Oh wow. A fringe group of rabbis in a small area of Jerusalem may or may not (they deny it ever happened) decide to get rid of a dog that scares the shit out of them with some bullshit possession story by having kids throw rocks at it to drive it away and that automatically condemns all Jews everywhere as superstitious dog-killers.
Man, where have I heard this one before? Torquemada, Augustine, Hitler - yeah they all followed the same "some Jews do something bad therefore all of Judaism is evil" logic.
Kind of like condemning all atheists becuase of the example of Fucking Stalin and the Commie Rat Bastards. Because if you are going to condemn all Jews based on a bunch of rabbis that most Jews don't even listen to (and which of course is getting blown out of proportion via the anti-religious Israeli press) then naturally you will have to shoot yourself in the head for being part of the non-faith that sents millions of people away to gulags and Siberia to die.
So let's get this straight. You are both agreed that this is f***ing stupid, right? But because he's claimed that it's an example of religious thought making people be f***ing stupid, in this instance Jewish religious thought, you think that makes him Hitler?
Weird.
The point was simply that Jews can do weird s**t just like any other religion. We already knew about plenty of examples in Christiatianity and other major religions. His point is simply that Judaism has its nutjobs too.
If your issue is that the point was too obvious, I hardly see how that's much of a complaint.
To be clearer, my point is that all religions have nutjobs, because "being a nutjob" is a prerequisite for being religious.
The only question is if your failed logic and flawed thinking will lead you to conclusions that are only harmful to you, or if they will lead you to conclusions that are also harmful to others.
Newsflash: This isn't about Judaism. The title of the post would be the same and the headline would be one word different were this a Muslim court or a Mormon council or a Scientologist tupperware party.
The problem is stupidity, and the logic the Rabbis (allegedly) used to determine that the dog is possessed and should be killed by children is *exactly* as sound and as well-founded as the logic that says the wine and crackers becomes the body and blood of Christ, that all your problems are caused by disembodied spirits possessing you, that covering your face or head is pleasing to God, and that Mistress Cleo can predict the future for only $7.99 a minute so call now.
Ah, but this isn't just Judaism, this is a civil authority in Israel. Criticizing the actions of Israel is itself antisemitic. Didn't you get the memo?
Nobody had to kill anybody to get belief in the Greek pantheon, or the Aztec pantheon, or the Egyptian pantheon, or whatever dead religion you can think of, to go away. They just went away on their own as their believers died of old age and their children thought the old beliefs were silly. Now we read about these dead gods in books and think all those people back then were kind of silly to have believed in them so much.
Look at the rise of non-religiousness in Europe and American and Japan and wherever else, where these most recent generations have again decided that the old beliefs are silly and the believers are slowly going away by natural causes. That's all I hope for, the slow rise of reason, and I am shooting or stabbing or gassing nobody at all.
Nobody had to kill anybody to get belief in the Greek pantheon, or the Aztec pantheon, or the Egyptian pantheon, or whatever dead religion you can think of, to go away
You may want to check on that.
The Library of Alexandria did not get burned down because early Christians were nice people.
The moment Constantine went Christian, the Roman institution of religious persecution got flipped. For one thing, it became impossible for a non-Christian to get a government job.
The official Christian hagiographies of a lot of their early saints are basically that these saints: a) vandalized the most personal sacred things of other religions (e.g. statues of someone's household gods) b) stole to give to the poor c) were executed.
The history of places like Russia (988 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Kievan_Rus%27)) or Lithuania (1387 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Lithuania)) going Christian is a) the ruler went Christian b) he ordered persecution and mass vandalism of traditional religion
Old religions did not go away of their own volition. They were persecuted and tortured off the face of the earth by new religions.
The alleged presence of a baby is not sufficient reason to keep the same bathwater forever. (Babies pee in it, sometimes, y'know... granting, for the purposes of rhetoric, that there is one in that murky soup somewhere.)
The foetid politics of faith pretty much guarantee these guys won't face any negative consequences at all from this scapegoating. And someone out there is going to believe 'em...
-- Steve gets despondant seeing modern society get swept aside by decidedly pre-modern thinking.
The real issue with this post is that it's veeerrry easy to point to all the crazy stuff religious people do while simultaneously ignoring all the wonderful things they do. I cannot argue that religion is the sole source of personal virtue, but it certainly helps make bad people good and good people better.
