Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

Shoot them in the head with an AK-47 like one Taliban did to a pedophile. The execution was public as well.

Aside from the stupidity of using a spray'n'pray for a headshot, the idea of holding the Taliban up as a shining example of justice and treatment of paedophiles is properly out-there.

I mean, if the Taliban wanted to take care of paedophiles in their society by using guns, they'd be committing mass suicide. These Christian whackos are just rapists of opportunity, the Talitubbies are marrying them for serial rape over years (and beating them - sometimes to death - if they refuse). Back in the day they executed a 12-year old girl, by hanging, for being raped - because she'd tempted the man and was adulterous.

Boys don't have it much better, but at least they can age out of it. Fundies of this ilk tend to rape boys too because they don't count as men for the purposes of the holy book's edict on not being gay (which they're totally not, because it's only boys).


Yeah, the Taliban are the good guys here.

Misinterpretation is the cause of all heinous acts committed by religious people.

I'm sure that there's one true interpretation though. Is it, by any chance, close to your preferred flavour of religion?

Only... they all think that.

 

[Oreca 1998]

Wait...what?

What? Unless you've read the interpretation of a Bible. I'm happy to read what you've come across.

This is delusion.

It's wild to me how people went from making up explanations, devoid of evidence, for things which were not understood, like physical relationships between celestial bodies or recurring natural phenomena, to crafting from whole cloth the notion of the afterlife. The former is irrational but the latter is insane.

Why debate the afterlife if you don't believe in it?
No matter how many verses I quote from the Qur’an you still wouldn't believe. Unless you're genuinely interested in what are the events that will occur on Judgement Day & what Heaven & Hell look like I'm willing to quote you verses.

Sure, and I've said as much, but one has to wonder what purpose Christianity or any other religion serves if not to dissuade the delusional adherents from violating the rights of others, especially with acts so heinous as rape.

Using the collective West as an example, your leaders are supposedly Christians & they also concur that child rape is heinous & illegal. So the question is: If they were abiding by the Bible which absolutely forbids rape (Genesis 34 & Judges 19 to name a few) why is there still rape? No matter how many they catch & throw in prison, the sentence for this must be execution & it must be public. Then again you will most definitely disagree with me on public executions.

 

[Famine]

If they were abiding by the Bible which absolutely forbids rape (Genesis 34 & Judges 19 to name a few) why is there still rape? No matter how many they catch & throw in prison, the sentence for this must be execution & it must be public.

Your supposition here is: if punishment is effective, why is there still the crime?

The problem with that is... if the Taliban absolutely forbid child rape* and execute people in public for it - per your own example - why is there still enough child rape that they still have to execute people in public for it? It would seem that public execution isn't effective as a deterrent, so you need an even more severe punishment...

*(for people who aren't them of course; they do it a lot)

 

[Oreca 1998]

Aside from the stupidity of using a spray'n'pray for a headshot, the idea of holding the Taliban up as a shining example of justice and treatment of paedophiles is properly out-there.

I didn't say they're a shining example. I'm merely describing a video I have seen on Twitter. You can return to 700 or 800 CE & publicly stone them to death if you want. Or you can publicly chop their heads off like they did in Europe in the 15th & 16th century.
What do you think is the perfect punishment for pedophiles?

I mean, if the Taliban wanted to take care of paedophiles in their society by using guns, they'd be committing mass suicide. These Christian whackos are just rapists of opportunity,

the Talitubbies are marrying them for serial rape over years (and beating them - sometimes to death - if they refuse).

They're committing what's called Muta'a marriage & Jihad Nikah (both surfaced when the Arab Spring began, however both might have been practiced for years prior, undercover).

Muta'a marriage was a thing in the Arabian peninsula where men would marry without paying a dowry. Muta'a marriage is forbidden in Islam as dowry is a woman's right before marriage.

Jihad Nikah began with the creation of Muslim terror groups (founded by the CIA & Mossad) and what it simply means is marrying whatever woman the "Caliph" (as he calls himself) chooses whether it be a girl, a widow or even married women (I know it's sickening). Such heinous acts are forbidden in Islam.

Despite certain acts being forbidden in the holy books some people are simply sick in the head & heart to commit such acts.

The problem isn't with the religion, but the people who misinterpret it to suit their sick minds & desires.

Back in the day they executed a 12-year old girl, by hanging, for being raped - because she'd tempted the man and was adulterous.

Goodness me.

Boys don't have it much better, but at least they can age out of it. Fundies of this ilk tend to rape boys too because they don't count as men for the purposes of the holy book's edict on not being gay (which they're totally not, because it's only boys).

I wonder what verse in the Qur’an they took out of context to justify raping boys because I have read all 114 chapters of the Qur’an & read the correct interpretation of every chapter by Ibn-Katheer & there's not one single verse calling for or justifying this.

Yeah, the Taliban are the good guys here.

I never said they were good nor should they be a role model to anyone whether believer or non-believer.

I'm sure that there's one true interpretation though.

If you're genuinely interested look up Tafsir Ibn-Katheer of the Qur’an.

 

[Famine]

What do you think is the perfect punishment for pedophiles?

Paedophiles? Nothing. That's thought-crime.

It's the actions that matter, and it's something of a spectrum from vicarious acts (such as watching kids a bit too intently in a changing room) to raping multiple children, so there ought to be a spectrum of punishments - and rehabilitation if possible and appropriate.

Your preferred choice of execution doesn't appear to fulfil your own requirement of sufficiency given that the executions still occur - thus making the punishment clearly ineffective.

