Author Topic: If you think an ideology or religion is immoral and evil, should you actively op  (Read 1573 times)

Gnostic Christian Bishop

  • Made of Star Stuff
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Just the lack of notification and my being busy.

Elaine Pagels is a fine author and scholar.

I call myself Gnostic Christian because we have always considered ourselves the left wing progressive type of Christians at least that is the way I see us.

As to our brand name, we had to change it after Christianity usurped our scriptures and put their name over what may have been our original name, that being Chrestians.

I have yet to prove that beyond a doubt and will likely never be able to because of the lack of original manuscripts. My theory on this comes from this link and other research I have done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rAt-PAkgqls

Regards
DL




Old Seer

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 203
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
There's a need here for you to explain "what" a Christian is and isn't. And, who decides "what" morals are and aren't. If government and religions dictate what is moral and what isn't, and they have differing ideas and knowledge what makes morals---then, nobody knows what morals are for sure. Otherwise they would all dictate the same as to what is and isn't moral. What this amounts to then, all societies must be immoral as there's no same consensus as to what the moral determinations are.

 ( your statement) "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".
Your statement shows me that someone decided what is moral and what isn't. Who was that and how did he/she/they/it/other determine that. There is no common international list of what is moral and what isn't. Morals cannot be different from one people than another, and if so, what's immoral/moral cannot be a certainty.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 5671
  • Gender: Male
I reckon a "Christian" is anyone who decides to call him- or herself such. OK, there is the "annointing" of a small person who has no say in the matter - thus that act is, IMHO, invalid. Thus I see no "official" or "legal" status for calling someone a "Christian", and no similar reason why a person should not self-decide.

Like Muslims the range seems to go from hospitable, charitable, peace-luvin, good people to utter nutters with guns and death in their eyes. Buddhists are going the same way.

So, as I have said so often, don't give a damn what label a person selects or what they believe in so long as they do good things in this world. Unfortunately that does not include forcing their beliefs, beyond basic morals and ethics, on other people of any age.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Davin

  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7023
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Usually when the thread title is cut off like that, it's a sign of copy pasta.

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/if-you-think-ideology-or-religion-immoral-evil-should-you-0
Quote
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

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 5671
  • Gender: Male
Well, gotta spread the word and give everyone a chance to gnaw on you! Only fair.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Old Seer

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 203
I reckon a "Christian" is anyone who decides to call him- or herself such. OK, there is the "annointing" of a small person who has no say in the matter - thus that act is, IMHO, invalid. Thus I see no "official" or "legal" status for calling someone a "Christian", and no similar reason why a person should not self-decide.

Like Muslims the range seems to go from hospitable, charitable, peace-luvin, good people to utter nutters with guns and death in their eyes. Buddhists are going the same way.

So, as I have said so often, don't give a damn what label a person selects or what they believe in so long as they do good things in this world. Unfortunately that does not include forcing their beliefs, beyond basic morals and ethics, on other people of any age.
I had to scrub some of my previous post for the reason of---- in you post you say (this is the problem I keep running into my self) in your last sentence you enter- beyond basic morals and ethics<---- > The same thing I was going to post. I was going to say---if we're going to have proper morals etc---ooops. That implies I know what proper morals are. I can't say such if I don't submit the understanding for the analysis of others what proper morals are. I don't recall ever when anyone explained what morals are. We all seem to know something about morals and ethics but no one elaborates on what they are and what the result would be. I have my understanding of moral, but that might not be what others agree to. I've heard the older generation (well, older then me) say you can't legislate morals many times, but no one has said what they are.
So, who's in charge of what morals are. I've haven't heard anyone explain it/them.
The government now has "ethisists". That means that government can make ethics anything they want to. Question, where and when did the Ethisist come to a conclusion as to what is ethical. If government want's something to be ethical it's going to make it that way. Ethics then can be skewed out of existence to meet what government wants. Next question---Are floks in government etical. I would think ---not any more then anyone else and probably less. And if less, then we have ethics and morals dictated by floks who aren't ethical and/or moral. :)
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.

