Is religion good?

[American Legionaries]

Teaching children about an ideology is not indoctrination teaching then an ideology is correct is.


Whilst trying to persuade children to share your belief is indoctrination


Ok.


Or why they are beneficial. But persuading children about whether or not to agree with them is indoctrination.

Ok. So teaching then that opposition to gender roles can’t be questioned is indoctrination?

Justify your ideas - explain your ideas - don't impose them by coercion or threat.
You can tell children that something is correct, but rather than threatening them (like religion does,) actually use reasoning and explanations.

You keep insisting that religion threatens, and yet that's just not true. There are plenty of secular institutions that are equally dogmatic, if not more so. And some if those actually threaten.

[Arval Va]

Justify your ideas - explain your ideas - don't impose them by coercion or threat.
You can tell children that something is correct, but rather than threatening them (like religion does,) actually use reasoning and explanations.

You keep insisting that religion threatens, and yet that's just not true. There are plenty of secular institutions that are equally dogmatic, if not more so. And some if those actually threaten.

I wouldn't deny that secular organisations are harmful as well, but the coercive power of faith is also undeniable.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

You keep insisting that religion threatens, and yet that's just not true. There are plenty of secular institutions that are equally dogmatic, if not more so. And some if those actually threaten.

I wouldn't deny that secular organisations are harmful as well, but the coercive power of faith is also undeniable.

I feel a good analogy is “Just because America is bad doesn’t mean Russia isn’t.” As I’ve said ad nauseam to people on the Ukraine Thread.

[Neanderthaland]

I wouldn't deny that secular organisations are harmful as well, but the coercive power of faith is also undeniable.

I feel a good analogy is “Just because America is bad doesn’t mean Russia isn’t.” As I’ve said ad nauseam to people on the Ukraine Thread.

Or, for that matter, that the two are equally bad.

I'm sure everyone has experienced that sort of fallacious middle-ground rhetoric, where someone says, "well, group-x wants to kill literally everyone who isn't just like them, but group-y supports a tariff on coffee imports, and I like Jamaican coffee. So..."

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

I feel a good analogy is “Just because America is bad doesn’t mean Russia isn’t.” As I’ve said ad nauseam to people on the Ukraine Thread.

Or, for that matter, that the two are equally bad.

I'm sure everyone has experienced that sort of fallacious middle-ground rhetoric, where someone says, "well, group-x wants to kill literally everyone who isn't just like them, but group-y supports a tariff on coffee imports, and I like Jamaican coffee. So..."

I find religion amusing. The Bible, where Satan is the bad guy, features God killing 2.5 million people (not including the time he destroyed the world to let his favourite human build an animal fuckzoo on water), vs Satan’s 10. Whilst saying things about loving all people.

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

Or, for that matter, that the two are equally bad.

I'm sure everyone has experienced that sort of fallacious middle-ground rhetoric, where someone says, "well, group-x wants to kill literally everyone who isn't just like them, but group-y supports a tariff on coffee imports, and I like Jamaican coffee. So..."

I find religion amusing. The Bible, where Satan is the bad guy, features God killing 2.5 million people (not including the time he destroyed the world to let his favourite human build an animal fuckzoo on water), vs Satan’s 10. Whilst saying things about loving all people.

When you factor in that Satan is responsible for all murders not claimed by the Bible to be right by tempting humanity (in the same way a person who hires a successful hitman to carry out the murder is a murderer themselves) Satan is responsible for more in the Bible.
And a lot of the indiscriminate killings with the Amalekites or whatever aren't in the Quran.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

I find religion amusing. The Bible, where Satan is the bad guy, features God killing 2.5 million people (not including the time he destroyed the world to let his favourite human build an animal fuckzoo on water), vs Satan’s 10. Whilst saying things about loving all people.

When you factor in that Satan is responsible for all murders not claimed by the Bible to be right by tempting humanity (in the same way a person who hires a successful hitman to carry out the murder is a murderer themselves) Satan is responsible for more in the Bible.
And a lot of the indiscriminate killings with the Amalekites or whatever aren't in the Quran.