But then we already know that capital punishment isn't a deterrent to any crime (on the same basis; the crimes for which it's deemed appropriate still occur, everywhere where capital punishment exits). It's, at best, a bargaining chip to secure convictions and confessions in exchange for lesser sentences.

I have read all 114 chapters of the Qur’an & read the correct interpretation of every chapter by Ibn-Katheer & there's not one single verse calling for or justifying this.

If you're genuinely interested look up Tafsir Ibn-Katheer of the Qur’an.

Heh:

I'm sure that there's one true interpretation though. Is it, by any chance, close to your preferred flavour of religion?

Only... they all think that.

All of them.

 

[Exorcet]

Why debate the afterlife if you don't believe in it?

Step away from religion for a moment. If you encounter someone with a misguided belief are you just supposed to ignore it and move on? Why does belief even matter when it comes to debate? There is every reason in the world to debate something that you don't personally believe from educating yourself or someone else to purely entertainment.

Moving back to religion, if people believing in the afterlife impacts the lives of people around them, why wouldn't those surrounding people want to debate religious ideas? Most of my family believes in the afterlife and they constantly preach about it. They elevate it to a high level of importance above things that actually matter like learning skills, improving finances, or making the world a better place (ie stop complaining about things that are harmless like homosexuality and stop trying to oppose the rights and respect that those people deserve).

While I'm fine with letting people do as they want, I will oppose dangerous or bad ideas. Religion is often one of the worst because it pretends to be a good thing and it has many people convinced. While holding unproven and unprovable beliefs may not not always be terrible, modern religion needs to change before it can reach a point where it's even net neutral to civilization.

 

[Oreca 1998]

Paedophiles? Nothing. That's thought-crime.

It's the actions that matter, and it's something of a spectrum from vicarious acts (such as watching kids a bit too intently in a changing room) to raping multiple children, so there ought to be a spectrum of punishments - and rehabilitation if possible and appropriate.

And I agree with your opinion. Public executions weren't effective so using medications & cognitive behavioural therapy is the best way to treat this epidemic. From a religious standpoint you're helping a fellow human overcome a disorder in turn helping him to repent thus doing a good deed.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Don't blame everyone else because you failed to accurately describe whatever point you were making. These people aren't sex addicts. Charlie Sheen was a sex addict. David Duchovny was a sex addict. Sex addicts look for ways to have consenting sex, most prominently through paying lots of money for it. Hence, why even just financially, it's a serious issue. When they can't do the physical deed, they resort to pornography & online sex. Sex addicts crave the endorphins released during sex.

Rapists aren't after that endorphin rush. Anyone who rapes, esp. repeatedly, is after as @Famine described, a power & domination feeling of satisfaction. There's a sickening reasoning why many rapists have said they get off on the physical struggle and anguish of their victims. In fact, I had just watched a Law & Order:SVU episode recently that starred Lauren Cohan showcasing this dynamic where her rapist was found not guilty of rape, but of stalking. The interaction led to her being pregnant & keeping the child with the rapist wanting to stay in the child's life, providing more anguish for Lauren's character. It displayed how even post-rape, the rapist enjoyed the discomfort & pain he was still bringing to Lauren's character.

Let me step back a tiny bit here.

All addictions travel in stages.

Do all people who drink (or do any other drug from smoking to cocaine, etc) go out and destroy their lives (or the lives of others)? How many people who have alcohol in their lives are considered drunk bums?

That being said, saying that there isn't an addiction involved is like saying that a gas powered car doesn't have an ICE.

Some people are into porn. And nothing more.

Some people get into ANY drug or into sex and don't understand when (or even how, sometimes) to stop. And they continue from one thing to another. Sometimes because they are self-medicating. Sometimes because they just don't understand where these choices are leading them.

But....

It is rare that sexual abuse (and rape) is merely abuse. Yes, physical and verbal abuse don't typically have addictions behind them. But sexual abuse (and, yes, that includes rape) rarely (if ever) does NOT include a sex addiction.

Look at serial killers. There are some who have raped and then killed. When you look at their history, they are MOST definitely into a sex addiction. The most famous is Ted Bundy. He got into porn, then went from one thing to another and ended up killing. For pleasure. That is a severe case, but he even said so himself. At the end of his life, he gave an interview. He knew that he had a sex addiction, and he realized that he had followed that to the point where he was about to be executed.

The thing that I was saying (in my original reply) is that it is sad that some people get twisted so far that they think that, even though they are religious, what they are doing is okay.

And they hide behind religion to find an excuse to hurt others.

ANY type of abuse is abuse.

Rape, in the end, is just a type of abuse. And it is truly sick.

Please don't think that I am not upset that in ANY way that my statement of hiding behind religion meant to some that I was trying to justify those actions in ANY way! I am STUNNED beyond belief that (even REMOTELY) that idea was connected somehow. Seriously. That is SICK!

The irony of crucifying rapists? Somewhat. Rome didn't crucify JUST one person. I'm sure a lot of other bad people died that way, as well.

I didn't say they're a shining example.

Not many who are extreme in their beliefs are....

I wonder what verse in the Qur’an they took out of context to justify raping boys because I have read all 114 chapters of the Qur’an & read the correct interpretation of every chapter by Ibn-Katheer & there's not one single verse calling for or justifying this.

I never said they were good nor should they be a role model to anyone whether believer or non-believer.

If you're genuinely interested look up Tafsir Ibn-Katheer of the Qur’an.

I'm glad that it is understood that taking things out of context can lead to horrible things.

Look at the verse "do not allow a witch to live".

