Religion again

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Meh. Nobody is actually moderating the religion discussions. A handful of users (Anthony Perez9, Bryan King3, Carl Hughes) basically just run wild across the site. There isn't any coherent discussion or meaningful exchange of ideas happening. They just troll everything in the 16 section, and honestly, they would get banned from almost any other sub-forum. Yebo, such moderation and Yebo, such communication.

It's hard to take even the swearing seriously when it's written this poorly.☕

Kevin Rodriguez4 said:In my opinion, the setup actually makes perfect sense on paper. Dividing everything into a general section where people can just chat casually about current events regarding religion, and then having a more "specialized" section for "theology and religious practice" where different denominations can lay out their doctrines and answer specific questions from their own perspective... I think that's a really solid way to go.

The real issue, though, is that it just isn't working in practice because, well, nobody is actually moderating that part of the Forum. It feels like total chaos, and honestly, it’s mostly being caused by just a handful of people (regardless of what they believe). I guess if we just had a few warnings issued here and there, things would settle down. We don't need some ultra-religious moderator acting like a zealot, jumping into every single thread to push a specific agenda—we've already dealt with one of those, haven't we? No thanks! What we really need is just someone normal. Someone who can tell the difference between an insult and a simple statement of fact, or distinguish between actual questioning and just trolling. Most importantly, we need someone with zero tolerance for anyone calling for violence.

I'm with you, especially on the bolded part. Our former moderator Meadow did a killer job—looking back now, it's pretty obvious.
Can't speak for the older mods, though.
Still, this keeps coming up every few weeks and nothing ever changes... maybe there just isn't anyone willing to moderate that PDF, who knows.

coastalfalcon61 said:I guess you could say there isn't really any imposition of a personal narrative happening, provided that we give different interest groups enough space under fair conditions, where they can operate and have discussions relatively freely without being interfered with.

Look, I appreciate the good intentions here, but nothing changes until we get some actual, fair moderation standards in place—and then, more importantly, someone actually follows them consistently... right now, this Theology sub-forum isn't some "safe space," it's just a free-for-all where people write whatever nonsense they want.
It’s not even an issue having a regular debate between people who don't see eye-to-eye—if anything, that's the whole point.
And for the record, I don't view myself as some spokesperson for an "interest group" or some big institution; that's not why I'm on this Forum.

Religion is just part of being human—both as individuals and as a society—just like spirituality is. People shape their views, norms, and goals within those frameworks; you can't just "liberate" yourself from them.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, I appreciate the good intentions here, but nothing changes until we get some actual, fair moderation standards in place—and then, more importantly, someone actually follows them consistently... right now, this Theology sub-forum isn't some "safe space," it's just a free-for-all where people write whatever nonsense they want.
It’s not even an issue having a regular debate between people who don't see eye-to-eye—if anything, that's the whole point.
And for the record, I don't view myself as some spokesperson for an "interest group" or some big institution; that's not why I'm on this Forum.

Religion is just part of being human—both as individuals and as a society—just like spirituality is. People shape their views, norms, and goals within those frameworks; you can't just "liberate" yourself from them.

This is simply incorrect. A total lack of understanding here. People don't define anything. From the moment they are born, religion is forced upon people through baptism and other rituals; national identity is thrust upon them without anyone ever asking for their input, just like religious identity. Choice isn't offered to people. Instead, psychological violence is inflicted upon them from birth so they never actually meet themselves... instead, an identity and a way of thinking—invented by others—are implanted into them. Then, through lies, they are told this is "theirs" because they were brainwashed to believe it. But it isn't theirs. It is imposed through force, without question!

Liberating people from all of this truly is liberation. If people feel uneasy, it’s only because they know nothing else... because they have never met their true selves. These imposed identities are all they know. It's like an addict who can't even remember what it felt like to be sober after twenty years. There may be fears and resistance, but it is fundamentally just and right to return to people their own psyche, their own minds. It is simply right. To free them from what they never chose, but what some gang imposed on them while they were small and helpless and understood nothing. This liberation is, in reality, healing people from the violence that was committed against them.

Just imagine if someone wouldn't let you be your own person... if you couldn't possess your own thoughts or even yourself. That is a horror movie. Instead, you'll be possessed by some religion and an invented God, along with the church and its priests?