Mhm, so the one who loves all killing everyone on the planet so his favourite human can make an animal fuckzoo on water is fine? And the crusades never happened? Yeah, great. Well done. Genius logic.

[Arval Va]

Or, for that matter, that the two are equally bad.

I'm sure everyone has experienced that sort of fallacious middle-ground rhetoric, where someone says, "well, group-x wants to kill literally everyone who isn't just like them, but group-y supports a tariff on coffee imports, and I like Jamaican coffee. So..."

I find religion amusing. The Bible, where Satan is the bad guy, features God killing 2.5 million people (not including the time he destroyed the world to let his favourite human build an animal fuckzoo on water), vs Satan’s 10. Whilst saying things about loving all people.

Especially considering most of the "offenses" that characters in the Bible committed to get killed were completely ridiculous.

[Neanderthaland]

I find religion amusing. The Bible, where Satan is the bad guy, features God killing 2.5 million people (not including the time he destroyed the world to let his favourite human build an animal fuckzoo on water), vs Satan’s 10. Whilst saying things about loving all people.

When you factor in that Satan is responsible for all murders not claimed by the Bible to be right by tempting humanity (in the same way a person who hires a successful hitman to carry out the murder is a murderer themselves) Satan is responsible for more in the Bible.
And a lot of the indiscriminate killings with the Amalekites or whatever aren't in the Quran.

I'm not sure if this is a productive line of argument in either case. But I find giving Satan default responsibility for all of human sin seems like undue credit for manipulating a 1-day old with snake cosplay.

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

Mhm, so the one who loves all killing everyone on the planet so his favourite human can make an animal fuckzoo on water is fine?

Ever heard of collateral damage? And in the Quran it isn't everyone on the planet. Also most zoos have breeding programmes and so you calling it that just looks like an immature shock tactic.

And the crusades never happened?

Muslims did not start the wars commonly referred to as "the crusades" and, in any case, they're not in the Quran.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Oh, and Hell/Gehenna/Sheol/Tartaro. So all loving, amirite?

[Arval Va]

I find religion amusing. The Bible, where Satan is the bad guy, features God killing 2.5 million people (not including the time he destroyed the world to let his favourite human build an animal fuckzoo on water), vs Satan’s 10. Whilst saying things about loving all people.

When you factor in that Satan is responsible for all murders not claimed by the Bible to be right by tempting humanity (in the same way a person who hires a successful hitman to carry out the murder is a murderer themselves) Satan is responsible for more in the Bible.
And a lot of the indiscriminate killings with the Amalekites or whatever aren't in the Quran.

And what about the ridiculous number of pointless or contradictory rules imposed by the Bible or Quran?

[Arval Va]

Mhm, so the one who loves all killing everyone on the planet so his favourite human can make an animal fuckzoo on water is fine?

Ever heard of collateral damage? And in the Quran it isn't everyone on the planet. Also most zoos have breeding programmes and so you calling it that just looks like an immature shock tactic.

Collateral damage? Is this omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent god incapable of finding out how not to kill everyone on the planet?

And the crusades never happened?

Muslims did not start the wars commonly referred to as "the crusades" and, in any case, they're not in the Quran.

Religious dogma is still responsible.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Mhm, so the one who loves all killing everyone on the planet so his favourite human can make an animal fuckzoo on water is fine?

Ever heard of collateral damage? And in the Quran it isn't everyone on the planet. Also most zoos have breeding programmes and so you calling it that just looks like an immature shock tactic.

Collateral damage? For what goal? To create a floating animal fuckzoo? And besides, it’s real rich for you to lecture me on shock tactics, with you comparing beastiality and incest to gay people.

And the crusades never happened?

Muslims did not start the wars commonly referred to as "the crusades" and, in any case, they're not in the Quran.

So the torture going on in Saudi Arabia does not happen? Or Iran’s human rights abuses? Or the widespread homophobia there? Also, check your damn history. The First Crusade was started by the Islamic world taking Jerusalem.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Teaching children about an ideology or concept is different from indoctrination.