What was the REAL meaning of that? From what I understand, it was "do not allow a murder to live". Admittedly, that is the inspired translation from Joseph Smith. But still.... Look at how many died in STUPID ways due to inquisitions. If you want an example of abuse in the name of religion, not to mention hiding behind religion to justify it, let's start there. Ouch! Talk about a stain on a good thing!

Just remember that this picture is a good representation of what a LOT of people are going to hear from God:

 

[Imari]

Do people not comprehend that ANY drug (and I'm including hormones in that statement) are addictive?

Do you comprehend that an addiction is not an excuse for abhorrent behaviour? It may weaken self-control, but it does not remove it.

Just because you're hungry it doesn't make it any more acceptable to eat another person. Especially when you have cupboards and a fridge full of other food. But you don't really like that food and John looks so tasty...

Also, you're just wrong. Not all drugs are addictive. You don't know what addiction means, which raises the question of if you really understand what you're saying at all.

WHAT DO YOU THINK I'm SAYING?????!!!!!

That these people have an addiction and are therefore not fully to blame for their actions.

Was that not what you were saying? What else is "addictions are addictions" supposed to mean?

Some people have a harder situation in life than others with regards to past history and addictions, but ultimately you are responsible for the things that you do. If you have an addiction that would cause you to harm other people it is your responsibility to manage that. If you do not, it's on you. You did the thing, you have to live with it and you are responsible for the consequences.

The only real value in identifying an addiction in the process is to let other people with that addiction know early on the potential consequences if they fail to manage themselves sufficiently. But that means correctly identifying the addiction. Child rapists are not sex addicts. As others have pointed out, they're far closer to power addicts than anything else. And that people in power do gross things to those under them is not news. We've known that for millennia.

People still seem to think that children are mostly at risk of being raped by some stranger luring them into a van with candy, but the reality is that they're most likely to be raped by someone they know who already has authority or power over them. A parent. A teacher. An older sibling or relative.

A pastor.

Maybe we should be more careful of people in positions of power over children? Maybe that would be a better lesson to learn?

What do you think I am? Seriously!

Someone who doesn't understand addiction, mental health, or child rape, and who is getting defensive that it's even implied that religious structures and religious people could be contributing to the ease with which some predators are able to rape children.

And therefore as someone who will turn a blind eye to those things if they're presented in an uncomfortable context, someone who is also potentially allowing them to continue to exist in their own immediate religious circle. Given the well documented history child rape in the Christian church, I am immediately suspicious of anyone who responds to "Christians should stop raping children" with anything other than hearty agreement.

You can be offended if you like, or you can question why you chose to respond the way you did. First by being dismissive, then by getting furiously angry that other people pushed back against you being dismissive.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm not sure what you mean by "automatically writing off".

As in, it's an easy default explanation to go to without entertaining other possibilities. It makes it more likely that it's a pathological issue with perception, but it doesn't mean it necessarily is.

Reading one of your quoted posts, they say:

"But, one of my kids IS schizophrenic. I have seen that first hand. And this is NOTHING like that."

Granted, this could be due to a lack of insight into their possible condition/knowledge of schizophrenia, but I'd like to explore this quote more, if @TRLWNC7396 would oblige.

 

[McLaren]

It is rare that sexual abuse (and rape) is merely abuse. Yes, physical and verbal abuse don't typically have addictions behind them. But sexual abuse (and, yes, that includes rape) rarely (if ever) does NOT include a sex addiction.

It is the opposite.

A study published by the Journal of Behavioral Addictions revealed the rates of compulsive sexual behavior disorder to be substantially lower among sex offenders versus sex addicts. Though this may surprise some, sex addiction is not the link to offending. To better understand this, Davis explains, “Most sex addicts will actually act inward, whereas an offender is actually acting outward.”

“People who engage in sexual harassment and predatory behavior may do so out of narcissism, grandiosity, and a sense of entitlement,” says psychotherapist Nicholas Kardaras in US News. Those who offend do so out of an abuse of power. Yet those wrestling with sex addiction typically do not intend to cause harm. Sex addicts are fighting an internal battle every day that permeates various aspects of their lives, often mirroring early-life traumas.

Sexual Offending vs. Sex Addiction | Gentle Path at The Meadows

What is a sex addict? Is that even real? What is a sex offender? Are sex addiction and sexual offending linked?

gentlepathmeadows.com

Sex addicts are not after harming people. As I said above & will for the last time (because I do not want to engage in researching & discussing addiction & rape), sex addiction is after the endorphin rush. Rapists are after a sense of domination & power to fulfill their desires. It is not an addiction to sex they're after, it is control over someone else.

 

[kjeldsen]

Reality check

 

[Imari]

Reality check

View attachment 1358032

And the relevance to this thread is... what? That nobody should bother talking about this stuff?

 

[Scaff]

But sexual abuse (and, yes, that includes rape) rarely (if ever) does NOT include a sex addiction.

Who on earth told you that? It is, to be blunt, utter nonsense.

I'm going to need a citation from a reputable (preferably peer-reviewed) source for that claim.

Look at the verse "do not allow a witch to live".

What was the REAL meaning of that? From what I understand, it was "do not allow a murder to live". Admittedly, that is the inspired translation from Joseph Smith.

Why does the word of god need translation, 'inspired' or not?

The irony of crucifying rapists? Somewhat. Rome didn't crucify JUST one person. I'm sure a lot of other bad people died that way, as well.

I'm talking about the irony of someone who claims to follow a religion that preaches 'turning the other cheek' suggesting murdering people (and that's exactly what execution is).

 

[Famine]

That being said, saying that there isn't an addiction involved is like saying that a gas powered car doesn't have an ICE.

No.

