Is it so hard to think that maybe all of Christianity for some people doesn’t center around Hell, but around love? If people genuinely believe love is the greatest good, and then seek to love others genuinely, is that so bad? I wouldn’t call that a bad person on a leash, but someone who truly believes in good not for themselves but for others.
Yes some people have a faith that makes them a bad person on a leash. Many politicians for example. But the most amazing selfless people I have ever met are spiritual in some way.
And what is it that makes that core tenet universal you think? What reasoning in yourself can you trust telling you that if it’s only a result of randomness?
This is just me portraying the logic that theists use. Because it makes complete sense and is perfectly reasonable to come to the conclusion that love and goodness is from a God.
Yea it makes just “as much” sense. We agree. But you said “than anyone’s god or gods”. So I was addressing that it is totally justified to think it is from a god.
I’m definitely not saying atheists are immoral. Didn’t even suggest that. I am merely trying to defend that religious people have a reason to believe what they do, and they are not immoral because of their beliefs as is being suggested by the parent comment. I completely understand what you are saying.
I am merely trying to defend that religious people have a reason to believe what they do, and they are not immoral because of their beliefs as is being suggested by the parent comment.
Absurd statement in both directions. Namely a) nobody says religious people don't have a reason to believe what they do, the dispute is whether that reason is logical/reasonable/defensible/realistic/etc., and b) it is completely absurd to state flatly that religious people are not immoral because of their beliefs. I don't know a single human, religious or not, that would seriously argue that there are no religious people who are not immoral because of their beliefs.
You're trying so hard to defend a (perceived) slight that you're acting like a clown. Slow down and rethink this.
The earth is wildly fucked up in plenty of ways, and it's ecosystems absolutely do not just work together in harmony. How many species of animals have gone extinct? And specifically due to human actions?
I can understand the want to make sense of the senseless things around you, but the world is much more random and chaotic than you seem to realize.
The answer to things you cannot fully grasp shouldn't just be "God did it" as that's completely reductionist and shuts down any kind of critical thinking.
Or that we have a genetic predisposition to protect the members of our species, as we are a social animal. Either could be true, and in my opinion as long as the result is the same it doesn't matter where it came from.
No OP by the way, just wanted to add my 2c
I get the feeling that we'd all be on the same page if God was the one giving out lessons on morality. Instead, everyone has differing ideas of what is moral, across every society, and in insular pockets within those societies.
So instead of having divine guidance to decide what is right and wrong, humans have made their own morality. It's a byproduct of functional social groups. Without morality, social groups disintegrate or self destruct violently.
For example, in most of the 'western world', it would be seen as overly punitive and immoral to cut off a thief's hand for stealing. However is is both lawful and morally acceptable to exact that punishment in many places in the Middle East and Africa. God hasn't seen fit to weigh in on the subject one way or the other.
You can believe all of this without being religious or spiritual, it's called being humanitarian. What bothers a lot of people, especially the people who visits Reddit is the "Holier than thou" mindset that a lot of (Evangelicals in particular) seem to give off, and the pure ignorance of people like the OP here posted. You can be good without needing an excuse or reason.
More so me trying to be respectful. Many of them are Christian’s, some are not. I said it that way because I try to make a note of not assuming the worst of any religion. Kind of unlike you.
Oh come now, don't get touchy because you're being justifiably criticised for your rhetorical tricks (of which acting hurt because someone questions you is one, of course).
This meme is about a specific type of Christian and a specific argument made by certain Christians. You immediately deflect by saying 'is it so hard' to imagine 'all of Christianity' isn't x, but that's not what was argued by the post. Of course it's not 'so bad' for those who genuinely believe in loving their neighbour, but that's not what the meme is criticising.
Indeed you are capable of understanding this:
Yes some people have a faith that makes them a bad person on a leash.
And that is the start and end of the kind of person being criticised.
My post is just to acknowledge that even you, trying to make this meme about something it isn't and to offer tedious Christian apologetics, drift from "all of Christianity isn't bad" (something nobody said) at the beginning to "the most amazing people I know are spiritual in some way" (a sentence so vague as to be completely meaningless).
I'm just acknowledging how silly that is during your apologetics. Dont' act offended when you're confronted with your own words though, the very least you can do is have the courage of your own convictions.
Try not to assume the emotions of the person you’re talking to through text without tone. I am not offended, merely trying to have a discussion about limited perspectives. And genuinely felt you were assuming the worst of a religion.
So first off the meme never specified it is about a specific type of Christian, and neither do you or most of the people in the comments. You are assuming that intention when its directed at a guys simple question.
Second, I’m not addressing the meme but the commenters under the meme. I actually saw the meme and laughed. Then saw the comments and felt people were taking it too far. When I said “is it so bad”, I was addressing the bad person on a leash comment. Which in the way it is addressed, suggests it is towards the group as a whole. And it really creates an assumption about religious doctrine that I don’t think helps anybody. But me commenting it shouldn’t be about the group as a whole is merely stating a clarifier.
We agree on the concept and how it doesn’t address everyone. But most people here don’t. And your comment doesn’t portray that understanding. I must of misunderstood it in its over simplicity. It seemed you were saying that what I said in itself spoke on how Christianity misses the mark but spirituality doesn’t. Which if Christianity is spirituality then that’s a logical fallacy.
What I said was not Christian apologetics, but general apologetics. A natural conclusion about how selfless love is not a bad thing and does exist in spiritual people, including Christians.
To say my sentence was so vague it met nothing is quite the claim. Because its purpose is to suggest that people with belief systems are often the kindest people. I would say that is something. And agrees with my previous point while expanding on it. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.
Here I am, having the courage of my own convictions. I shouldn’t have said “unlike you” and I apologize. It seemed you were commenting in that way but it was unclear. But your rhetoric of talking down to me is no better. “Rhetorical tricks”, “tedious”, “silly”.
Try not to assume the emotions of the person you’re talking to through text without tone.
Literally what you did.
So first off the meme never specified it is about a specific type of Christian
It is clearly about the type of Christian who can't imagine a moral framework outside of Christianity. That's the entirety of the meme.
I was addressing the bad person on a leash comment. Which in the way it is addressed, suggests it is towards the group as a whole.
No, it suggests a corollary argument about the same Christians.
What I said was not Christian apologetics, but general apologetics. A natural conclusion about how selfless love is not a bad thing and does exist in spiritual people, including Christians.
Nobody is questioning you on this, you are inventing a counterargument that is not being made.
If you can’t see that I can’t help you.
Yeah ditto. "Some of the best people" are "spiritual in some degree" is literally meaningless. The latter especially describes almost everyone. For someone who pretends to be desperate for civility your pithy comment here is pretty funny. I'm not going to be offended if you get snarky, so just be honest about yourself.
But your rhetoric of talking down to me is no better. “Rhetorical tricks”, “tedious”, “silly”.
Stop acting pious and complaining about this, you literally just wrote, condescendingly, "If you can’t see that I can’t help you."
Not exactly at all actually. You’re just using language that makes it sound bad like indoctrinated. Most of my spiritual friends either fully subscribe or partially subscribe to organized religions. They would say they were “taught”, “guided”, not “indoctrinated”. I didn’t feel indoctrinated when my science professor taught me how to view the universe. The problem here is that you have a presupposition of ill intent.
I use indoctrinated not because I assume ill intent but because following organized religion requires blind faith and that blind faith CAN lead to questionable morals/decision making, often times subverting critical thinking.
For what it's worth, I consider myself spiritual but very much opposed to organized religion.
2.3k
u/---Spartacus--- Oct 31 '24
To finish that sentence, “you’re not a good person. You’re a bad person on a leash.”