You all are completely unaware of the situation and have no idea what you're talking about.

(Not to derail the thread, but manipulating the masses is a specific skill. This skill isn't used solely for this purpose; it's used in politics, even in music. Do you really think music industry executives walk down the street asking people what will be a hit, or which band is popular? No, it is imposed!) These are the tools used to shape the human mind. The war against them is, in truth, the liberation of humanity.

A mob of people showing up to this sub-forum just to flex their collective, quasi-rational superiority isn't going to convince anyone of anything. If anything, it just proves their point further.

The same thing happens in other sub-forums too. Over on the crypto board, the "skeptics" are such a constant headache that they actually had to start a dedicated thread just for them. We could probably use something similar here in the religion section.

I honestly don't get what religious folks would even have to talk about on a religion forum if there weren't any skeptics around to—I guess you could say—poke at them and force some actual critical thinking regarding all this religious stuff.

That’d be an interesting experiment. Too bad people with massive complexes can't control themselves.

Just saying—as an irreligious apateist.

Look, if you’re that desperate to satisfy your curiosity, maybe just head over to the Catholic Forum and find what you're looking for there. 😁

Of course, that assumes you only care about them. A Buddhist could clash with a Catholic just as easily as a skeptic could, and vice versa. At its core, religion—much like politics (and one could argue it essentially *is* a form of politics)—is inherently conflict-driven. You can choose to moderate that friction more strictly or let it run loose, but the only way to truly avoid it is through total ghettoization of every single group, which pretty much defeats the whole purpose.

Linda Wood96 said:I honestly don't get what religious folks would even have to talk about on a religion forum if there weren't any skeptics around to—I guess you could say—poke at them and force some actual critical thinking regarding all this religious stuff.

Look, there are definitely topics where you can actually say something fresh—even from a theology perspective... and especially when looking at religion as a social thing.
It’s not about anyone's personal beliefs—like I've said a dozen times before, "show me your house, just don't go trashing mine."

The real issue is the bullying—not just having different opinions, like analogbear5 pointed out... but that inevitably happens when a sub-forum isn't being moderated properly... sadly.

Religion in these forum debates has basically turned into this toxic substitute for politics—it's become a full-blown "culture war."

William Castillo32 said:This is simply incorrect. A total lack of understanding here. People don't define anything. From the moment they are born, religion is forced upon people through baptism and other rituals; national identity is thrust upon them without anyone ever asking for their input, just like religious identity. Choice isn't offered to people. Instead, psychological violence is inflicted upon them from birth so they never actually meet themselves... instead, an identity and a way of thinking—invented by others—are implanted into them. Then, through lies, they are told this is "theirs" because they were brainwashed to believe it. But it isn't theirs. It is imposed through force, without question!

Liberating people from all of this truly is liberation. If people feel uneasy, it’s only because they know nothing else... because they have never met their true selves. These imposed identities are all they know. It's like an addict who can't even remember what it felt like to be sober after twenty years. There may be fears and resistance, but it is fundamentally just and right to return to people their own psyche, their own minds. It is simply right. To free them from what they never chose, but what some gang imposed on them while they were small and helpless and understood nothing. This liberation is, in reality, healing people from the violence that was committed against them.

Just imagine if someone wouldn't let you be your own person... if you couldn't possess your own thoughts or even yourself. That is a horror movie. Instead, you'll be possessed by some religion and an invented God, along with the church and its priests?

You all are completely unaware of the situation and have no idea what you're talking about.

(Not to derail the thread, but manipulating the masses is a specific skill. This skill isn't used solely for this purpose; it's used in politics, even in music. Do you really think music industry executives walk down the street asking people what will be a hit, or which band is popular? No, it is imposed!) These are the tools used to shape the human mind. The war against them is, in truth, the liberation of humanity.

You always have such a knack for cutting straight to the heart of the matter and laying out exactly what's going on, don't you? It really makes me wonder if the people attacking you just feel like they were somehow "abused" by religion—whether it was forced upon them from the outside or they were lured in by empty promises—and maybe they're still stuck in that painful stage of trying to heal from those old traumas!