Again, you're attributing the act of raping children to an overwhelming desire to have sex. Some paedophiles definitely have a desire to have sex with children (and an extremely small number of them act on that), but rapists and particularly child rapists (and particularly serial child rapists) don't get their buzz from the sex act itself. It comes from exercising power and control over others.

Not only are you making the wrong attribution entirely, you're diminishing sex addicts - the majority of whom don't rape as, contrary to rapists, the sex is what gives them the buzz - and pretty much hand-waving some very evil behaviour away on the basis of it.

Look at serial killers. There are some who have raped and then killed. When you look at their history, they are MOST definitely into a sex addiction. The most famous is Ted Bundy. He got into porn, then went from one thing to another and ended up killing. For pleasure. That is a severe case, but he even said so himself. At the end of his life, he gave an interview. He knew that he had a sex addiction, and he realized that he had followed that to the point where he was about to be executed.

And here you're demonstrating that you don't comprehend serial killers either.

Bundy (who is among the better known, but I wouldn't say "most famous") was a sexual sadist. That's a small section of serial killers, and in no way representative of the type. Many serial killers don't have a sexual component to their crimes, and even among those that do many still don't get fulfilment from that part of it; impotency is surprisingly common too, meaning that they can't physically commit a sexual act themselves (although may use objects to do so).

The UK's most famous serial killer is a doctor who inveigled his way into old women's homes (and wills) then murdered them with a fatal overdose. He never committed a sexual act on his victims.

An early indicator for serial killers in childhood behaviours is the homicidal triad, or MacDonald triad. It consists of vandalism (usually arson), cruelty to animals (often pets), and enuresis (bedwetting) into pubescence. There is no sexual component, although sexual experimentation on the vulnerable (animals, younger siblings and friends), and sexual abuse from others unto them (usually family members and adults in positions of authority) is not uncommon among sexual sadists.


Just for additional context, Bundy's attempt to blame pornography was very much a retcon - and it came the day before his execution, in an interview with an evangelical who himself was obsessed with the dangers of pornography.

It was the last in a series of things he blamed his murders on, having never taken responsibility for any of them himself (being a full-fledged member of the Dark Triad [similar to, but separate from, the homicidal triad] of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism). He blamed TV, "true-crime" magazines (which he'd previously denied ever reading), society, the media, substance abuse, childhood abuse from relatives, being from a broken home, and sometimes even the victims themselves for their vulnerability.

Evangelical conservatives love to bring up Bundy's attempt to blame porn, as it feeds into their own porn hypocrisy, but there's no evidence it was ever true. Bundy's crimes were due to Bundy being Bundy.

 

[Oreca 1998]

Step away from religion for a moment. If you encounter someone with a misguided belief are you just supposed to ignore it and move on?

No but the argument here is whether God (talking about the one & only who created the universe & us in 6 days) exists or not & whether you believe in Him or not. Once you believe in Him the next phase will be to get to know Him: What's His name? What's He capable of? What's the purpose of the life He created & what's the purpose of our creation?. You'll only get to know Him by opening His book otherwise belief won't be but a word in the air.

Heaven & Hell (which are the Hereafter & where people will eternally live) are His creation. In order to differentiate the good from the bad, God created a trial & called it Judgment Day. The difference between God's trial & our trials is you can't hire a lawyer & you'll receive a book with everything you've made throughout your lifetime. The ultimate decider of whether you go to Heaven or Hell - regardless of your deeds - is believing in your Creator.

As Allah pointed out in many verses in the Qur’an, one of the many non believers arguments revolve around His ability to resurrect them for judgment.

Examples:

1. Chapter 44, Verses: 8, 35 & 36. In 35 & 36 is the non believers mocking Allah's messengers by telling them to resurrect their forefathers ultimately denying Allah's ability of Resurrection & Judgement Day.

2. Chapter 45, Verses: 24 to 29. The non believers, again, claiming their death is eternal & demanding Allah's messengers to resurrect their forefathers. The non believers arrogance blinds them & when Judgement Day happens Allah responds in verses 31 to 35.

Moving back to religion, if people believing in the afterlife impacts the lives of people around them, why wouldn't those surrounding people want to debate religious ideas? Most of my family believes in the afterlife and they constantly preach about it. They elevate it to a high level of importance above things that actually matter like learning skills, improving finances, or making the world a better place (ie stop complaining about things that are harmless like homosexuality and stop trying to oppose the rights and respect that those people deserve).

Because your family knows that this life isn't everlasting so they choose to live it like they're sitting at a bus stop waiting for the bus to take them to the Hereafter.
To me this isn't how life should be lived. Yes life is mortal but human beings should strive to win in this life - while abiding by God's orders - & win on Judgement Day.

I'm not going to discuss homosexuals as you already know my stance on that topic. However from a humanitarian point of view, they have every right to live just not rub their homosexuality in everyone's faces just as much as we straights don't shove our straightness down everyone's throats.

If you want to know why homosexuality became trendy in this day & age you have to read into it & I suggest you start with the book "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" where Zionists explicitly state their intentions of turning the western world into a God-less nation which would ultimately lead to internal conflict & Zionists emerge as the saviours.

While I'm fine with letting people do as they want, I will oppose dangerous or bad ideas.

Religion is often one of the worst because it pretends to be a good thing and it has many people convinced.

And here I'll disagree. I believe religion is good because it not only provides a person with inner peace due to his connection with his Creator, but also gives his life a purpose so that he strives to become a good, law-abiding citizen & do good to mankind in general which will ultimately fall into his stack of good deeds when He meets his Creator.

Modern religion needs to change before it can reach a point where it's even net neutral to civilization.