Teaching children about an ideology is not indoctrination teaching then an ideology is correct is.

Saying "This is what I believe and why" is teaching

Whilst trying to persuade children to share your belief is indoctrination

Saying "This is the unquestionable word of [insert deity] and you will be tortured for eternity if you question what I say" is indoctrination.

Ok.

Explaining to children why gender roles are harmful is teaching.

Or why they are beneficial. But persuading children about whether or not to agree with them is indoctrination.

Telling them that your ideas about gender and gender roles can't be questioned (like religion does) is indoctrination.

Ok. So teaching then that opposition to gender roles can’t be questioned is indoctrination?

*shouts about indoctrination
*supports a religion built on indoctrination, and a nation which forces it on people

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

So the torture going on in Saudi Arabia does not happen?

I was taking about the Quran not Saudi Arabia.

Or Iran’s human rights abuses?

The same, plus I'm not even Shia.

Or the widespread homophobia there?

What are you trying to prove at this point? Not that I know anything about Iran but most of the countries people say this stuff about don't have a massive surveillance network to catch the 100% of the population who might secretly be gay, or at least bisexual.

Also, check your damn history. The First Crusade was started by the Islamic world taking Jerusalem.

After Jerusalem had already been ruled by Muslims for over a century
Sources:
https://rke.abertay.ac.uk/ws/portalfile ... ia_PhD.pdf
https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusad ... he-Crusade (The Britannica article had attention for History lecturers mentioned in the introduction).

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

So the torture going on in Saudi Arabia does not happen?

I was taking about the Quran not Saudi Arabia.

Or Iran’s human rights abuses?

The same, plus I'm not even Shia.

Or the widespread homophobia there?

What are you trying to prove at this point? Not that I know anything about Iran but most of the countries people say this stuff about don't have a massive surveillance network to catch the 100% of the population who might secretly be gay, or at least bisexual.

“We don’t seek them out” and “we don’t stone them to death” are two different things. Saudi Arabia does it too. And they do it in the name of the Quran. So are they correct or not?

Also, check your damn history. The First Crusade was started by the Islamic world taking Jerusalem.

After Jerusalem had already been ruled by Muslims for over a century
Sources:
https://rke.abertay.ac.uk/ws/portalfile ... ia_PhD.pdf
https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusad ... he-Crusade (The Britannica article had attention for History lecturers mentioned in the introduction).

After they took it.

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

So are they correct or not?

I don’t know whether that interpretation of Islam is correct to what the Quran says because I’m not a mufti.

”Also, check your damn history. The First Crusade was started by the Islamic world taking Jerusalem.”

After Jerusalem had already been ruled by Muslims for over a century
Sources:
https://rke.abertay.ac.uk/ws/portalfile ... ia_PhD.pdf
https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusad ... he-Crusade (Th

e Britannica article had attention for History lecturers mentioned in the introduction).

After they took it.

So wales can invade London? What is the statute of limitations for irredentism?
And should treaties and surrenders not be honoured?

“We don’t seek them out” and “we don’t stone them to death” are two different things

Kyle McTaggart is a 62 year old man, he can only fall in love with women he begins courting when they are 18-19 as a result of a psychological condition.
He loudly proclaims this to his friend on a public street, and some adolescent monkey-people (of a variety of skin colours) pelt him with stones until he is dead
Is Kyle the victim of a hate crime based on sexuality?

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

So are they correct or not?

I don’t know whether that interpretation of Islam is correct to what the Quran says because I’m not a mufti.

So, why the fuck do you support them? No matter what you think, they claim to have the support of Allah,and how do you disprove that? You can’t, just like you can’t disprove that Mr imaginary up in the sky doesn’t want everyone dead.

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

I don’t know whether that interpretation of Islam is correct to what the Quran says because I’m not a mufti.

So, why the fuck do you support them? No matter what you think, they claim to have the support of Allah,and how do you disprove that? You can’t, just like you can’t disprove that Mr imaginary up in the sky doesn’t want everyone dead.

