jesus said xyz. Most of us here put as much stock in the accuracy of what Jesus said as we do in the Noah's flood myth. You have no idea what Jesus would say. I think if you examine yourself closely you'll find that you are projecting your ideas and beliefs onto an historical figure. Not to worry, this is actually very common - the writers of the bible did this all the time.

I do not see Jesus as a historical character. I see him as an archetypal good man that the church took advantage of.

 

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

No. My values tell me to be respectful of other humans, to be truthful, not be an arsehole and generally try and be a decent person.

That is laudable but why would you respect those who promote an evil and harmful ideology?

That is being more truthful than respecting what does not deserve respect. Truth is all you need to show.

 

Quote

Quote

I do not subscribe to ideologies. I accept ideas from many ideologies that pass my internal decency and bull-shit-o-meter test.

What you describe, without getting into semantics, fits the definition of a part of your ideology. An ideology is just a way of thinking or a belief system.

 

Quote

I feel that once you subscribe to an ideology you are required to defend it against all attacks, reasonable or not. I went through that as a Christian, and I'm not doing it again. Either the tenants of an ideology stand on their own merit or they don't.

 

If unreasonable, sure walk away. if reasonable then you should engage to bolster what you believe. If you see a worthy argument against what you believe, you can then " accept ideas from many ideologies".

Test all things to insure you are always in the best position.

 

Quote

Quote

 

I argue against religion on the grounds that it can be shown to be false and I don't like people believing false things. I argue against ideologies that have no reasonable grounds for acceptance for the same reason. 

 

Cheers

LF

 

True or false is a hard sell. Moral or not is harder for your interlocutors to run from as they cannot hide behind their faith screen.

 

Apologies for the poor quoting. I hope it is not too hard to read.

 

Regards

DL

[LogicalFallacy]

20 hours ago, Greatest I am said:

Those terms are well defined in any dictionary and I am sure you can argue well for your position as you have

 

My experience with Christians shows me that dictionary definitions are pretty much meaningless. Therefore the first part of any conversation is to agree on definitions. Often the conversation never gets beyond that. For example take faith: you ask a christian to define faith, and they say its believing in god using reason and evidence, then I'm like - isn't that just using reason and evidence? Why do you need faith in that instance, why insert an unnecessary term? And so we go around (Note that conversation actually took place.... I could not get a straight answer about what faith is, the reason being is that as soon as they admit that faith is belief without evidence they've lost the argument.)

 

20 hours ago, Greatest I am said:

If they fly the same cross then they must take the heat or praise that that flag brings them. All who contribute to the cross are contributing to the religion as a whole. I agree that some denominations are better than others but they all contribute to the whole.

 

I disagree. There was an atheist movement called Atheism plus - it pretty much tore itself apart. I disagree with what they were promoting. So when I tell someone I'm atheist, and they go off on a rant about the A+ people I tell them they are barking up the wrong tree. I haven't contributed to A+ - that's a particular movement that stood, and fell on its own two legs. Same I think with Christianity.  If you walk up to a liberal and start attacking creationism they'd think you mad... or they might just say yeah I agree with you I don't believe that nonsense.

 

20 hours ago, Greatest I am said:

If they say they are accepting and peaceful, a reminder of their Inquisitions should be all you need for you to show that history belies what they are telling you.

 

Are we talking about engaging people, or criticizing a religion? I agree with the above if on the whole we are pointing out the flaws of Christianity as a religion. But if you are attempting to paint a christian today who thinks its all about peace and love with the wrongs of the past, then I think you are wrong. People today are not beholden (Or at least should not be) to the wrongs of past people. Everyone should stand or fall by their own beliefs and actions. (An example: A soviet scientist, a wicked fellow, misapplied evolution that resulted in the deaths of millions of people. He persisted with the incorrect application even after being told he was wrong. Are all people who accept evolution therefore evil? What about the fact Pol Pot was an atheist. Do you agree with certain Christians who try and paint all atheists as murdering dictators because Pol Pot was an atheist?

 

20 hours ago, Greatest I am said:

I do not see Jesus as a historical character. I see him as an archetypal good man that the church took advantage of.