If by modernising you mean become more tolerant then I am tolerant but not to the point where I see sick stuff & brush it under the carpet.
Realistically speaking we're not the lawmakers and there are too many of us (i.e mankind). The majority of this world's population don't even care to debate your topic of "modernising religion" because they're busy working from dawn to dusk to put food on the table. That's more proof that this life can never be the Utopia you seek it to be.

 

[Famine]

The difference between God's trial & our trials is you can't hire a lawyer & you'll receive a book with everything you've made throughout your lifetime.

And instead of one act (or more) determining the next some-to-all of your remaining years on Earth, it's one act (or more) and whether or not you're really, really sorry about it that determines the next eternity. Whether you lived for a minute or 120 years.

It's certainly a weird sense of justice that this God has. Rape kids but "repent" and "believe" and you have eternal bliss (with other rapists); do nothing to harm anyone and add value to the lives of all around you but don't believe and you have eternal torment.

Holy books make it really very easy to accept that any deity that institutes this state of affairs is an appalling one.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Modern religious belief is a mental illness.

 

[Oreca 1998]

Holy books make it really very easy to accept that any deity that institutes this state of affairs is an appalling one.

Well He is the lawmaker of this universe & He has the final word. I hope He guides you to Him because no human being throughout history won a fight against Him. The story of Pharoah, people of Sodom, Ad, Thamud & many others are proof of this.

 

[Famine]

I hope He guides you to Him

I very much hope not.

If the deal sounds fair to you - eternal torment for being a wonderful person but not believing, with eternal bliss for actively making everyone else's lives worse, raping and killing children but being weawwy weawwy sowwy and believing - there's literally no reasoning with you. Enjoy your endless billions of years with kiddyfiddlers who believe what you do, I guess.

 

[Danoff]

The irony of crucifying rapists? Somewhat. Rome didn't crucify JUST one person. I'm sure a lot of other bad people died that way, as well.

I'm sure you didn't mean to, but it's easy to read this as calling Jesus a bad person.

I think this particular quote is fascinating as it misrepresents the mythology in the bible for the purpose of propping up modern day authoritarianism. Despite the hero figure of the new testament being tortured and murdered innocently, you STILL go out of your way to assume that the authority figures of the time were just going after the bad people. The boot licking for authority goes all the way to roman crucifixion.

Rome killed a lot of people for the things that romans wanted to kill them for. People who did good things, who did bad things, who were guilty of crimes and who were innocent of crimes.

As in, it's an easy default explanation to go to without entertaining other possibilities. It makes it more likely that it's a pathological issue with perception, but it doesn't mean it necessarily is.

Reading one of your quoted posts, they say:

"But, one of my kids IS schizophrenic. I have seen that first hand. And this is NOTHING like that."

Granted, this could be due to a lack of insight into their possible condition/knowledge of schizophrenia, but I'd like to explore this quote more, if @TRLWNC7396 would oblige.

It's such a profound lack of self-awareness that I really have trouble putting much stock in any of it. You're talking about extending a massive dose of benefit of the doubt to a person who can't give their interlocuters even a pinch of it.

 

[Oreca 1998]

I very much hope not.

If the deal sounds fair to you - eternal torment for being a wonderful person but not believing, with eternal bliss for actively making everyone else's lives worse, raping and killing children but being weawwy weawwy sowwy and believing - there's literally no reasoning with you. Enjoy your endless billions of years with kiddyfiddlers who believe what you do, I guess.

Then you don't really know what repentance means if that's what you concluded. It's not just being sorry for committing a crime but rather praying your entire life with self agony that God wipes this sin off of your list of deeds so that you could live in the eternal bliss. Isn't this what we also do when we imprison criminals & rehabilitate them so they become functional citizens in their societies?

 

[Famine]

Then you don't really know what repentance means if that's what you concluded. It's not just being sorry for committing a crime but rather praying your entire life with self agony that God wipes this sin off of your list of deeds so that you could live in the eternal bliss.

And the practical difference is?

You're also focusing on who gets in and not the great people who don't because they just didn't believe in this nebulous, capricious deity and its arbitrary rules as interpreted by people.

Remember: an infinite amount of time in torment because 80-years of improving the lives of everyone around you isn't bundled with the right belief from thousands of them (which happens to be the one you were miraculously born into the correct geography to appreciate), but an infinite amount of time in bliss for being a cowardly piece of **** who spent 50 years raping babies but had a deathbed conversion and saw the light. Or, as with our paedophiliac priesthood, praying and raping all life long.

This isn't justice, it's fiction with the intent to brainwash and control. No reasonable person can conclude that this is an entirely fair deal, so the only conclusion is that this deity is evil or unreasonable (or both). At least as written in whichever of the myriad versions of whichever holy book is the right one.

Which reminds me:

I'm sure that there's one true interpretation though. Is it, by any chance, close to your preferred flavour of religion?

Only... they all think that.

All of them.

Isn't this what we also do when we imprison criminals & rehabilitate them so they become functional citizens in their societies?

No.

 

[Exorcet]

No but the argument here is whether God (talking about the one & only who created the universe & us in 6 days) exists or not & whether you believe in Him or not.

Right, which should be treated the same as any other belief.

Once you believe in Him the next phase will be to get to know Him: What's His name? What's He capable of? What's the purpose of the life He created & what's the purpose of our creation?. You'll only get to know Him by opening His book otherwise belief won't be but a word in the air.

Before believing, you should determine if belief makes sense. Even someone who is religious should apply skepticism. Each of the Abrahamic religions has a tempter or deceiver. To accept what you're told on faith only makes you more vulnerable to them. Holy texts aren't convincing. They are vague and outright incorrect in many cases and even if they claim to be of divine origin that shouldn't be taken as truth without testing.