I mean, seriously, why on earth would any sane atheist—someone who clearly views God as the absolute bottom of the barrel—ever bother showing up just to insult believers? Is there really any point in all that?

bluemason3 said:Look, if you’re that desperate to satisfy your curiosity, maybe just head over to the Catholic Forum and find what you're looking for there. 😁

Of course, that assumes you only care about them. A Buddhist could clash with a Catholic just as easily as a skeptic could, and vice versa. At its core, religion—much like politics (and one could argue it essentially *is* a form of politics)—is inherently conflict-driven. You can choose to moderate that friction more strictly or let it run loose, but the only way to truly avoid it is through total ghettoization of every single group, which pretty much defeats the whole purpose.

Has there ever been a time when Buddhists, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, or Muslims weren't constantly clashing or getting under each other's skin? Can you even imagine a world where all these different faiths actually got along without any drama or conflict at all?

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, there are definitely topics where you can actually say something fresh—even from a theology perspective... and especially when looking at religion as a social thing.
It’s not about anyone's personal beliefs—like I've said a dozen times before, "show me your house, just don't go trashing mine."

The real issue is the bullying—not just having different opinions, like analogbear5 pointed out... but that inevitably happens when a sub-forum isn't being moderated properly... sadly.

Religion in these forum debates has basically turned into this toxic substitute for politics—it's become a full-blown "culture war."

I was thinking we could start a thread about some social science PDFs, but let's be honest—would those hotheads who claim to be so rational, skeptical, or objective actually be able to hold a decent conversation without diving straight into insults and hate? I mean, if you want to take a truly scientific approach, don't you think you absolutely have to be able to stay objective and unbiased toward the very phenomenon you're discussing?

Honestly, I don't think all these complaints even make sense, especially since the whole vibe and policy of this Forum are pretty much set against religion—though maybe other faiths could find a way in besides Catholicism! It really makes me wonder, why on earth would believers even bother showing up here in the first place?

bluemason3 said:This is a scientifically established fact, and it's pretty hard to claim defamation when you're just disputing something based on the same data.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921675/

The Constitution prohibits firing someone because of their faith, but it doesn't stop you from thinking they're an idiot. That’s not what anti-discrimination laws are for.

Sure, you're allowed to think whatever you want, but discrimination happens when you put someone at a disadvantage compared to others in the exact same situation. So, if you're harassing someone based on their religion—and let's face it, being insulting counts as harassment—then preventing that is exactly what anti-discrimination laws are for!

Let me pull up a specific provision from our anti-discrimination law for you:
Harassment includes any unwanted behavior stemming from the grounds listed in Section 1, Subsection 1 of this Act (which includes religion, among other things!) that aims to, or actually results in, violating a person's dignity by creating a frightening, hostile, degrading, or offensive environment.

The fact that the local administration is playing dumb because this doesn't fit their preferred ideology—even though they'd jump all over it in any other scenario—really just proves my point about discrimination, doesn't it?

bluemason3 said:Look, if you’re that desperate to satisfy your curiosity, maybe just head over to the Catholic Forum and find what you're looking for there. 😁

Of course, that assumes you only care about them. A Buddhist could clash with a Catholic just as easily as a skeptic could, and vice versa. At its core, religion—much like politics (and one could argue it essentially *is* a form of politics)—is inherently conflict-driven. You can choose to moderate that friction more strictly or let it run loose, but the only way to truly avoid it is through total ghettoization of every single group, which pretty much defeats the whole purpose.

The general public isn't hanging out on Catholic forums.

But if every single topic gets boiled down to a pack-mentality pile-on by skeptics, that’s also pointless. That's just mobbing—basically a form of harassment.

What's with this obsession with lecturing people about Religion versus Alternatives? Where does this constant need to play "smartest guy in the room" come from?

Donna Doyle2 said:You always have such a knack for cutting straight to the heart of the matter and laying out exactly what's going on, don't you? It really makes me wonder if the people attacking you just feel like they were somehow "abused" by religion—whether it was forced upon them from the outside or they were lured in by empty promises—and maybe they're still stuck in that painful stage of trying to heal from those old traumas!

I mean, seriously, why on earth would any sane atheist—someone who clearly views God as the absolute bottom of the barrel—ever bother showing up just to insult believers? Is there really any point in all that?

