What do you think is more harmful to the world? Racists, or religious fanatics?

[tabzer]

Three separate topics. Interrelated, but distinct. Culture relates to religion more than government, and government more to religion than culture. It's a trifuckta.

Reminds me of shell companies.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

Reminds me of shell companies.

Isn't that all that Catholicism is?

 

[RedColoredStars]

They're usually the same people.

 

[Xzi]

Tabzer seems to be mixing up faith and religion. Faith you take with you wherever you go, religion is largely institutional and usually requires you submit to a hivemind of sorts. It'd be one thing if all Christians could agree to worship the "golden rule" Christ, but there are thousands of different sects within US Christianity alone precisely because they can't agree to that basic principle. It's no wonder so many tend to foster a cult-like atmosphere over time, either.

 

[tabzer]

Tabzer seems to be mixing up faith and religion. Faith you take with you wherever you go, religion is largely institutional and usually requires you submit to a hivemind of sorts. It'd be one thing if all Christians could agree to worship the "golden rule" Christ, but there are thousands of different sects within US Christianity alone precisely because they can't agree to that basic principle. It's no wonder so many tend to foster a cult-like atmosphere over time, either.

Where did I mention faith? Do you ever wonder why there are a thousand sects of Christianity? Give ya a hint: government, not religion.

Isn't that all that Catholicism is?

No, no. Catholicism was an IP claim in the absence of a pre-existing one

 

[deinonychus71]

I would say they're both pretty bad.
As to which is "worse" depends if they're actively trying to hurt others and have the means to do so.

I think you're forgetting other big contenders though, like extreme capitalists that think healthcare should be handled by for profit organizations, people ruining the planet for short term benefits, certain lobbies etc.
They're indirectly killing a lot of people too.

 

[Xzi]

Where did I mention faith?

When you talked about religion as a part of culture, you meant faith.

Do you ever wonder why there are a thousand sects of Christianity? Give ya a hint: government, not religion.

Nope, they're all tax exempt just the same. They chose to divide themselves, and these divisions run deep within all Abrahamic religions. It's not surprising that so many people want to be the one and only arbiter of the word of god. A whole lot of power comes with that, even if it's only power over a couple dozen people.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

When you talked about religion as a part of culture, you meant faith.


Nope, they're all tax exempt just the same. They chose to divide themselves, and these divisions run deep within all Abrahamic religions. It's not surprising that so many people want to be the one and only arbiter of the word of god. A whole lot of power comes with that, even if it's only power over a couple dozen people.

I'm trying to figure out why the hell we were beefing in the first place. You don't seem like a bad guy.

It's my haircut, isn't it?

 

[tabzer]

When you talked about religion as a part of culture, you meant faith.

No. While there is an overlap between religion and faith being used with the same meaning, I specifically referenced the "religion" of a culture aka "movement" vs the government hijacking of it, like in Roman Catholicism.

Nope, they're all tax exempt just the same. They chose to divide themselves, and these divisions run deep within all Abrahamic religions. It's not surprising that so many people want to be the one and only arbiter of the word of god. A whole lot of power comes with that, even if it's only power over a couple dozen people.

If religions just "chose themselves", then maybe they are deserving of the same rights we'd expect for any sentient lifeform.

 

[Xzi]

I'm trying to figure out why the hell we were beefing in the first place. You don't seem like a bad guy.

It's my haircut, isn't it?

I do believe in our earliest interaction I may have been mixing you up with another username. It was also in reaction to what I perceived as homophobia, but if that wasn't the intention, I apologize.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

I do believe in our earliest interaction I may have been mixing you up with another username. It was also in reaction to what I perceived as homophobia, but if that wasn't the intention, I apologize.

Good form, brother. I accept your unnecessary apology, having the benefit of reaching what I hope is mutual respect.


I think we're cut from the same cloth. We like to argue, and we LIKE to be right, but we aren't so narrow-minded that we can't appreciate a different opinion without it compromising or threatening what we personally believe in. This is how it's supposed to work.

Well met. And, fuck you, I like fancy talk. And the movie 'Hook'.

 

[CMDreamer]

I don't think this is a good way to subcategorize people. You may pretend not to be racist, and hate someone who is, but by doing so, you create a problem out of nothing.

Also, people believe their governments. Does that count as religious fanaticism?

