insulting religions

[IneedAgoldenNickname]

Hi, I've never posted on this topic before, I tend to hang out in aibu, but don't want to start a bun fight!

So, I am a liberal Christian. I firmly believe that everyone had to right to believe (or not) whatever they want, provided that belief doesn't hurt anyone else.

Earlier today I posted a lighthearted status on Facebook, which had led to me being called mindless, stupid, stuck up, thinking I'm better than everyone else. I've been told God is a c**t (sorry I hate that word so much I won't type it) and that the Bible is only God for loo roll!

I'm just really angry that people think its ok to insult me/my religion like that, when I haven't once preached or insulted others.

Obviously the easy solution would be to delete them off of Facebook, but they are people I get on with other wise.

Don't really know the point of my post, just hoping id feel better writing it down.

@slug that's really interesting.

I did a biology degree and though a lot of people went in as atheists and left as atheists, many became less tub thumping as they actually looked at the complexity of 'creation' (I use the term broadly here) and were quite cross with the 'oh well its evolution innit' nu-atheist set.

Going back a loong way now to Ellie - yes, I too work...

Just explain in simple, logical terms why what I said was personal, and what you said wasn't.

Otherwise, all, there's so much to say and no time to say it. Would love to take up the question of what it means to be RC. I am actually willing to bear any insults you wish to level at the church, provided you recognise how bigoted you sound. We RCs of the Isles are pretty used to that. Note that by 'insults' I do not mean rational disagreements.

....though you may also want to bear in mind that you might be wasting your time, since I probably agree with you anyway but am not willing to leave the church because of it. I'm not best placed to defend the church's opposition to gay marriage, though, since I confessedly don't understand it and find it ridiculous. I could have a try on contraception... though even then...

What you might want to try is persuading me and other liberals to leave the church over the issues that seem to you so very important, so much more important than what to me are the fundamentals. Or you could ask us why we don't leave.

Keeping to the latest topic, surely its alleged usefulness as a means of social control has no bearing on whether religion is true or not? Paranoid fear of marijuana might be useful in encouraging alcohol consumption and keeping teens off the streets - doesn't mean it's founded in fact. Conversely, campaigns to improve public health are often founded in fact and are socially useful as well.

sieglinde Your position strikes me as being akin to someone who joins the BNP, whilst saying they don't understand racism. Like a vegetarian who works in an abattoir. Your actions are not consistent with your words. You're being hypocritical.

This is no big deal. I'm a hypocrite. I say I care about the rain forests, but I carry on buying palm oil and soya. I care about the rain forests, but not that much. You care about equality for gays and women, but not that much. Not enough to sacrifice your RC social network.

wish there was an emoticon for ROTFL. I am the world's LEAST parish person. My family is not RC, and I don't have an RC social network, I'm afraid; would you like to go for double or quits?

I'm not being especially hypocritical, I think. What you mean is that for you gay marriage is more important than everything else. Sorry, but no. One of three things will happen; the RC church will change its mind, or I will change my mind, or the two of us will agree to disagree.

Naievely perhaps, I didnt realise that religions were used as social control.

I am a Methodist, though I hate that term really. I am a Christian and choose to be a member of the Methodist Church. Quite frankly, if the local one were to close, I am more likely to start attending the next nearest which is Anglican, than attend the next nearest Methodist place.
Nothing against Methodism, just that I care far more about truth [as I see the truth, [which is the truth ]] than which denomination speaks it.

I dont think the Methodist church has much if any social control at all in this country.
Others may be able to persuade me otherwise on this particular point.

I think Methodists and methodism is seen as religiously low in religious circles.

amillion - no, methodism isn't particularly control-freaky. But some religions are/have been very much about social control - most often of women but also of 'lower orders' - varying according to when and where you're talking about. To take an extreme but current example, the case ofMalala Yousafzai - punished by the Taleban for the heinous crime of ' "promoting secularism" by championing girls' education'.

Oh - and just to be clear, since on these threads people sometimes get the wrong idea - I don't in any way blame other religious groups for the outrages of the Taleban, my assumption is that Malala is herself a Muslim.

JotheHot, what you're not getting is that gay marriage and so forth is not the deal-breaker if you are a Christian - the death and resurrection of Christ is. That is what is at the centre of Christian belief.

Re The Selfish Gene: according to the summary on Wikipedia (which, given that it can be edited by anybody, cannot be taken as an impartial summing up of the debate), 'most modern evolutionary biologists [ie a particular field within biology] accept that the idea is consistent with many processes in evolution [that doesn't mean that they accept that there are no other possible explanations, or that it has all the explanatory power claimed for it]. However, the view that selection on other levels ... seldom opposes selection on genes is more controversial.' I do not think that suggests that that the book has been uncontroversial in the scientific community.