Heaven & Hell (which are the Hereafter & where people will eternally live) are His creation. In order to differentiate the good from the bad, God created a trial & called it Judgment Day. The difference between God's trial & our trials is you can't hire a lawyer & you'll receive a book with everything you've made throughout your lifetime. The ultimate decider of whether you go to Heaven or Hell - regardless of your deeds - is believing in your Creator.

A trial is pointless if god is all knowing, and the pass/fail criteria being belief is nonsensical. Belief isn't what makes a good person, actions are. Then you have the afterlife itself. Why weren't we just sent their to begin with and why does an insignificant finite life decide an eternal fate? Even if what you said was true it's still not an appealing system. I'd rather focus my energy on doing good.

As Allah pointed out in many verses in the Qur’an, one of the many non believers arguments revolve around His ability to resurrect them for judgment.

Examples:

1. Chapter 44, Verses: 8, 35 & 36. In 35 & 36 is the non believers mocking Allah's messengers by telling them to resurrect their forefathers ultimately denying Allah's ability of Resurrection & Judgement Day.

2. Chapter 45, Verses: 24 to 29. The non believers, again, claiming their death is eternal & demanding Allah's messengers to resurrect their forefathers. The non believers arrogance blinds them & when Judgement Day happens Allah responds in verses 31 to 35.

Where exactly is the arrogance in not believing in the afterlife or resurrection? They aren't common experiences, even if you counted claims of their occurrence as true, any encounter with these things would still be extremely rare and unusual. It is unreasonable to expect people to accept such things as true without at least a hefty amount of evidence.

Because your family knows that this life isn't everlasting so they choose to live it like they're sitting at a bus stop waiting for the bus to take them to the Hereafter.
To me this isn't how life should be lived. Yes life is mortal but human beings should strive to win in this life - while abiding by God's orders - & win on Judgement Day.

It probably has a lot to do with religion telling followers to put god before everything else. It is literally "God's orders". It's also funny that you claim that their adherence to their religion is wrong since they would do exactly the same to you for being Muslim. And this goes right back to the problem. There are many many believers in god yet religion is laced with disagreement and conflict. Every believer thinks that they are right and others are misguided. All the beliefs are equally unsupported by evidence yet people hold on to them so strongly that they want to convert people to their ways of thinking.

I'm not going to discuss homosexuals as you already know my stance on that topic. However from a humanitarian point of view, they have every right to live just not rub their homosexuality in everyone's faces just as much as we straights don't shove our straightness down everyone's throats.

What does rubbing it in people's faces entail?

If you want to know why homosexuality became trendy in this day & age you have to read into it & I suggest you start with the book "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" where Zionists explicitly state their intentions of turning the western world into a God-less nation which would ultimately lead to internal conflict & Zionists emerge as the saviours.

Research into homosexuality says otherwise. It is very clearly a natural occurrence and it's not limited to humans. Your book is fiction created by long history of antisemitic sentiment that is itself partially religious in origin. This is just another example of why beliefs can be dangerous. Completely harmless characteristics are being tied to a global conspiracy, that is somehow out in the open yet not being stopped I guess. Can you name anyone specifically involved in this plot? Any events that have resulted directly from it?

And here I'll disagree. I believe religion is good because it not only provides a person with inner peace due to his connection with his Creator, but also gives his life a purpose so that he strives to become a good, law-abiding citizen & do good to mankind in general which will ultimately fall into his stack of good deeds when He meets his Creator.

You just tried to push a source that explains homosexuality as part of a Jewish plot to take over the world. That's not inner peace nor good for mankind.

If by modernising you mean become more tolerant then I am tolerant but not to the point where I see sick stuff & brush it under the carpet.
Realistically speaking we're not the lawmakers and there are too many of us (i.e mankind). The majority of this world's population don't even care to debate your topic of "modernising religion" because they're busy working from dawn to dusk to put food on the table. That's more proof that this life can never be the Utopia you seek it to be.

I didn't say modernize. I said to change. One component of that change should be religion dropping any claims of being about objective truth. Nearly all forms of it care nothing about the truth and we already have science to inform us. I don't understand why it's so hard for religion to operate under the idea that if we were created by a benevolent being, that our senses aren't constantly lying to us or incomplete. Well, besides the whole faith based system that clings to old ideas in favor of adopting new ideas through learning. There are no utopias, or at least none that we've found, and I'm not trying to create one. I'm trying to improve the situation we find ourselves in.

 

[Oreca 1998]

And the practical difference is?

You're also focusing on who gets in and not the great people who don't because they just didn't believe in this nebulous, capricious deity and its arbitrary rules as interpreted by people.

Remember: an infinite amount of time in torment because 80-years of improving the lives of everyone around you isn't bundled with the right belief from thousands of them (which happens to be the one you were miraculously born into the correct geography to appreciate)

You don't get a free pass to Heaven just because you're born to parents who believe in God. You have to educate yourself about your religion, read a correct interpretation (like how I read the one by Ibn-Katheer) & abide by the rules set by your Creator.

God never left out any human and He said in the Qur’an (17:15):
15. Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.
Here's what the Muslim scholar Ibn-AlQayyem has to say:

"The actions of the hearts are more obligatory for the servant than the actions of the limbs. Can a believer be distinguished from a hypocrite except by what is in the heart of each one of them? And servitude of the heart is greater than the servitude of the limbs, and more permanent."

