More protests Against The Theocratic Regime in Iran

[Leonardo17]

^Ah, you take ACIM seriously. That helps explain your New Age psychobabble.

And your claim that religious practice benefits or harms only the practitioner is so far beyond wrong that it makes my brain wobble.

Boru

No what you just said is usually said for occult practitioners.
 
What I said is that (assuming that the spiritual phenomenon is real) that phenomenon is an inner phenomenon that can only be know through inner experience. This is mentioned in ACIM. But similar approaches are present in every culture and go back to the beginning of mankind.
 
And religious dictatorships and/or religious extremism misuses this phenomenon. They start with simple things like “Are you aware that you are a spiritual being which is beyond this material reality?” and they take it to “Those who worship this material realm will burn in hell”.
 
I don’t do this second part. I try to stick to “Are you aware that you are a spiritual being which is beyond this material reality?” and I will see it as “not so bad” if I can find a fraction of an answer to this basic question.
 
Thumpalumpagus:
 
I don’t. I mean it’s not the issue here. Even if you are right about how religion started at the very beginning, ordinary people usually just want to live their lives. I’m talking about believers. They want to earn a living, take care of their families, live to an old age if they can… and live and express their (sometimes non-existent) belief systems according to their own decisions about these subjects.
 
No one (not really) wants to be told how to cover or not cover their heads, how many times they need to pray in a day, which version of Islam is the right one and all others are fake.
 
You may be rich, you may be poor. Very cultivated or very ordinary, today everyone agrees that the best approach on spiritual issues is to let people decide for themselves.
 
/which goes in pair with my interpretation of the main religious teachings. But even religious people with less progressive approach will mainly tell you to leave them alone and let them practice their faith in the way they see it fit for them.
 
So logically: Something like the IRI cannot work. A line has been crossed. I think religious people should be more vigilant in not crossing the boundaries that are set to them by other people.
 
I think this should be seen as a big issue in religious thought of any kind.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thumpalumpagus:
 
I don’t. I mean it’s not the issue here. Even if you are right about how religion started at the very beginning, ordinary people usually just want to live their lives. I’m talking about believers. They want to earn a living, take care of their families, live to an old age if they can… and live and express their (sometimes non-existent) belief systems according to their own decisions about these subjects.
 
No one (not really) wants to be told how to cover or not cover their heads, how many times they need to pray in a day, which version of Islam is the right one and all others are fake.
 
You may be rich, you may be poor. Very cultivated or very ordinary, today everyone agrees that the best approach on spiritual issues is to let people decide for themselves.
 
/which goes in pair with my interpretation of the main religious teachings. But even religious people with less progressive approach will mainly tell you to leave them alone and let them practice their faith in the way they see it fit for them.
 
So logically: Something like the IRI cannot work. A line has been crossed. I think religious people should be more vigilant in not crossing the boundaries that are set to them by other people.
 
I think this should be seen as a big issue in religious thought of any kind.

I really just don't care why people adopt superstitions. That includes you. You write "leave them alone", but I'm wanting to be left alone as well, yet we have religious numbnuts of all stripes yammering on about putting their beliefs into laws and driving planes into buildings and so on. Understanding that they don't represent the majority of believers, I'd dearly like to see that majority actually step up and speak out about how people use their faith to justify horrific acts.

It's nice that you have your beliefs. This American/Israeli attack on Iran is less about religion and more about politics and oil. That attack being the topic of this thread, I think your religious mumbo-jumbo would better belong to one of the religious sub-forums, and that was the point of my question. Enshittify another thread in a sub-forum that I already know to avoid is my take.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

today everyone agrees that the best approach on spiritual issues is to let people decide for themselves.

That is absolutely untrue.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

The point of enforced fasting isn't to help your digestive system - it doesn't do any such thing. In the context of empire it has always served a much more practical purpose for rationing and labor. Every useless eater who starves themselves once a year is x more miles crossed by a useful killer in war season my guy.

(there's alot of shit like this about food..and what foods are appropriate... in our various religions and global history - you have to remember food was often centrally organized, taxed, fungible, and very much the basic unit of expansion.)

This, though, takes the cake

But I don’t see spiritual figures of any religion pouring yoghurt on the head of a woman who hasn’t covered her head (for instance).

That's exactly who you see doing that, and what a blessed day it is when it's only yogurt. You think their spirituality is dogshit, fine, so do I, but that doesn't make it not-spirituality because it's dogshit. This is why appealing to the religious sensibilities of assholes rarely works. The cruelty is the point. Their religious sensibility -is- asshole.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In this thread, Leonardo has appointed himself guardian of what is and is not "spirituality". I've gotten grief here and the other forum for describing myself as a "spiritual atheist." I don't mind if others don't understand my POV. I sure don't pick up a gun to change their minds.

[Paleophyte]

Let's have a show of hands -- who gives a shit how Leonardo sees his god?

Do jazz hands count? Noodly appendages?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's have a show of hands -- who gives a shit how Leonardo sees his god?

Do jazz hands count? Noodly appendages?

As long as they can count in 5/4 time.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Let's have a show of hands -- who gives a shit how Leonardo sees his god?

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In this thread, Leonardo has appointed himself guardian of what is and is not "spirituality". I've gotten grief here and the other forum for describing myself as a "spiritual atheist." I don't mind if others don't understand my POV. I sure don't pick up a gun to change their minds.

He's also been at some pains to redefine things like 'populism', 'martyr', and 'religion'. To be as fair as possible, though, it's not just Leo - it's a common trait among people who need to make up their own definitions to defend whack-a-doodle ideas. Make's 'em hard to dialogue with.

For the record, though, I have no problem with spiritual atheism. 'Spiritual, but not religious' is perfectly valid.

Boru

[Ivan Denisovich]

In this thread, Leonardo has appointed himself guardian of what is and is not "spirituality". I've gotten grief here and the other forum for describing myself as a "spiritual atheist." I don't mind if others don't understand my POV. I sure don't pick up a gun to change their minds.

He's also been at some pains to redefine things like 'populism', 'martyr', and 'religion'. To be as fair as possible, though, it's not just Leo - it's a common trait among people who need to make up their own definitions to defend whack-a-doodle ideas. Make's 'em hard to dialogue with.

For the record, though, I have no problem with spiritual atheism. 'Spiritual, but not religious' is perfectly valid.

Boru

Socrates knew that he knew nothing. Leo does not know that he knows nothing.