🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Corfiot

Of course they dont.. The followers of the religion mandate things, the religion itself cant mandate anything, it isnt a person, it cant take actions.

@matrix

@Corfiot

No one says "that beleif is an asshole"... it doesnt even make sense gramatically. We judge a person to be an asshole if they adopt belifs that only an asshole would hold. But the beleif isnt hte asshole.

L:ikewise religions dont mandate anything, they are interpritations. You are choosing to adopt an interpritation that claims **god** mandates something. That isnt the religion mandating it, that is you interpriting gods wishes.

Alternative body parts to use instead of "asshold":
* Dick
* Shit head
* piece of shit
* Butt head
* Shit face
* Poopy head

Feel free to choose :)

@matrix

@louis Or just use an open-source compiler?

@Corfiot

I will concede that most of the current religious beliefs come from some book or a tradition and are interpretations of something that came before. Now and thousands of years ago.

All religions, but yea, its a set of canon with some interpritation attached to it. The interpritation typically evolves from earlier interpritations but not always.

> But numbers do count. Being practical, when it's a dude's interpretation being criticized nobody cares. if it's a million dudes' interpretation you can find yourself cheek to cheek with a suicide bomber with bad teeth smiling at you while pulling a cord.

Numbers do "count" in the sense that it has some relevance to many issues, specifically the sense of peer-pressure it might produce.. I am not saying the numbers dont count, I am saying its harmful to think numbers are what define if something is a religion or not... You have popular interpritations and unpopular ones, thats it, aside from that there isnt much difference except in what effects come from something being popular at all (and yes that may effect if someone is a suicide bomber or not for sure).

> Also, the fact that an asshole is religious and attributes his actions to his religion does two things:
a) it does not absolve him of being an asshole for doing asshole things
b) it does not absolve the religion from pushing people to do asshole things.
>
> So, asshole believer and asshole religion, both

This is where we disagree a bit. Of course we agree on point A, but not B.. Religions cant be an asshole, ir cant push anyone anywhere, it is an interpritation, and either through peer pressure or ones own conviction a person adops that interpritation. If its through peer pressure than the blame is (partly) on the practitioners of the religion, not the religion itself. If it is ones personal conviction then there is no one to blame but the person.

@matrix

@Corfiot

Yes, we do. Though I do think the tangent we find ourselves on is important in its own right.

@matrix

@Corfiot

So its an interpritation that enough people share that someone gave it a name... still an interpritation and aside from being a popular interpritation it is nothing special.. all religions are just interpritations of some set of canon texts, in some cases it is one person, in others its many people, but its all the same thing.

@matrix

@farooqkz

40 and religion is a hobby of mine. I've read most holy texts of Islam, Jeudaism, and Christianity, as well as a few less known religions. I feel it is important to study religions and that religion holds a lot of wisdom.

@Pat @BobKerns @tonic

@Corfiot

There is no difference between a personal interpritation or an official one other than the fact that one has a name and the other doesnt, which is hardly an important distinction.

@matrix

@farooqkz

I have read the Quran about a dozen times at this point, similar to many of the other common holy books of other religions. I think I've "studied" it more than enough to have an opinion.

As for what I refer to an idea, it is not motivated by what will manipulate people the most to agree with me. I say my opinions and I voice them honestly.

@Pat @BobKerns @tonic

@warkittens if thry boot you where woukd thry move your money?

@Corfiot

Well no. Most religions are divided into many different interpritations, each group that exists is sometimes very popular sometines not. You have christianity, which is a faith based on thr bible, thrn you have thousands of interpritations, some are popular enough to have names, some arent. Juat because sometimes people choose the same interpritation doesnt meant its suddenly has some official status.

@matrix

@farooqkz

Its only obvious to you it is hardly obvious that it is thr one and only jnterpritation to the resr of the world.

@Pat @BobKerns @tonic

@farooqkz

Yes and what you jnterprit as the law of islam is different than what other people choose to interprit. Again you dont get a free pass for choosing a vile interpritation over a kind one.

@Pat @BobKerns @tonic

@matrix to point 1, ill doubke check but almost certain that is ot thr case here

2, just because it has multiple levels doesnt make it i correct given the canon

4. Saying "distinct faiths" , particularly when based off the same source material, is just a fancy way if saying you have multiple interpritations.

@farooqkz

And sorry but the whole "someone else does my thinking for me", which is what "its religious not personal" sounds like isnt gonna cut it. You are and will be held accountable **personally** for your religious beleifs, exactly because religious beleives are always personal beleifs.

@Pat @BobKerns @tonic

@farooqkz

No it is a personal beleif.. you choose to pick the interpritation you just described, other Muslims dont, period. So yes its a personal belief that you choose to tell yourself it isnt, nothing more nothing less. all religious beleifs are personal beliefs.

@Pat @BobKerns @tonic

@matrix The problem is that it is VERY hard, next to impossible to assert what hte book is actually telling you to do, which is a very different abstraction layer than simply what the book is describing.

Take the Leviticus 19:19 as a prime example since it seems straightforward but when we poke it a bit more its not...

"“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."

This seems perfectly straightforward, it is telling you what you cant do, it seems like we cant even debate the fact that is saying dont mix fabrics or seeds...

But its not that straightforward.. there are several competitings interpritations all of which have validity...

1) This is simply a long list of laws for a region at the time, a result of the long-windedness of the bible, not a proclemation from god. This is backed up by the suspicious lack of "god said" or any assertion these are rules set down by god .
2) the hebrew gamatria of the text reveals a hidden story (which historians are aware of by the way). The surface text isnt particularly important, the gematrial interitation, the underlying message,is.

3) It is literally telling you whatis and is not allowed (a generally jewish interpritation since this is old testamant).

4) a later set of books considered by only some people to be legit talk about jesus and in those stories they negate much of the rules set down in the old-testimant, so these rules are not enforced by god anymore but they used to be. (this is what most christians think)

The list goes on... There is no "right".. there are just endless interpritations, all valid within the frameowkrs of that particiular "canon" (both oral and written canon)