«12. . .355356357358359360361. . .564565»
One day,I shall BANJECT RL!!!! research is on going..
I'll be back ... When you least expect it, there I'll be. Don't do heresy.
I'm not religious so how could I "Do heresy"?
BrightonBurg and BRU MkI
Blasphemy it is, then.
BrightonBurg, Beinirham, and BRU MkI
Seeking instruction on how to do heresy, eh? Tsk tsk, so then, you confess your deep aspiration to be a cultist, in pursuit of the depraved path!
This snare of a query will only lead to your doom, turn back. Unless it's too late for that, then I'm sure it can yet be cleansed in the good old way, as always for your own good: burnitate it out! Oh, Trogdor...
Vote here for a larger sample size!
page=poll/p=145259
There is just no way to be non religious but a heretic.
I always assume there is heresy afoot. >:)
Beinirham and IKV Nemesis
I think all religious people are heretics to their holy works.
It's certainly more common and easy for believers to fall into than we tend to realize. All fall short. I would point out, complaining about hypocrisy i The Church is like complaining about fat people at the gym.
Heresy may a strong term for some situations. Setting aside the argument that sin is sin and severity doesn't matter; practically, there might be descrepencites in doctrine and behavior that are fundamentals or technicalities.
As for athiests being outside of possible heresy, one headline I saw suggested that as athiesm itself can be considered a religion, so it could be considered heresy for an athiest to hold beliefs that could be used to defend creationism or existence of a deity. So don't do heresy could generally imply: stay true to the fundamentals and morals of what you believe in/subscribe to, even not believing in anything. I guess agnostics in a true grey area would be exempt though. There seems to be varried opinion out there on whether having a different religion or no religion is heresy in itself, or if it only applies to perversion of doctrine and believers/subjects within a particular religion. I know even under the dogmatic Imperial Creed intended for all humans, the alien is not considered a heretic. So Klingons would be exempt from hersey against that. (Although still likley considered an abomination in the way of manifest destiny.)
Atheism being a religion is nonsense. It has none of the features of a religion.
A religion is a belief system. Atheism is ONE disbelief, namely that there are no gods.
Those who claim Atheism is a religion are doing so to do one of two things A/ keep things they (falsely) equate with Atheism out of schools or B/ Use the presence of those things in school to justify adding their religious "equivalents" (which aren't equivalent) into schools. It is quite popular among those who want to force intelligent design into the science classes and/or force out the theory of evolution and other things that they fear. Mostly this seems to be by evangelical Christians (especially young earth creationists) who correctly see a solid education in science as being armor against them converting the children of other faiths and those lacking faith namely atheists and agnostics.
Here on nation states I've noticed that the more a player claims to be religious the more corrupt and dictatorial his nation and the less rights both civil and political his people have. Oddly enough this seems especially noticeable among those who are American and claim to fervently support the U.S. constitution outside the game.
Whoever wrote that headline is a fool, then. Lack of religious belief is not a religion in and of itself, and to suggest as such strikes me as, to put it very very mildly, abject silliness.
Here is a story of what happens when a church takes over an American public school and religious people of a different denomination fight to keep their kids from being indoctrinated.
What did the school superintendent have to say about the incident? Did he blame those who persecuted them? Of course not.
Yep it was all the fault of those OTHERS who fought for THEIR religious freedom. If they had just let themselves and their kids be indoctrinated into the local faith everything would have been fine. So much for freedom of religion. So much for the Good Samaritan story. Bet those people bitch and moan about how Islam is forced on the people of predominantly Islamic countries and scream about "Sharia Law" when they do just the same about forcing their Baptist law on others given the power and chance to use it.
A link to the actual story. https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/hell-in-little-axe-an-oklahoma-moms-chilling-battle-with-religious-bigotry
Just a note. I have in the past had a "Good Christian" threaten to burn me at the stake. I hadn't even been talking about religion. I had the audacity to say good things and bad things about BOTH the right and left wing political parties in Canada and that just wouldn't do. He declared me to be a gay, atheist, witch and made the threat to burn me alive at the stake. Of course I'm not a witch nor am I gay and I'm agnostic so he was just wrong on every level. But the threat was so very "Christian" of him. He didn't get banned for it because *I* had interceded with the admins to avoid that.
I had another such "Good Christian" threaten to shoot me with a sniper rifle. Why? Because by then I was a moderator on the forums and repeatedly admonished him for breaking the rules. That time the admins banned him before I even saw the message. His minister apparently taught intolerance as the "True Christian Way".