And what this means is no matter how much good deeds a person does, if it wasn't for the Hereafter (which requires a believe in God), then all of it was for nothing because the person never believed in the Hereafter or Judgement Day to begin with.

"And never would We punish until We sent a messenger."
I have delivered the message & it's up to you to accept or leave it.

Or, as with our paedophiliac priesthood, praying and raping all life long.

Don't you think maybe because they're hypocrites lying to God & themselves?

This isn't justice, it's fiction with the intent to brainwash and control. No reasonable person can conclude that this is an entirely fair deal, so the only conclusion is that this deity is evil or unreasonable (or both).

At least as written in whichever of the myriad versions of whichever holy book is the right one.

This happened in Christianity & Judaism because there are different versions of the Bible & Torah.
I'm leaving this topic to a Christian to respond to.

Which reminds me:

I'm only speaking for my religion and while the Qur’an, Bible & Torah have similarities (worshipping the one God, doing good to your neighbours, spread righteousness), we believe the Bible & Torah have been corrupted by the Israelites & the Romans. So no there isn't a shared interpretation for those monotheistic religions' books due to the differences between them.

No.

It's either that or you end their lives. Which brings me back to your reply: "so there ought to be a spectrum of punishments - and rehabilitation if possible and appropriate." You also said paedophilia is a crime of thought. I'm confused do you want them rehabilitated or executed?

Unless you've found a way to bring all paedophiles to a court of justice, it's still God's work to decide what their fate is. If they choose to continue this crime then they're thrown in Hell whether believers or not. Repentance is a lifetime endeavor not just feeling sorry.

 

[Famine]

You have to educate yourself about your religion, read a correct interpretation (like how I read the one by Ibn-Katheer) & abide by the rules set by your Creator.

I'm sure that there's one true interpretation though. Is it, by any chance, close to your preferred flavour of religion?

Only... they all think that.

The fact you're pointing to "corruption" of the Bible and Torah while quoting one specific Sunni's interpretation of your holy book as being the right one is, as if sectarianism doesn't exist in Islam is... well, let's say interesting.

All of them.

And what this means is no matter how much good deeds a person does, if it wasn't for the Hereafter (which requires a believe in God), then all of it was for nothing because the person never believed in the Hereafter or Judgement Day to begin with.

The ultimate decider of whether you go to Heaven or Hell - regardless of your deeds - is believing in your Creator.

Exactly my point. Someone objectively good in their life here on Earth, handed their "book" of deeds throughout their lifetime with nothing but goodness in it, ends in eternal - eternal, which isn't "a very long time" but "for all time" - punishment for not doing all the good they did while accepting the word of one holy book out of thousands which, conveniently for you, happens to be the one interpretation of the guy from where you live.

Meanwhile someone who has objectively done nothing but bad, poisoned the world around them, perpetrated vile acts on children - which often (but not always) causes those children to go on to do the same to other children (and also drives children away from religion; after all, what deity would allow what happened to them to happen?) - and is handed a "book" of deeds throughout their lifetime with nothing but a trail of bodies and damage gets eternal bliss because they happened to accept the word of that same holy book.

Again, if that seems fair to you, there is no way to reason with you. Or your deity. I will gladly have nothing to do with them, because that's just straight up coercive control. Pretty much like a predatory paedophile, only its preferential offending is based on geography rather than attraction.

It's either that or you end their lives.

No. I was disagreeing with your premise that imprisonment/rehabilitation is the same thing as religious repentance.

You also said paedophilia is a crime of thought. I'm confused do you want them rehabilitated or executed?

Neither. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, and not automatically a sex act committed on children. If someone is sexually attracted to children but never acts on it, why would I want them to be punished for it? In any case, they're probably already living with their own torment day by day in having these urges that they know are wrong and consciously stopping themselves from acting - quite without any imaginary threat from a deity. I wouldn't necessarily say that they're a good person, but they sure do beat a lot of bad people, and most of the rest of society wouldn't even know they existed.

If, however, they do act on it, I refer you right back to my previous answer:

It's the actions that matter, and it's something of a spectrum from vicarious acts (such as watching kids a bit too intently in a changing room) to raping multiple children, so there ought to be a spectrum of punishments - and rehabilitation if possible and appropriate.

I don't see why there's any confusion from you here.

 

[Oreca 1998]

The fact you're pointing to "corruption" of the Bible and Torah while quoting one specific Sunni's interpretation of your holy book as being the right one is, as if sectarianism doesn't exist in Islam is... well, let's say interesting.

And your point? I feel like you don't know that sectarianism also exists in Christianity & Judaism.

Even though there are different sects in Judaism, Christianity & Islam, there's good people & bad people.

While sectarianism exists in Islam the book is still one & since it's in Arabic an Arab can easily understand what's written. I found Tafsir Ibn-Katheer good for me as I'm a fan of his other book "The Beginning and the End".

Well you wonder why are there different interpretations of the same book if it's easy to interpret by the reader? Reason is because the Arabic language is probably the most eloquent language & the differences in interpretation are of the "Diversity" type which is the good type (Example: The interpretors diverged regarding the meaning of His saying, Glory be to Him: {The Straight Path}. Some of them said: It is the Qur’an, some of them said: It is Islam, some of them said: It is the Sunnah and the community of Muslims, others said: It is the path of servitude, and a group said: It is obedience to God and His Messenger. There is no contradiction between all these sayings; Because they all referred to one entity, but each of them described it with one of its attributes.).

This has been translated from Arabic so while you might say there's contradiction there really isn't.

"No. I was disagreeing with your premise that imprisonment/rehabilitation is the same thing as religious repentance."

