A Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, and an atheist walk into a coffee shop...

[Mudhammam]

This also assumes religion is all about holy books, which isn't true. It's more than that to many religious people (and in some cases, holy books don't mean anything to them).

It's true in the case of the Abrahamic religions. The whole point of those faiths is that God has revealed himself in certain persons and/or texts. Those persons/texts are about as extreme as any member of Westboro or ISIS could get. I'd say that doesn't reflect well on any follower, regardless of whether or not they are fully aware, or embrace, the persons and/or texts which are the foundation of their self-identity (and contradictory texts are easily explained by abrogation and other such methods).

[robvalue]

It's weird how part of god's plan is to have lots of people notice how shit the plan is, and to say so. Even religious folk spend a lot of time complaining about all sorts of things that are part of his plan. And this complaining is also part of his plan.

Weird plan.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Basically, what I am seeing is, "They cherry-pick the good stuff, by some dishonest method, but via some fantastical mental gymnastics I have arrived at the conclusion that they're in fact no less authentic in their faith as the sincere ones who actually attempt to follow their warped logic in a consistent manner."

Um, no. You see, there's a difference between faith, doctrine, and practice. You should perhaps look into it?

There is no one clear message about behavior in the three Abrahamic texts -- they are each internally contradictory on those matters. And that means all believers cherry-pick in order to support their own form of faith. This is not me practicing "fantastic mental gymnastics", this is me describing reality as it is. You can take it or leave it, but me, I find it best to deal with reality on its own terms.

 

I'm not saying that these religious people in your lives, or most religious, are by any means bad people.  They're simply either ignorant about what their texts say or willfully deceptive, with themselves or others, about what their most fundamental ideals about reality entail, per the commitments to certain principles which they have embraced in such identities as Jewish/Christian/Muslim (obviously, I'm not talking about ethnic or culture, but religious faith).

[Emphasis added]

What do you think cherry-picking is if not self-deception of a sort?


 

If you're cool with that, then great.  I'm not.

Ain't my circus, ain't my monkeys, so long as they don't shove it down my throat I don't care.

What bothers me a lot more than cherry-picking believers are militant atheists who propagate a stereotype that others then inflict on me.

[Mudhammam]

And it's not as if "cherry-picking" eliminates the bigoted ideas that these respectful believers endorse in their approval, however tacit, of Scripture. You'll often hear these same folk offering all sorts of justification for the genocide and xenophobia in their holy texts, sounded with the usual consolatory note that "God has changed" or "We can't understand his goodness." This idea that the nice Christians and Muslims totally ignore these horrific ideas is rubbish. They accept them, for the most part, and then try to "explain" them.

[Mudhammam]

Basically, what I am seeing is, "They cherry-pick the good stuff, by some dishonest method, but via some fantastical mental gymnastics I have arrived at the conclusion that they're in fact no less authentic in their faith as the sincere ones who actually attempt to follow their warped logic in a consistent manner."

Um, no. You see, there's a difference between faith, doctrine, and practice. You should perhaps look into it?

Oh, so they're "Christian" or "Muslim" in faith but not in practice, or doctrine but not in faith? Or in practice but not in faith or doctrine? I'll just deal with what the texts actually say and let the religious or their apologists fight over who is really living up to the ideals the foundational texts espouse. These ideals seem clear enough to me; that they don't to the nice ones is a problem we all must face.

[Excited Penguin]

Religious people willingly associate themselves with these ideologies. It is therefore perfectly appropriate to assume they agree with their holy books unless and until they tell you otherwise themselves, which more often than not they won't, at least not straightforwardly.

IMO, the apologists in this debate are simply defeatist in their short-sighted pragmatic approach. I believe it is so much more important to be "militant" against these despicable ideologies that have been eating away at society like a cancer for hundreds upon hundreds of years. This we do for the future. This we do for a better world. Stay cowardly silent if you wish and bend the other cheek to proponents of an ideology that wants you dead and tortured for eternity for not agreeing with it if you wish. But don't expect any understanding from me.

[Mudhammam]

The whole "if you're militant against religion and the bullshit its missionaries try to spin, then you must be a big meanie who doesn't see these deceived folk as people" (insert silly remark about how "not all X act as proselytizers" or "the Christians I know don't proselytize") is just dishonest trash, I'm ashamed for those, some of whom I have considered to be among the brightest members here, that seem to be falling for it.

Also, you said that perfectly Excited_Penguin. If you're a humanist, that is, you value the welfare of others, you cannot but be militantly opposed to ideas that *at a minimum* remain effective tools for psychologically terrorizing children, for reasons that are plain to anyone with a brain.

[Mister Agenda]

How is 'the Christians I know don't proselytize' dishonest trash? Are you saying that the people are saying that are lying and the Christians they know DO proselytize, and they KNOW they proselytize?

'The Christians I know don't proselytize, therefore no Christians proselytize' would be stupidly wrong; but it would only be dishonest if the person saying it knew it was stupidly wrong.

Or are you just ranting?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Um, no. You see, there's a difference between faith, doctrine, and practice. You should perhaps look into it?

Oh, so they're "Christian" or "Muslim" in faith but not in practice, or doctrine but not in faith? Or in practice but not in faith or doctrine? I'll just deal with what the texts actually say and let the religious or their apologists fight over who is really living up to the ideals the foundational texts espouse. These ideals seem clear enough to me; that they don't to the nice ones is a problem we all must face.

Then your problem seems to be with the texts, great. No argument there.

Not sure how that fits in with the meme you made.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll address the other posts when I'm on my laptop.