Has there ever been a time when Buddhists, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, or Muslims weren't constantly clashing or getting under each other's skin? Can you even imagine a world where all these different faiths actually got along without any drama or conflict at all?

I was thinking we could start a thread about some social science PDFs, but let's be honest—would those hotheads who claim to be so rational, skeptical, or objective actually be able to hold a decent conversation without diving straight into insults and hate? I mean, if you want to take a truly scientific approach, don't you think you absolutely have to be able to stay objective and unbiased toward the very phenomenon you're discussing?

Honestly, I don't think all these complaints even make sense, especially since the whole vibe and policy of this Forum are pretty much set against religion—though maybe other faiths could find a way in besides Catholicism! It really makes me wonder, why on earth would believers even bother showing up here in the first place?

Even if that were the case, it would still be a minor issue; a problem, yes, but a small one. Things go much deeper than that.

What you’re talking about would only apply if there weren't a single church or religious building in the public square. Not to mention schools and religious education. I mean, if religion is something personal, just as they claim, then it should stay within four walls and not out in the open.

If we want everyone to feel comfortable, then public space must be neutral—free from religion, free from ideologies. That way, everyone in the country can feel at ease, provided the state belongs to all of us and not just a select few. For me, seeing those religious buildings while walking down the street is bothersome; it feels like looking at swastikas. That is how I experience it, because religion has caused even worse things. Wars have been fought because of this, not just because of nations. Then there's the garbage I dealt with in school back in the 90s, when kids would scribble in class directories just to label what you were. All that other Nazi nonsense....

So, it applies to me too, as an atheist and an antitheist, as long as religion is shoved into every pore of society. If they kept it within their own four walls, inside their own homes, fine. But no, they want religion to be a social value, a social upbringing, a social mentality embedded within state policy.... hiring people for better jobs based solely on being Catholic or a devout believer rather than an atheist or someone from the old Yugoslavia era. They won't let us breathe freely like we did in Yugoslavia when religion was controlled so that everyone could breathe...

Therefore, it affects me, and it affects my descendants, who might have to emigrate because of this nonsense and so on.....

Until religion stays within four walls, and until all religious buildings are torn down or removed from public spaces, there is no freedom. Believers wouldn't like it if I had money and built some facility promoting to young people that religion is a psychopathology; similarly, we shouldn't have their churches where they teach against Yugoslavia, against Mexicans, and teach about Thompson and the "Za Dom Spremni" salute—things we've seen on news portals lately, from those recent high school graduates to that guy from the Rijeka region who was a religious instructor, to that bishop from Sisak or wherever else..... and the list goes on.

They simply won't let us breathe, so we will do everything in our power to always talk trash about them everywhere, because they have been suffocating us for 30 years. Besides, there are those among us who are non-nationalistic rather than Americans, and others, etc... all living here for centuries, yet we cannot breathe because of them.... There, hopefully, it's clearer to you now.

And on top of that, there is what they do to the believers themselves, which I already described above.... essentially, there is no freedom until they are removed from society and politics.

analogbear5 said:The general public isn't hanging out on Catholic forums.

But if every single topic gets boiled down to a pack-mentality pile-on by skeptics, that’s also pointless. That's just mobbing—basically a form of harassment.

What's with this obsession with lecturing people about Religion versus Alternatives? Where does this constant need to play "smartest guy in the room" come from?

Go ask the believers yourselves. Why is there such a relentless drive to impose and spread their religion? Look at religious education in schools, or even the history since the early 90s—from forced conversions to people being coerced into changing their names and surnames... all because, apparently, it isn't "popular" to be a Mexican, for instance. Even back in 1990 or 1991, before the first shot was even fired, there were reports on shows like *Latin Alphabet* about how women would lose their jobs just because they were married to Mexicans or Orthodox Mexicans—and yes, some of them were atheists too. This entire chain of negative social phenomena is fueled by religion.

How much is the federal budget? Why is this being taken out of my paycheck? What business does the Catholic Church have with me?

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Meh. Nobody is actually moderating the religion discussions. A handful of users (Anthony Perez9, Bryan King3, Carl Hughes) basically just run wild across the site. There isn't any coherent discussion or meaningful exchange of ideas happening. They just troll everything in the 16 section, and honestly, they would get banned from almost any other sub-forum. Yebo, such moderation and Yebo, such communication.