See my Kyle McTaggart (a notional person) scenario.
Also, I could prove it was either against the Quran or that it was not if I was a mufti.

[Insaanistan]

Ever heard of collateral damage? And in the Quran it isn't everyone on the planet. Also most zoos have breeding programmes and so you calling it that just looks like an immature shock tactic.

Collateral damage? For what goal? To create a floating animal fuckzoo? And besides, it’s real rich for you to lecture me on shock tactics, with you comparing beastiality and incest to gay people.

Muslims did not start the wars commonly referred to as "the crusades" and, in any case, they're not in the Quran.

So the torture going on in Saudi Arabia does not happen? Or Iran’s human rights abuses? Or the widespread homophobia there? Also, check your damn history. The First Crusade was started by the Islamic world taking Jerusalem.

1. There is a difference between saying the abuses in Muslim-majority country are un-Islamic and saying they didn’t happen.

2. The First Crusade began in 1096 CE. The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in the 630s CE, so you’re only off by about 4 centuries.

Now, if you had said the Crusades began in response to the abuses of Christian pilgrims at the hands of the Seljuqs, you’d at least be in the right time period. However, it seems the Crusades began because the Byzantines wanted to re-take lands in the Middle East, the papacy wanted to increase its influence by doing the Orthodox Christians a favor in hopes they would turn to Catholicism, and the Pope wished to unite Europe against a common enemy: Muslims. And Jews. And Middle Eastern Christians. They also killed quite a few Christians in the Balkans on their way over, for… the lols, I guess?

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

So, why the fuck do you support them? No matter what you think, they claim to have the support of Allah,and how do you disprove that? You can’t, just like you can’t disprove that Mr imaginary up in the sky doesn’t want everyone dead.

See my Kyle McTaggart (a notional person) scenario.
Also, I could prove it was either against the Quran or that it was not if I was a mufti.

You can prove it anyways, you just won’t be able to change Islamic law. So tell me, is it against the Quran?

[Dylar]

They also killed quite a few Christians in the Balkans on their way over, for… the lols, I guess?

Mainly because the Crusaders wanted to take back the holy land by sailing to Egypt and invading from there rather than taking the same route again. But they needed boats. and Venetians had boats. And the Venetians wanted to get rid of their biggest trade rival which was the Byzantines. on top of that the Pro-Crusader Emperor of the Byzantines was deposed and replaced with an anti-Crusader Emperor.

That's my understanding of it anyway

[Arval Va]

Collateral damage? For what goal? To create a floating animal fuckzoo? And besides, it’s real rich for you to lecture me on shock tactics, with you comparing beastiality and incest to gay people.

So the torture going on in Saudi Arabia does not happen? Or Iran’s human rights abuses? Or the widespread homophobia there? Also, check your damn history. The First Crusade was started by the Islamic world taking Jerusalem.

1. There is a difference between saying the abuses in Muslim-majority country are un-Islamic and saying they didn’t happen.

2. The First Crusade began in 1096 CE. The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in the 630s CE, so you’re only off by about 4 centuries.

Now, if you had said the Crusades began in response to the abuses of Christian pilgrims at the hands of the Seljuqs, you’d at least be in the right time period. However, it seems the Crusades began because the Byzantines wanted to re-take lands in the Middle East, the papacy wanted to increase its influence by doing the Orthodox Christians a favor in hopes they would turn to Catholicism, and the Pope wished to unite Europe against a common enemy: Muslims. And Jews. And Middle Eastern Christians. They also killed quite a few Christians in the Balkans on their way over, for… the lols, I guess?

1) Then why is there so much support for their policies in Muslim communities? There are those who would manipulate religion for their own agenda, but to assume all offenses committed in the name of religion are made dishonestly is just blatantly false. There are, by all means, religious people ding horrible things while believing they are righteous.
2) The Muslims may have not been responsible, but religious dogma is nevertheless responsible.

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

So tell me, is it against the Quran?

If the gay man doesn’t have a wife then it’s against the Hadith to kill him.
The Hadith which says it’s ok if he does have the wife is the same for if he had an affair with a woman