This is the real issue, because any time you say, “This is a problem for Lesbian women” then they can site a specific example of a lesbian woman they know who not only doesn’t have that problem, but proudly declares she hates other gay women who whine about that issue.
It’s very hard to get through to saying, “It’s more complicated than that.”
I understand that it seems like everyone being treated equally means that everyone is treated equally, but explaining cognitive biases takes more than a bumper sticker kind of approach.
I usually am convinced of that. It’s the other person who is trying and failing to convince me otherwise, maybe because they don’t even know it themselves.
Sounds about right. [quote=“jsroberts, post:204, topic:94345”]
The problem is that All Lives Matter can become a rallying cry for a team
[/quote]
Why not co-opt it then? All lives do matter, and I’m sure BLM agrees.
“I kinda sorta know one black guy total, who has never complained to me personally about XYZ, thus black people who complain about XYZ are just whiners”
One notch above:
“XYZ never happened to me, therefore it has never happened to anyone”.
But several notches below:
“My black friends never discuss XYZ in my presence, and I should probably ask myself why that is”
I mean, in my FIL’s case, he really does care about black people, and he has many more black friends than most white people do. He always treats them with respect. If I see him with a guest, they’re generally not white. They were missionaries in Zambia when my wife was a kid, and they fostered a local boy and supported him through his studies and helped him when he got married. That family sees my in-laws as family and my FIL travelled to Zambia to see them. We almost hosted his daughter during her studies until she changed plans, because they are my wife’s family. When they were in Zambia, they were outspoken in their opposition to the racism of other white people who saw black people as beneath them. So he can credibly claim not to be racist, and the claim that ALM is racist and anyone who says it is racist will be dismissed. Stupid Democrats, they just call you bigoted if you disagree with them, without actually knowing your life or putting any effort into being a good person.
The fact is though, he is racist in important ways. You can treat any black person with respect, but see “black people” as inferior. But the label will just get him to switch off, since he can point to these credentials and dismiss the real issue.
That’s what I’ve been saying. Walk your talk, or stop talking. If you do care about all lives, treating individuals you encounter with respect won’t be enough.[quote=“LearnedCoward, post:207, topic:94345”]
One notch above:
“XYZ never happened to me, therefore it has never happened to anyone”.
[/quote]
“Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do.” – Vlad Taltos
Basically, sola scriptura means, no catholic priest can tell you what is and isn’t a sin, or whether you’re going to hell or not. Instead you are to rely on you own close reading of the bible.
Sola Scriptura means scripture alone. And as such means the catholics can’t dictate your status with god.
IIRC it was important when martin luther rejected papal indulgences and pretty much called them false prophecy.
That’s the most core belief to the three churches I grew up in at different times. And it’s really that simple. “If you believe jesus is god, and that he died for your sins, then you can do literally anything, including killing six million jews for no goddamn reason, and you’ll still go to heaven. It doesn’t matter what you do, just that you believe.”
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him.
35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
The good thing about sola scriptura people is, if you can convince them to take the quoted words of Jesus as the highest possible value, Jesus said some really cool stuff.
The bad thing is that they’re rarely biblical scholars, so they’re relying on someone else’s interpretation of someone else’s translation being “the Word of God,” which is literally the exact opposite of what sola scriptura is supposed to mean.
I have many problems with the Catholic Church. However, at least you can’t say that they don’t emphasize the importance of doing good deeds as a part of following Jesus.
Whether any of them (from the congregants up through the priests, all the way to the Pope) live up to that standard is a different question. And while Cool Pope still says some abhorrent things, I do respect him more than his predecessors for shoving that standard into the faces of ordinary Catholics.
Curious. I had always been taught it is not enough to believe in God, but to have a genuine desire to turn from your old path. To put another way ‘the heart that wants Christ cannot want things that Christ would be against.’
IE Someone who genuinely wants to be right with God would not wish to be a murdering adulturous thug that loves money more than their fellow man.
Then again I was raised Baptist (First or Southern I dunno which. To be honest my time in church had been… inconsistant and never really gotten a good chance to have sitdown conversations with the pastor all that much.) and I see no issue with homosexuality. Show kindness and faithfulness in your relationships. The rest is just simantics.