Just like everything else in life—it’s all in God's hands! So, really, God wants this forum to be exactly what it is right now.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Meh. Nobody is actually moderating the religion discussions. A handful of users (Anthony Perez9, Bryan King3, Carl Hughes) basically just run wild across the site. There isn't any coherent discussion or meaningful exchange of ideas happening. They just troll everything in the 16 section, and honestly, they would get banned from almost any other sub-forum. Yebo, such moderation and Yebo, such communication.

Don't you dare put the Lord's name in your pagan mouth.
A little tip for all you religious fanatics out there:
Go ahead and pray (to whatever god you follow) that He shapes this forum exactly how you want it. (Donate to a church, pay for a mass, or whatever kind of religious circus ritual you're into.)
And? Is it done yet??
If it hasn't happened, then clearly God heard you and decided to make the forum (just like He made everything else in the world) exactly how He wanted it.
Not to your liking??
Well, that just means God wants you to suffer...

The takeaway:
#1. Religion deserves to be turned into a laughingstock.
#2. A strong man will always defend a weak god.

Lisa Jackson7 said:I'm with you, especially on the bolded part. Our former moderator Meadow did a killer job—looking back now, it's pretty obvious.
Can't speak for the older mods, though.
Still, this keeps coming up every few weeks and nothing ever changes... maybe there just isn't anyone willing to moderate that PDF, who knows.

Where did Meadow disappear to? We seriously need to find someone for the Mod team to help bubimir out!

Bryan King3 said:Just like everything else in life—it’s all in God's hands! So, really, God wants this forum to be exactly what it is right now.

Don't you dare put the Lord's name in your pagan mouth.
A little tip for all you religious fanatics out there:
Go ahead and pray (to whatever god you follow) that He shapes this forum exactly how you want it. (Donate to a church, pay for a mass, or whatever kind of religious circus ritual you're into.)
And? Is it done yet??
If it hasn't happened, then clearly God heard you and decided to make the forum (just like He made everything else in the world) exactly how He wanted it.
Not to your liking??
Well, that just means God wants you to suffer...

The takeaway:
#1. Religion deserves to be turned into a laughingstock.
#2. A strong man will always defend a weak god.

😁

Conscience matters deeply. Just as I find it baffling that anyone would name a child Anthony today, it’s the same as naming one Adolf. Sure, Anthony is an old-fashioned name, but damn it, Adolf is also an old name, which is exactly why you don't give it to children. Don't you see?
I posted it over in the thread regarding the Catholic Church and its scandals—a PDF on Religion, including links from various American and North American news outlets reporting on how the church is attempting to resurrect its old ways. They are labeling certain children as "accepting" while targeting the Orthodox Church because they declared those kids saints. And for those who call the convicted war criminal Stepinac "blessed"... that is nothing short of pathetic. 🤣
At this rate, they'll be canonizing Pavelić and Hitler next. What we desperately need here is a thorough de-Nazification and a real confrontation with the past...

Go check that thread; everything you need to see is right there...

Linda Wood96 said:I honestly don't get what religious folks would even have to talk about on a religion forum if there weren't any skeptics around to—I guess you could say—poke at them and force some actual critical thinking regarding all this religious stuff.

They just chant "thank God" and pat each other on the back for being great, simply because they all agree on the same superstitions.

It’s a good thing the moderators aren't as allergic to stating facts as the fanatics are; otherwise, they'd be throwing anyone the believers point at into a bonfire as a witch or a troll.

William Castillo32 said:😁

Conscience matters deeply. Just as I find it baffling that anyone would name a child Anthony today, it’s the same as naming one Adolf. Sure, Anthony is an old-fashioned name, but damn it, Adolf is also an old name, which is exactly why you don't give it to children. Don't you see?
I posted it over in the thread regarding the Catholic Church and its scandals—a PDF on Religion, including links from various American and North American news outlets reporting on how the church is attempting to resurrect its old ways. They are labeling certain children as "accepting" while targeting the Orthodox Church because they declared those kids saints. And for those who call the convicted war criminal Stepinac "blessed"... that is nothing short of pathetic. 🤣
At this rate, they'll be canonizing Pavelić and Hitler next. What we desperately need here is a thorough de-Nazification and a real confrontation with the past...