 

Thanks for the video - very interesting. Yeah, I'm slightly leaning towards an historical character at the moment, but very carefully listening to what those who say he is a myth have to say. I'm like 51% Jesus Historical, 49% Myth so

 very close for me.

 

20 hours ago, Greatest I am said:

If unreasonable, sure walk away. if reasonable then you should engage to bolster what you believe. If you see a worthy argument against what you believe, you can then " accept ideas from many ideologies".

Test all things to insure you are always in the best position.

 

 

20 hours ago, Greatest I am said:

True or false is a hard sell. Moral or not is harder for your interlocutors to run from as they cannot hide behind their faith screen.

 

Again there would have to be an agreed definition of moral. I think people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris argue Christianity is immoral. I think you could only argue that if people were spreading Christianity while not truly believing it, and I think that most truly do believe that Jesus is the risen son of god. I don't think you can call them immoral for that, but you can try and point out why what they believe might be wrong.

 

20 hours ago, Greatest I am said:

Apologies for the poor quoting. I hope it is not too hard to read.

 

Not at all.

Cheers

LF

 

[midniterider]

On 10/10/2017 at 5:07 AM, Greatest I am said:

If Christianity was harmful to you, and you think of yourself as a normal person, then you should see it as harmful to all. You do not seem to be applying the Golden Rule. Should you?

 

I do not advise a street corner but there are many places where you might have a curative impact for those who need the enlightenment you went through.

 

Regards

DL

 

As a free thinking American I 'should' do as I please and not what others think I should do. But I would agree that getting off my lazy butt and going somewhere to help people may do more than just posting my BS on this website. Then again I can reach many people on this website. Do I have to show up in person to be more effective? I dont know.

 

Does Christianity harm all people? Ask a roomful of Christians this question. They will all say no. Not all people embrace the chaos of their own mind like I do. Some people want to be told how to think. It works for them. They want to plug into a structure. Church provides that for them. While I would love to think that Christianity is completely evil there are many who think it's fantastic.

 

Not everyone is the same, either. There are a lot of extreme cases here at Ex-c. Some people are/were particularly susceptible to Christian doctrine or were born and raised with it. It is or was who they are. I was not born and raised Christian nor was I so susceptible to its influence that I really suffered a whole lot when I dumped it. It was like an annoying infection that I took antibiotics to make go away.

 

Not everything that is harmful to me is harmful to all. Some people eat lobster while others are allergic to seafood. My body no longer likes alcohol while other people get drunk all the time. Should I start an anti-lobster movement? Should I picket alcohol distributors? If someone feels Jesus helped them to kick their heroin habit then my blathering on about how Jesus is fake would not be that helpful.

 

Anyway, thanks for reading my drivel.

[midniterider]

Quote

Quote

However you are painting Christianity with a very broad brush stroke. This is a mistake, a big one. If you bowl up to a liberal Christian and spout your first line to them they will rightly tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about and that their religion is about love and peace and accepting their fellow man.

 

 

If they fly the same cross then they must take the heat or praise that that flag brings them. All who contribute to the cross are contributing to the religion as a whole. I agree that some denominations are better than others but they all contribute to the whole.

 

If they say they are accepting and peaceful, a reminder of their Inquisitions should be all you need for you to show that history belies what they are telling you.

 

.........

 

One of my go-to arguments about 'Christian love' is bringing up the Inquisition or the Crusades ... though Christians probably look at this as a failed attempt to equate evil men of olde to their wonderful loving Jebus...and therefore reject it. They reject the Crusades like I reject being responsible for atrocities committed by white men against native americans 500 years ago. That's probably another thread, though.

[florduh]

Obviously some ideologies promote and do harmful things; Westboro Baptist, Nazis and the religious right's incursion into secular politics and law for example.

 

Be careful where you draw your line, keeping in mind other opinions are sometimes just other opinions no more or less sacred than your own. But active threats? Stomp them!

 

[Greatest I am]

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Quote

Are we talking about engaging people, or criticizing a religion?

Good reply. Thanks.

 

People have to be engaged as an ideology or religion cannot be shown the evils of it's ways and cannot be argued with.