I remember one of the Orthodox rabbis at my school telling me and a bunch of my classmates at the age of 10 that the sofer (scribe) take their jobs so seriously in transcribing the Word Of God that not one Torah scroll has ever been found to have had a mistake!
A few years later, I’m listening to my father talk about the Torah scroll that had been rescued from a documents storage in Europe, cleaned up, reconditioned, and donated in my grandfather’s name, and about how they’ll use scanners to check for mistakes and be able to identify the scroll if it’s ever stolen and held for ransom (a fairly common occurrence). And, apparently, only 18% of all Torah scrolls that they put through the scanner are error-free.
That was eye-opening in the difference between dogma and evidence.
This is why, over the years, I’ve started to appreciate my moderate religious upbringing. My parents and pastors were very consistent: your faith is not enough. Your actions matter. Your sincerity in asking for forgiveness matters. Being a Christian means being one, not just ‘acting like’ one.
When I left the church, I did so without any animosity towards the faith or its followers. Parents and religious mentors, take note: lead the youth wisely and you will always leave the door open.
This is interesting because the Good Samaritan knew that the man who had been beaten and robbed might be part of a trap. The people who beat and robbed him might still be around and might attack anyone who stopped to help. The priest and the Levite knew that as well. But the Good Samaritan didn’t care about danger to his own life, and prioritized the stranger’s safety above his own. It’s not about merely loving your neighbor but about having purely selfless love for any and all humans.
It’s one of the things I have been thinking about a lot recently. It turns out that I am full of contradictions.
I would punch a fascist if I thought my live was in direct danger because of them, yet if half an hour later I saw that they had been stabbed I would call an ambulance and try to stop the bleeding and stabilise them (my first aid qualifications are not up to date but I don’t think that things will have changed that much).
I don’t think any Catholic lives up to the standards of the Church, not even the Pope. Realizing this causes a lot of people a lot of anxiety. Catholic guilt is a very real thing. I for one have stopped caring, because I realize that I not only can’t be perfect, but also shouldn’t be dogmatic. I have an idea of right and wrong, and some of it is in line with Church teaching, other parts not. If I’m true to myself, that’s all I can ask.
Hence, Saint Paul.
IMO religion should be about love of something better, not about fear of something worse.
Also, if you only stop murdering and raping because some book told you you’d be punished if you continued, that doesn’t say much for who you are as a person.
Even though I don’t believe any one religious sect has all the answers, I appreciate honest, sincere attempts at religiosity and spirituality.
This is why I can no longer be a pacifist. I think violent resistance is necessary sometimes, and don’t believe for a second that defending oneself reduces oneself to the level of the attacker.
Therefore, anything God does is good, by definition
God sentences sinners, nonbelievers, and apostates to Hell and an eternity of constant torture.
Therefore, torture is good, as long as the person being tortured is bad enough or not a Christian (or not the right kind of Christian).
I understand the desire for a retentive God to smite your enemies down, but I think religion needs to ditch the concept of Hell is they want their followers to be truly good people.
I wouldn’t make any cracks about a politician’s family. They are completely off limits. I would also never accuse anyone of being in someone else’s pocket, or say anything partisan. “You’re stupid, crazy, racist, hate science, etc” I arguably would say, if “step back and see how such and such a policy doesn’t make sense and would only make others’ lives worse” is equivalent. I probably need a nicer way of saying this, but see nothing wrong with attacking nonsensical and bigoted policy (as opposed to people). More often than not, I use the ridiculous left-wing study approach, because I assume that if someone’s been paid to study something and the study is widely referenced and accepted, then that study is reliable until a comparable study finds fault with its findings
5.Buggre Alle this for a Larke I amme sick to mye Hart of typefetinge. Master Biltonn if no Gentelmann, and Master Scagges now more that a tighte fisted Southwarke Knobbefticke. I telle you, onne a daye laike thif Ennywone withe half an oz of Sense shoulde bee oute in the Suneshain, ane nott Stucke here alle the lielong dale inn thif mowldey olde By-Our-Lady Workefhoppe
*AE@;I*