Go check that thread; everything you need to see is right there...

I think Stepinac was a clueless fool, but calling him a war criminal feels like an exaggeration—at least if we’re just talking about communist show trials. Being convicted by the kangaroo courts of a dictatorship doesn't exactly count for much. He wasn't tried at Nuremberg.

I haven't followed this thread closely, but from what I can see, the debate mostly centers on how passive he might have been toward the Ustaše (was he doing the best he could pragmatically given the circumstances, was he fully informed, or was he quietly turning a blind eye for ideological reasons or out of fear of communism?) and the conversion of Mexicans (did he exploit the situation to encourage conversions, or did he use church institutions to mitigate persecution through pro forma conversions?).
I'm not aware of any serious, well-argued accusations that he directly participated in or incited war crimes. Nor am I aware of the church under his direct control (the Archdiocese of Chicago) being complicit in such crimes, unlike some notorious examples involving Franciscans in Canada (which is a whole different story; those guys were acting independently, and local bishops probably didn't even have control over them, though one wonders how many of those idiots represent the order itself versus systemic involvement).

Anyway, he isn't exactly a role model from my perspective—which is inevitably subjective—being pedantic, hyper-conservative, misogynistic, and so on. But so far, I haven't seen anything to suggest he was a war criminal. As for beatification and holiness, those are internal church matters. Half the people canonized over the centuries probably wouldn't have made the cut today and would be considered far more controversial than Stepinac, like certain Crusaders.

bluemason3 said:I think Stepinac was a clueless fool, but calling him a war criminal feels like an exaggeration—at least if we’re just talking about communist show trials. Being convicted by the kangaroo courts of a dictatorship doesn't exactly count for much. He wasn't tried at Nuremberg.

I haven't followed this thread closely, but from what I can see, the debate mostly centers on how passive he might have been toward the Ustaše (was he doing the best he could pragmatically given the circumstances, was he fully informed, or was he quietly turning a blind eye for ideological reasons or out of fear of communism?) and the conversion of Mexicans (did he exploit the situation to encourage conversions, or did he use church institutions to mitigate persecution through pro forma conversions?).
I'm not aware of any serious, well-argued accusations that he directly participated in or incited war crimes. Nor am I aware of the church under his direct control (the Archdiocese of Chicago) being complicit in such crimes, unlike some notorious examples involving Franciscans in Canada (which is a whole different story; those guys were acting independently, and local bishops probably didn't even have control over them, though one wonders how many of those idiots represent the order itself versus systemic involvement).

Anyway, he isn't exactly a role model from my perspective—which is inevitably subjective—being pedantic, hyper-conservative, misogynistic, and so on. But so far, I haven't seen anything to suggest he was a war criminal. As for beatification and holiness, those are internal church matters. Half the people canonized over the centuries probably wouldn't have made the cut today and would be considered far more controversial than Stepinac, like certain Crusaders.

You know how it goes... The Church is the main ideologue and financier of the Ustashe. He is the top church leader in the NDH and blesses that army... his people commit atrocities and kill in children's camps (there are witnesses).... A partisan show trial???

What about the Hague tribunal, is that a show too? Facing the past is a very difficult psychological thing, especially when the NDH was such a murderous system. And what about the general history of the church and their own crimes?
The guy is a criminal par excellence. Like an SS general who didn't personally kill anyone—BUT once you are a member of a criminal genocidal organization, working for them, for that ideology, you are a criminal.

The partisan courts knew exactly where and who to judge. There was no stalling, just straight to the head. Many of them still face that today.

By the way, the Ustashe weren't even tried at Nuremberg. Why should Westerners have the right to judge while communists don't? These people in the West are even worse than the communists; just look at centuries of slaughter and extermination. They think they'll be objective? Yeah, right.

They didn't even judge the Italians. And only once for a Japanese man when we talk about WWII. But the Germans, only about 40 of the main ones; all the other killers remain free, living out their 90 years. All of that needed to be dealt with...

And if it had gone eye for an eye, child for a child, then 56 million Germans would have ended up in gas chambers because of the total number of victims produced, if we go by eye for an eye. But just dealing with the SS and the majority of the Wehrmacht and those in the NSDAP would have been enough. But no....