You see rehabilitation from a physical, medical standpoint & while I agree with that, I see religious repentance as a requirement on the same level of importance. Your argument is that science & religion can't come together when they can.
There are systematic reviews concurring the positive effects of Qur’an recitation on the psychological health of patients.

Here you go:

SSPH+ | The Impact of Listening to, Reciting, or Memorizing the Quran on Physical and Mental Health of Muslims: Evidence From Systematic Review

Objectives: Listening to or memorizing the Quran has been suggested to affect the psychosocial health and well-being of Muslims. Muslims who memorized Quran ...

www.ssph-journal.org

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23337214241239219?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed

"why would I want them to be punished for it?"

We're talking about the ones who go on to do it, Famine. Stay on track.

In any case, they're probably already living with their own torment day by day in having these urges that they know are wrong and consciously stopping themselves from acting - quite without any imaginary threat from a deity

As if there was any difference between a priest or an atheist raping a child. The only difference is the first one doesn't believe in a deity while the other believes in a deity but is a hypocrite.
Different beliefs but the result is the fiery pits of Hell.

. I wouldn't necessarily say that they're a good person, but they sure do beat a lot of bad people, and most of the rest of society wouldn't even know they existed.

Since you're an atheist I'd like to know what your criteria for good & bad is, since any action or person isn't really good nor bad unless there's an objective moral foundation behind it?

 

[Famine]

And your point?

That acting like the Qu'ran is the only true book and your preferred interpretation of it is the only true one is no different than the myriad versions of other holy books and sub-divisions of their religions.

They all think that. All of them.

I feel like you don't know that sectarianism also exists in Christianity & Judaism.

Then you'd be wrong:

And since I come from a country where Christian sectarianism has been a significant aspect of daily life for close to half of my life (the first half), laughably so.

While sectarianism exists in Islam the book is still one & since it's in Arabic an Arab can easily understand what's written.

And that prevents misinterpretation... how?

I found Tafsir Ibn-Katheer good for me as I'm a fan of his other book "The Beginning and the End".

Preference is subjective. You say it's the only true interpretation (because of course you do; everyone thinks the interpretation they follow is the true one), which is objective. If it's true because you like it, you're no different than any other believer who believes their interpretation is true because they like it.

Well you wonder why are there different interpretations of the same book if it's easy to interpret by the reader?

Nope.

You see rehabilitation from a physical, medical standpoint

Nope.

Your argument is that science & religion can't come together when they can.

Nope. This would all go a lot better if you stopped making things up and attributing them to me.

We're talking about the ones who go on to do it, Famine. Stay on track.

I am on track. You're being loose with your language - and it looks deliberately so, as if you're trying to catch me out with inconsistency.

You ask me how paedophiles should be punished, and I tell you that it's a thought-crime only and shouldn't be punished. You then directly respond to that by saying "You also said paedophilia is a crime of thought. I'm confused do you want them rehabilitated or executed?". My answer is, again, I don't want either, because someone who thinks about it but doesn't do it is not a danger to anyone.

If you want to talk about people who commit paedophilic offences, then ask about that. Except, you know, I already answered that twice:

It's the actions that matter, and it's something of a spectrum from vicarious acts (such as watching kids a bit too intently in a changing room) to raping multiple children, so there ought to be a spectrum of punishments - and rehabilitation if possible and appropriate.

As if there was any difference between a priest or an atheist raping a child.

Again, I didn't say that there was. Stop making things up.

Different beliefs but the result is the fiery pits of Hell.

Oh no, not fictional consequences!

As established earlier, the atheist cannot repent, but the priest can. You stated that:

The ultimate decider of whether you go to Heaven or Hell - regardless of your deeds - is believing in your Creator.

The repentant paedophile priest thus rapes and prays and rapes and prays, fully believing in the "true" version of religion (yours) and goes to your heaven.

Again, if you think this is fair, there is no way to reason with you.

Since you're an atheist I'd like to know what your criteria for good & bad is, since any action or person isn't really good nor bad unless there's an objective moral foundation behind it?

Sure thing. Check out the Human Rights thread.

If you want a quick summary, you have an objective right to self, as an emergent property of self-consciousness and self-awareness. Anyone breaching that right is objectively immoral, as are you if you breach that right of others (even if you're an obligate post-modern solipsist who believes that only they are objectively real; harming others harms self-projections, harming oneself); understanding that right confers the responsibility of observiing it.

It is a matter of convenience that we extend that right to those not capable of observing it (such as children, developmentally disabled, and those with profound brain injury; there are further reasons why we feed in responsibilities to children as they develop and become more capable of observing rights, and we also use specific ages to do so based on median developmental milestones [which are not universally agreed, but then the law is an opinion] again at convenience) and separate those of us not willing to observe it (criminals) from society until a point at which they do.

Feel free to respond to that in the Human Rights thread.


In this one, feel free to explain how your morality on good vs. evil is better because it comes from what a dude said 700 years ago about what another dude said 700 years earlier that god told him.

After all, the fact you feel you can't be a good person (thus no-one can) without threat of eternal torment/reward of eternal bliss is tied up with the belief in a deity - and what defines a good person in your book (literally) is described by the dude interpreting the dude who says he had a chat with god - which is the topic of this thread.

 

[Liquid]

"The Quoran is in Arabic so Arabs can understand it" seems very exclusionary for the word of god that applies to everyone.

 

[Imari]

(talking about the one & only who created the universe & us in 6 days)

I still think it's wild that ancient people were able to detect and appreciate literary metaphors, but modern people with a modern education can with a straight face say that the universe was created in 6 days.

Did you know that Batman is in fact not real?