So yes there seems to be a whole lot of heresy among Christians even without mentioning all the pedophile, drug using, gay sex having (like the recent one who removed "demons" from his male parishioners by means of a BJ - not a joke), adulterous, bigoted, tax fraud and rip off artist priests. Very few are Christ like :(
On the topic of religious tolerance. We had a guy join our region and post a few messages about his nation. I questioned him about his declared religious tolerance compared to his nations stats. His "Christian" definition of religious tolerance was that if you were a member of a Christian sect that was REALLY CLOSE to his you were tolerated. Everyone else was to get the hell out of his nation. Didn't seem much like religious tolerance to me of course.
Now my nation is one of the most secular around and therefore has the highest religious tolerance. You can believe whatever you want. You just can't force it into the government/legal system or force it on other people. Businesses have no religion because they aren't people.
I certainly am aware of the common and dispicable trend among those calling themselves Christians or other religions or sects that consider theirs alone orthodox and hold a personal bias that allows/encourages intolerance, bigotry, and even hostility towards those with beliefs other than theirs. I think I have grown away from that more than my nation's policy would suggest, though there is still some wrestling with conviction in beliefs, wanting to spread those, but doing so kindly and respectfully to the beliefs and choice others have.
Within Christianity at least, the hostility you've described is generally contrary to fundimental principles of treating others love, compassion, etc. Further, one of my favorite passages is Romans 14, warns against dividing the Church into rigidly exclusive factions based on technicalities or figure heads, but to be united in Christ, recognize that each is called by their Lord individually, and to respect differences to avoid causing someone else to stumble in their belifs and thus maintain harmony aswell. While that applies, within Christianity, decency still applies to others in general even if their ways are harmful to merit something besides tolerance. Ideally, even as far as treating enemies with love. Which can be hard to live up to, but the principle is right, unlike the coercive assimilative behaviors referenced.
So while heresy as a restriction of religious choice is restrictive of freedom and a hazard, it does have a place against those calling themselves a Christian or other particular religion, but following doctrine that is countrary to it's principles in a way that's moraly wrong, harmful, or simply gives a bad or misrepresented reputation.
I once asked in another forum for a definition of Christian. I kept making them mad by pointing out that by whatever definition they came up with it was always the same. Instead of Christianity being the worlds biggest religion it would be the definer and at most a few dozen fellow believers. Somehow that made them mad even though it was inherent in how THEY defined Christian.
So long as there is true freedom of religion heresy cannot be something punishable. It has no place in a secular legal system or government. It only has a place in a religious tyranny. For to the heretic it is his accusers who are the heretics.
I only wish to serve the Emperor! >:)
I see your point, and BRU MkI explicitly represents a religious tyranny. Beinirham is too but softer. Everything in Warhammer 40000 is blown up to overkill.
As a tangent: Technically, (and now forbidden knowledge) under the Imperial Truth the Emperor intended the Imperium to be a secular government and sought to eradicate religion. But that just wasn't enough, and people wanted, needed, believed, and seemingly witnessed that a deity is infact at work, motivating, protecting, and uniting them. The religious imperial Creed was in, enforced, and widespread to outshine the Imperial Truth which is publicly suppressed. While they sometimes work together, a major role of the Inquisition in the Imperium is actually to keep the Church in check and weed out those who are too fanatical and potentially possessed, but allowing the organization to exist in general due to the benefits it brings.
Returning to topic, for discussion sake, if a secular or poly-religious government recognises freedom to choose a religion but requires citizens to register the religion they identify with or lack there of, and/or if religion is admissable as grounds for accomodation or justification, could there be an interest in prohibiting and penalizing misrepresentation? Someone might claim a religion they dont follow to gain some particular advantage or exemption granted to that religion, or they might cite a religion as justification for something that isnt a tenant of that religion.
Obstacles and considerations for defining and proving that would be the issue. This includes the extent and exclusions of what types of accomodations, exemptions, and justifications might be allowed on religious grounds (generally and case by case), what constitutes a religion and who defines it, how many members as a minimum, how to keep accountability of fair representation and consideration to each religion, how to verify someone follows it or is at least a member of it, within what margin or how broad an umbrella, how are conversions processed and in what timeframe are they recognised, and so on. Drawing such parameters would be complicated, political, and prone to subjectivity and corruption, but a bureaucracy might manage to produce something to work with.
I might as jump in on the RL topic for me? religion? I see it like this,unlike all other animals,the human being is not born to a set of traits,a cat shall be a cat, religion gives the human being a set of rules to live by,this can be used for good,or ill,most of the time,its good,but when goes bad? it really goes bad..
My two cents..
It is also good to see a nice and chatty RMB for once. ^^
/Thumbs up.
I have never had a seafood pot pie. But I am interested.
«12. . .355356357358359360361. . .564565»
Advertisement