For instance, my church has what we call a Fast Offerings fund. Since we don't have a paid ministry, 100% of these funds go to helping the poor with food, rent, etc. We also have a disaster relief fund that helps other countries (and our own) with basic necessities like food, water, medical expenses, and the like when catastrophe strikes. This fund also has no overhead, so 100% of it goes to help the needy - and let me note that we do not require someone to be a member of our faith to help them.
This amounts to MILLIONS of dollars every year. I don't know the exact figure, but it's pretty high. Implying that religious people only harass others about joining, do whacky crazy stuff, and act irrationally is to falsely represent them, and badly so.
Say what you want about the silly things we believe and do, but to make a fair case about religious people means you have to take into account their ENTIRE lives and actions, not just the ones that support your thesis about religious people all being crazy.
There are crazy religious people and there are crazy non-religious people as well. Shall I judge all non-religious people by the crazy things some non-religious people do and ignore all the wonderful service performed by those who don't believe? Very one-sided, there.
So I challenge you - for every single article, picture, or other anti-religious post you put up, find one that demonstrates the deep commitment to service and actually caring for others that religious people do and post that as well. Otherwise, you are unfairly representing the side you oppose, and that is hardly rational or fair.
Hey. I remember you. Speaking of unfair representation;
(1) Do you have that "valid consistent non-religious argument against homosexual marriage" yet? Because really, saying you have one and never displaying it is not exactly a fair representation of the argument.
(2) You're the one who claimed that God would heal people if they were prayed for and then retroactively go around and make sure that all the people He helped suffered and died--because, you said, hiding one example of empirical results which would suggest the possibility of His existence is much more important than than acting on love or compassion.
Do you consider that rational or fair behaviour on His part? Do you consider your depiction of God to be either rational or fair?
Also:
> it [religion] certainly helps make bad people good and good people better.
I refer you to this gentleman, a member of the local Christ Lutheran Church for thirty years, and president of its Congregation Council. (And yes, I could get you other examples. A lot of other examples.)
If you are hypothesizing that his religious affiliation restrained him in any way, I see two arguments that match with your idea of God as a jackass playing cosmic peekaboo because if evidence was left around and someone used their God-given brains He might vanish in a puff of logic:
(1) His religious affiliation did restrain him, but the evidence of this was made totally invisible. So you're totally free to say he was actually a better person and would have tortured and killed a dozen more people. Or six dozen. Or a hundred. (Of course, you don't have any evidence for that so it's hardly a rational or fair argument. But you have the excuse that God makes sure there's no evidence, so you can feel okay about it.)
(2) He was actually a really decent guy! But he was *so* decent that his life might have been taken as evidence of beneficial spiritual influence, so God retroactively had him go out and torture and murder a bunch of people.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 03:58 am (UTC)Man, where have I heard this one before? Torquemada, Augustine, Hitler - yeah they all followed the same "some Jews do something bad therefore all of Judaism is evil" logic.
Kind of like condemning all atheists becuase of the example of Fucking Stalin and the Commie Rat Bastards. Because if you are going to condemn all Jews based on a bunch of rabbis that most Jews don't even listen to (and which of course is getting blown out of proportion via the anti-religious Israeli press) then naturally you will have to shoot yourself in the head for being part of the non-faith that sents millions of people away to gulags and Siberia to die.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 04:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 09:24 am (UTC)Weird.
The point was simply that Jews can do weird s**t just like any other religion. We already knew about plenty of examples in Christiatianity and other major religions. His point is simply that Judaism has its nutjobs too.
If your issue is that the point was too obvious, I hardly see how that's much of a complaint.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 12:55 pm (UTC)The only question is if your failed logic and flawed thinking will lead you to conclusions that are only harmful to you, or if they will lead you to conclusions that are also harmful to others.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 09:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 09:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 11:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 12:41 pm (UTC)The problem is stupidity, and the logic the Rabbis (allegedly) used to determine that the dog is possessed and should be killed by children is *exactly* as sound and as well-founded as the logic that says the wine and crackers becomes the body and blood of Christ, that all your problems are caused by disembodied spirits possessing you, that covering your face or head is pleasing to God, and that Mistress Cleo can predict the future for only $7.99 a minute so call now.