Religion and politics have been interconnected for so many ages (centuries). Religion is the only business all over the world that's not taxed on their activities, and that can be thanked to laws that don't "exist" to be applied on such matters, which are created (or not) by politicians.

During the so called Middle Ages, religion authorities had control over political decissions, and it was not the most productive era of them all in therms of human wellness (only for a very few it was their golden age, guess who may them be).

Both politics and religion has the same goal (or a very simmilar one), control the masses and their lives. The latter in their spiritual life, while the first ones on their more banal life.

Finally, both politicians and religious authorities, live from people's income (in one way or another), and they have the highest wellness in the whole world.

So yes, it might be understood that religious fanatism could be translated/transformed into political fanatism in a blink of an eye.

 

[Xzi]

No. While there is an overlap between religion and faith being used with the same meaning, I specifically referenced the "religion" of a culture aka "movement" vs the government hijacking of it, like in Roman Catholicism.

Oh okay, in the metaphorical sense.

 

[tabzer]

Religion and politics have been interconnected for so many ages (centuries). Religion is the only business all over the world that's not taxed on their activities, and that can be thanked to laws that don't "exist" to be applied on such matters, which are crated (or not) by politicians.

During the so called Middle Ages, religion authorities had control over political decissions, and it was not the most productive era of them all in therms of human wellness (only for a very few it was their golden age, guess who may them be).

Both politics and religion has the same goal (or a very simmilar one), control the masses and their lives. The latter in their spiritual life, while the first ones on their more banal life.

Finally, both politicians and religious authorities, live from people's income (in one way or another), and they have the highestt wellness in the whole world.

So yes, it might be understood that religious fanatism could be translated/transformed into political fanatism in a blink of an eye.

The problem I have in talking to people about religion is that they often confuse "religion" with "religious". Once you do that, you can only spiral down into nihilism. It's a logical conclusion that the religious will befall the religion; so blaming the latter on the primary is mental suicide. There should be a clear delineation between cultural lore and government propagated occultism.

Oh okay, in the metaphorical sense.

No. In the contextual sense that I presented it. You're a metaphor.

 

[CMDreamer]

Can't believe I'm going to defend religion here, but kind of feel I need to.

The depiction of their savior as a specific color I can't really see as racist. It's just them adapting to make their congregation feel more comfortable. There are versions of him as white/black/asian/middle-eastern/etc. The religion adapts to bring in the most number of people.

While there are definitely racist congregations/groups out there that use the bible as an excuse to hate, there are many more who will accept anyone. In the end, racism is antithetical to the goal of religion, which is to spread.

I haven't seen such depictions on i.e. Catholic religion (the most spreaded religion all over the world), most of their holy people is depicted as being white and or blond, even on countries where most people are black or brown skinned. This is just an example ofc, but we can't generalize about religion, because each religion's moves are diferent into the same goal, that's what religious freedom is all about.

If I may, I must add that Catholic religion is the most dirty of them all.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

The most important issue out of all of this, which hits every point of cross-sectionality...

How does everyone feel about a Black Santa?

Oooh, snap. It just got real.

 

[CMDreamer]

The problem I have in talking to people about religion is that they often confuse "religion" with "religious". Once you do that, you can only spiral down into nihilism. It's a logical conclusion that the religious will befall the religion; so blaming the latter on the primary is mental suicide. There should be a clear delineation between cultural lore and government propagated occultism.



No. I the contextual sense that I presented it. You're a metaphor.

They can't exist without each other. Religion as an insitution and religious as whatever that institution represents. If you were to deviate such fact into a small group never seen by "civilized men", and try to separate both religion and religious, then yes, they can be taken as a single entity. There's no confusion at all.

 

[Viri]

Me

 

[KingVamp]

It is unfortunate, but to be fair, I'm sure a good chuck of people would just find another reason to hate people, if they couldn't hide behind religion.

Those who question are called conspiracy theorists.

"Questioning" things in a way, that just happen to help corporations they like and harm people that they don't.

 

[tabzer]

They can't exist without each other. Religion as an insitution and religious as whatever that institution represents. If you were to deviate such fact into a small group never seen by "civilized men", and try to separate both religion and religious, then yes, they can be taken as a single entity. There's no confusion at all.

You don't need to be religious to start a religion. A religion can still be known even if there are no followers.

Also, some "religions" are literally anti-politics.

If you'd rather deviate, can government exist without religion?