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Quote

I agree with the above if on the whole we are pointing out the flaws of Christianity as a religion.

Sweet.

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Quote

But if you are attempting to paint a christian today who thinks its all about peace and love with the wrongs of the past, then I think you are wrong.

If you are successful in showing how his waiting for Jesus to return to send all other than his elect to hell, as well as showing the past history of Inquisitions, and he still sees it as a religion of peace and love, then his brain washing is too deed and you should walk away.

Quote

 

People today are not beholden (Or at least should not be) to the wrongs of past people.

 

Not directly but if they continue to promote an immoral or evil ideology, they should be either confronted or shunned. The U.S. has just witnessed swastika wearing supremacists, parading around and a woman died because of it. Some of those swastika wearing people may have been good people but they were flying the same flag and are all responsible for what happened. Your logic above seems to think not.  

 

Quote

Everyone should stand or fall by their own beliefs and actions.

See my last remark.
 

Quote

 

(An example: A soviet scientist, a wicked fellow, misapplied evolution that resulted in the deaths of millions of people. He persisted with the incorrect application even after being told he was wrong. Are all people who accept evolution therefore evil? What about the fact Pol Pot was an atheist. Do you agree with certain Christians who try and paint all atheists as murdering dictators because Pol Pot was an atheist?

 

 

When in discussions of whether the religious or non-religious are responsible for most of the wars in the last 5,.000 years, both side paint each other with the same brush and only speak of two flags.

I see it as a waste of time to do otherwise.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

[Greatest I am]

3 hours ago, midniterider said:

Not everything that is harmful to me is harmful to all.

 

That is true for all of us, but we are talking of homophobic and misogynous religions.

 

We are all in this together and few household or bloodlines will not have women or gays in them.

 

That is why I mentioned the Golden Rule. In this case phrased as do for others as you would want done for you.

 

Keep up the good work in this relatively safe site.

 

Regards

DL

  

[Greatest I am]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

Obviously some ideologies promote and do harmful things; Westboro Baptist, Nazis and the religious right's incursion into secular politics and law for example.

 

Be careful where you draw your line, keeping in mind other opinions are sometimes just other opinions no more or less sacred than your own. But active threats? Stomp them!

 

All those you mention fly the same cross.

No one mentioned threats or violence.

My ideology says reciprocity is fair play and one should return what one is given, be it good or evil. To reward evil with good, is evil.

 

Regards

DL

[Deva]

I would feel bound to oppose a system that would change the laws of my country (the U.S.) to suppress the few freedoms we have left. Sharia law in Islam, for example. I feel it is making insidious inroads toward that goal at this time.  Also, forced conversions are not unknown in history and I would hate to see it in my lifetime, by any religion.

[midniterider]

17 hours ago, Greatest I am said:

 

That is true for all of us, but we are talking of homophobic and misogynous religions.

 

We are all in this together and few household or bloodlines will not have women or gays in them.

 

That is why I mentioned the Golden Rule. In this case phrased as do for others as you would want done for you.

 

Keep up the good work in this relatively safe site.

 

Regards

DL

  

 

The bible has many misogynous scripture yes. But the Christian women in my church seemed to ignore 1 Tim 2:12. They just spouted off all sorts of 'other' scripture telling me how to behave and proceed. Today's society and laws override much of the old misogynous ideology of the bible. Fundy Christians give lip service only to 'literal belief' in all bible scriptures. Very few are willing to break today's law to say for instance, kill their bratty child as the book of Leviticus commands. Though Christians might like to think they are not "of" this world, they live mostly the same way as non-Christians. Prison is a nice deterrent to keep most Christians from getting too extreme.

 

We are in an era (in the USA) where gays are feeling secure enough to live openly gay lives. I think I've also read that church participation is 'down' among millenials.  As the old farts with old church ideas start dying off and are replaced by a larger gay community do you think our churches will probably morph into a more gay accepting flavor? I do. The younger generation was born and raised in the information age and I know a few that will Google everything they have a question about. They have an unlimited database that fits in their pocket. It will be hard for churches to remain homophobic and stay in business, imo. I believe religion has historically relied on ignorance to gather and keep its people. Technology is doing away with ignorance. I'm sure it is difficult for freaky fundy parents to keep 'worldly' knowledge out of their children's heads in 2017. Kids can read on the internet exactlly how indoctrination works. Now about my lesbian relative who loves Jesus...ok, maybe I'll wait on that.