All religion is stupidity.
being part of the non-faith
You know who ELSE didn't collect stamps? HITLER.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 07:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 09:43 pm (UTC)Look at the rise of non-religiousness in Europe and American and Japan and wherever else, where these most recent generations have again decided that the old beliefs are silly and the believers are slowly going away by natural causes. That's all I hope for, the slow rise of reason, and I am shooting or stabbing or gassing nobody at all.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 09:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-20 02:39 am (UTC)You may want to check on that.
The Library of Alexandria did not get burned down because early Christians were nice people.
The moment Constantine went Christian, the Roman institution of religious persecution got flipped. For one thing, it became impossible for a non-Christian to get a government job.
The official Christian hagiographies of a lot of their early saints are basically that these saints: a) vandalized the most personal sacred things of other religions (e.g. statues of someone's household gods) b) stole to give to the poor c) were executed.
The history of places like Russia (988 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Kievan_Rus%27)) or Lithuania (1387 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Lithuania)) going Christian is a) the ruler went Christian b) he ordered persecution and mass vandalism of traditional religion
Old religions did not go away of their own volition. They were persecuted and tortured off the face of the earth by new religions.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 04:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 12:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 04:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 09:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 12:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 02:08 pm (UTC)The foetid politics of faith pretty much guarantee these guys won't face any negative consequences at all from this scapegoating. And someone out there is going to believe 'em...
-- Steve gets despondant seeing modern society get swept aside by decidedly pre-modern thinking.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 09:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-19 03:54 pm (UTC)http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/8302824.html?thread=511427304#t511427304
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-20 01:39 pm (UTC)For instance, my church has what we call a Fast Offerings fund. Since we don't have a paid ministry, 100% of these funds go to helping the poor with food, rent, etc. We also have a disaster relief fund that helps other countries (and our own) with basic necessities like food, water, medical expenses, and the like when catastrophe strikes. This fund also has no overhead, so 100% of it goes to help the needy - and let me note that we do not require someone to be a member of our faith to help them.
This amounts to MILLIONS of dollars every year. I don't know the exact figure, but it's pretty high. Implying that religious people only harass others about joining, do whacky crazy stuff, and act irrationally is to falsely represent them, and badly so.
Say what you want about the silly things we believe and do, but to make a fair case about religious people means you have to take into account their ENTIRE lives and actions, not just the ones that support your thesis about religious people all being crazy.
There are crazy religious people and there are crazy non-religious people as well. Shall I judge all non-religious people by the crazy things some non-religious people do and ignore all the wonderful service performed by those who don't believe? Very one-sided, there.
So I challenge you - for every single article, picture, or other anti-religious post you put up, find one that demonstrates the deep commitment to service and actually caring for others that religious people do and post that as well. Otherwise, you are unfairly representing the side you oppose, and that is hardly rational or fair.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-20 01:51 pm (UTC)You seem to be under the misappreshension that this is unique to religious people, or that religion causes it.
You are wrong on both counts.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-20 09:20 pm (UTC)(1) Do you have that "valid consistent non-religious argument against homosexual marriage" yet? Because really, saying you have one and never displaying it is not exactly a fair representation of the argument.
(2) You're the one who claimed that God would heal people if they were prayed for and then retroactively go around and make sure that all the people He helped suffered and died--because, you said, hiding one example of empirical results which would suggest the possibility of His existence is much more important than than acting on love or compassion.
Do you consider that rational or fair behaviour on His part?
Do you consider your depiction of God to be either rational or fair?
Also:
> it [religion] certainly helps make bad people good and good people better.
I refer you to this gentleman, a member of the local Christ Lutheran Church for thirty years, and president of its Congregation Council. (And yes, I could get you other examples. A lot of other examples.)
If you are hypothesizing that his religious affiliation restrained him in any way, I see two arguments that match with your idea of God as a jackass playing cosmic peekaboo because if evidence was left around and someone used their God-given brains He might vanish in a puff of logic:
(1) His religious affiliation did restrain him, but the evidence of this was made totally invisible. So you're totally free to say he was actually a better person and would have tortured and killed a dozen more people. Or six dozen. Or a hundred. (Of course, you don't have any evidence for that so it's hardly a rational or fair argument. But you have the excuse that God makes sure there's no evidence, so you can feel okay about it.)
(2) He was actually a really decent guy! But he was *so* decent that his life might have been taken as evidence of beneficial spiritual influence, so God retroactively had him go out and torture and murder a bunch of people.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-20 09:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-06-22 07:49 pm (UTC)http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html