Old Seer

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 203
Back to the OP. If you think an ideology or religion is immoral and evil, should you actively oppose it?

How much immoral and evil would I be allowed to oppose it. Dilemma, Y/N
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 5671
  • Gender: Male
Back to the OP. If you think an ideology or religion is immoral and evil, should you actively oppose it?

How much immoral and evil would I be allowed to oppose it. Dilemma, Y/N

Not going to re-read the whole thread, was there any accepted definition of what actions one should take in this opposition? Letters have been written and debates debated for a few hundred years on this sort of thing, even wars fought, with little change in the basic conflicts. At the moment mass murder seems to be the chosen method of many.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Arturo

  • Do Something Crazy!
  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2814
  • Gender: Male
  • Atheist, Humanist, and Champion
    • You two dig up, dig up dinosaurs?
I'm actually really interested in the original post as Old Seer seems to be. (Oh the slip of the tongue!)

Although I don't take the path that Old Seer has but I can see that being useful if someone was very careful on how they used that in the context that I am about to dive into.

Everyone is capable of evil. They might not think it evil but someone, somewhere, will think it to be evil. I've somewhat explained this in the other thread "Who Is God?" but in another context yet again. However I think the important part is how to get out of that evil. That is what us humans do best. Eventually bad shit happens and then we dig our way out like never before and we get to a higher plane of existence. Happens every time.

But as far as what my ideas are. I'm atheist. That's why I'm on an atheist forum. Although I do borrow things from other religions, I don't technically believe them to be true. Literally true? Who fucking knows. Metaphorically true? Most definitely.

For example, shamanism as I've seen it defined is "a practice that involves a practitioner reaching altered states of consciousness in order to perceive and interact with a spirit world and channel these transcendental energies into this world." And while I don't agree with all of that, it can be somewhat related to the idea that when one is in an argument you try to see the point of view of the other person.

So really, I use what benefits me at the moment and let it go when it's no use to me any more. And if I ever need it again, I know where to get it. There are other practical uses of shamanism that I think the OP might be familiar with. It's when you are feeling bad, you gather up all of that energy, all of that painful hurt, anxiety, and bullshit on your mind, and then you think about something better. Something you like. And you think about it for much longer than you think about anything else. And eventually over time you begin to feel better than you would before.

     It's Okay To Say You're Welcome

Old Seer

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 203
Back to the OP. If you think an ideology or religion is immoral and evil, should you actively oppose it?

How much immoral and evil would I be allowed to oppose it. Dilemma, Y/N

Not going to re-read the whole thread, was there any accepted definition of what actions one should take in this opposition? Letters have been written and debates debated for a few hundred years on this sort of thing, even wars fought, with little change in the basic conflicts. At the moment mass murder seems to be the chosen method of many.
I've been pondering as to what method I would oppose an immoral and evil religion. There's the old idea of "fight fire with fire". There's two ways to go about it, the physical or the mental. If the religion in question is evil in a physical way I guess there's no choice except tit for tat. Mental (verbal debate) has a problem in that religions don't stand to be argued with and most likely become physically violent when questioned, especially when cornered. The next problem if one does nothing, they'll be knocking down your door to haul you off to the gallows. It's why I am totally non religious as I don't see any evidence that any are of great social value. I would rather live under reason then belief in something that can't be proven. So, any discussion with a religious person is likely to turn violent as I've already experienced. The Pope covers his churches behind with, It's either a science fact or it's a religious fact. Now, how does one discuss anything as such. That statement leaves no room for reason. If science dosen't fit the belief then it's a religious fact. How does one discuss a religious fact not being a viable science fact without inviting a war. What we have here is an example of the uselessness of discussing facts with a religion, if you do, you will get yelled at- at least. 
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.