 

But moving along, as far as the golden rule goes I just want to be left alone to make my own decisions and have my own beliefs. So I allow others (Christians) that same freedom. When Christians come up with some bullshit legislation that actually impacts my life I'll vote against it or call my congress person. The 20-somethings can protest in the streets against Christianity if they like. If devoting some portion of your life to active protest of Christianity is what you want to do, go for it!

 

I'll watch the protest on tv.

[Greatest I am]

19 hours ago, Deva said:

I would feel bound to oppose a system that would change the laws of my country (the U.S.) to suppress the few freedoms we have left. Sharia law in Islam, for example. I feel it is making insidious inroads toward that goal at this time.  Also, forced conversions are not unknown in history and I would hate to see it in my lifetime, by any religion.

Nice.

 

Words will destroy them if put wherever immoral ideologies are found.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

[Greatest I am]

51 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

The bible has many misogynous scripture yes. But the Christian women in my church seemed to ignore 1 Tim 2:12. They just spouted off all sorts of 'other' scripture telling me how to behave and proceed. Today's society and laws override much of the old misogynous ideology of the bible. Fundy Christians give lip service only to 'literal belief' in all bible scriptures. Very few are willing to break today's law to say for instance, kill their bratty child as the book of Leviticus commands. Though Christians might like to think they are not "of" this world, they live mostly the same way as non-Christians. Prison is a nice deterrent to keep most Christians from getting too extreme.

 

We are in an era (in the USA) where gays are feeling secure enough to live openly gay lives. I think I've also read that church participation is 'down' among millenials.  As the old farts with old church ideas start dying off and are replaced by a larger gay community do you think our churches will probably morph into a more gay accepting flavor? I do. The younger generation was born and raised in the information age and I know a few that will Google everything they have a question about. They have an unlimited database that fits in their pocket. It will be hard for churches to remain homophobic and stay in business, imo. I believe religion has historically relied on ignorance to gather and keep its people. Technology is doing away with ignorance. I'm sure it is difficult for freaky fundy parents to keep 'worldly' knowledge out of their children's heads in 2017. Kids can read on the internet exactlly how indoctrination works. Now about my lesbian relative who loves Jesus...ok, maybe I'll wait on that.

 

But moving along, as far as the golden rule goes I just want to be left alone to make my own decisions and have my own beliefs. So I allow others (Christians) that same freedom. When Christians come up with some bullshit legislation that actually impacts my life I'll vote against it or call my congress person. The 20-somethings can protest in the streets against Christianity if they like. If devoting some portion of your life to active protest of Christianity is what you want to do, go for it!

 

I'll watch the protest on tv.

There are movers and shakers and there are watchers.

 

Life is to be lived, not watched.

 

Nice that in the days of the civil war, there were enough doers.

 

Regards

DL 

[midniterider]

33 minutes ago, Greatest I am said:

There are movers and shakers and there are watchers.

 

Life is to be lived, not watched.

 

Nice that in the days of the civil war, there were enough doers.

 

Regards

DL 

 

If I was a mover and a shaker I wouldn't be wasting time on this web forum.

[Greatest I am]

16 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

If I was a mover and a shaker I wouldn't be wasting time on this web forum.

 

The point is that you could do the same as what you do in this safe space elsewhere, --- where you might have a more positive effect against ideologies that are harmful to all including your own family.

 

Regards

DL

[Deva]

6 hours ago, Greatest I am said:

Nice.

 

Words will destroy them if put wherever immoral ideologies are found.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

Thank you. I agree that words can be very powerful weapons.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Yes.

[midniterider]

28 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.

 

No.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Maybe?

[sdelsolray]

It depends.

[LogicalFallacy]

On your own perceptions.

[sdelsolray]

Or other folks' perceptions...maybe...maybe not.