There are several problems with the 'scientific investigations of the role of religion in society'. One is that it treats 'religion' as a unitary, unchanging phenomenon when in fact it is is a rich, heterogeneous and historically complex phenomenon about which it is impossible to make generalisations which do not collapse when confronted with specific cases. Secondly, it ignores the content of religious beliefs and practices, without which they are meaningless. Thirdly, by discounting functionalist explanations based on culture and history, it reduces the rich complexity of human responses to the great issues of life and death to a shallow caricature based on the limited metaphors of genetics.

The main churches in the UK have lost their grip on the populace. That's why you get religion-lite stuff going on all the time. Women vicars?? Debates on gays in church and gay marriage?? These would not be entertained in countries where religion had a stronger foot-hold.

I did a biology degree and though a lot of people went in as atheists and left as atheists, many became less tub thumping as they actually looked at the complexity of 'creation' (I use the term broadly here) and were quite cross with the 'oh well its evolution innit' nu-atheist set

I'm laughing at this one. I have only met a handful of biologists who would be cross at 'it's all evolution innit'...the ones that didn't understand the theory to begin with.

(well obviously its not all evolution, some of it is abiogenesis )

(pedant)

what you're not getting is that gay marriage and so forth is not the deal-breaker if you are a Christian.

Really no. I fully, totally, 100% get it that equality for gays (and women) is not that important to most christians.

LeBFG, can you explain further the first paragraph of your 18.40pm post please?
I am not sure I understand it properly.
Surely, for instance, these things are discussed thoroughly in Italy for example?

amillion - I think Italy is actually a secular state and its not so much in the grip of the RC church as you may imagine. LeBGF was probably thinking of non-european countries.

I don't think, Grimma that theology is the study of whether or not god exists. It's about the "nature" of God - therefore presupposing the existence of he/she/it. Most degrees now are Theology & Religion, or & Religious Studies. I disagree with er, your disagreement with me. I think. Sort of .

It's about the "nature" of God - therefore presupposing the existence of he/she/it.

Not necessarily - any more than students of English Literature need to believe that fictional characters actually exist in order to analyze them (and thereby sometimes learn more about actual human nature)

I am actually willing to bear any insults you wish to level at the church, provided you recognise how bigoted you sound

Wonderful. Quote of the day!

So, if anyone wants to discuss the RC church they can't mention:

• the active & continual cover up for paedophiles
• the deliberate lying to vulnerable Africans about condoms
• telling gay teens that they are "disordered", prompting suicide in more than one case
• excommunicating raped children for having life saving abortions

etc....

Objecting to, or even raising these issues would make me a bigot, right?

And, just so you know, I was born into an Irish RC family. None of my wider family (some of who are still practicing Catholics) condone any of the above so I'm not inclined to believe all do. But, according to you, you ARE the Catholic Church - so it seems that you're the person to talk to.

I can't be bothered right now to scroll back to what you said several pages ago, but I will later & address the question you've asked me.

Ellie, you know the difference betweeen critique, argument and insult, don't you? Might help disentangle your post if you apply these categories to the various issues you raise and your respones to them.

I don't agree with you, Grimma & I think everyone actually knows what theology means. Word semantics bore me. Studying the "nature" of god is not the same as studying the "nature" of Fitzwilliam Darcy. Just isn't.

The control-aspect of religion is a well-known and discussed topic. That's their raison d'etre amillionyears (sure you need me to say this?).

?Religion is just mind control.?

How do you convince someone to risk their life in war? Eternity in hell.
How do you convince people to 'donate' to the church? Allow them to pay their way out of pergatory.

I could go on, but this is beyond the scope of this thread.

Ellie, I'm a bit lost as to your point re. the definition (or not, if words bore you) of theoolgy. What are you getting at?

Do you count Methodists, baptists, and Salvationarmyists as trying to control the populace?

'oh well its evolution innit'

I'm not suggesting thaty hey are denying evolution. It is evolution innit!

It's just the overly simplistic 'evolution' that is promoted as a single theory by a single man (Darwin) by a lot of comediens, commentators etc. 'Cos, hey, we can't expect people to really understand it can we', attitude.

The number of time I have heard the works of Gregor Mendle attributed to Darwin...... Grrr.

In fact I think it happened on a thread the other day on MN! That poster was duley rebuked though tbf.