Friday, September 24, 2010
9-Page Reply #5
Hello readers and followers. I’ve decided to move on to Demosthenes review of my ‘No Use’ Credo, which I was quick to point out that it is a fun but shallow document though I have no intention of changing it. But Demosthenes and many of you may agree completely with any statements I make about it that are in complete opposition to what it says. I will also point out that some of my lurkers and followers have mentioned that they like the points that Demosthenes brings up, so I’m glad you guys enjoy it. Oh, sorry, guys and girls – for Marco. First, however, a moment to comment on a comment.
My moderator side is coming out in me. On one of my posts about my atheism I went into my wonderfully horrible love-life, which has greatly improved in the last few months, and now especially within the last few days. Marco made some comments about it, relating my hatred towards women when dealing with romantic relationships as racist, telling me I’m in immoral horrible person, and saying how happy he or she was that I was at BYU where I won’t get laid any time soon. I decided to give a decent reply, to which Marco made a rather nasty reply. I didn’t even know about it cause it was automatically put into spam and I ignored it till now. Let me just say this:
That post I made is an angry bitter post, and I clarified myself by replying to the comment. Maybe I should say that I don’t really act like that, but when I wrote the post I certainly felt it. I enjoy that Marco can be so vulgar in his or her reply that the site automatically marked it as spam and that Marco says they are more moral and ethical than religious people and almost all atheists, including me. What I am surprised about is that I am trying to take this seriously. Lastly, as a slap in the face in case Marco reads this, I actually have been in a couple relationships recently, and this latest one is truly amazing and wonderful. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am a pretty decent person, even if my blog sounds hateful sometimes.
So moving on, I did not make it out of the house last night to go to Godless Coffee or the presentation on the genetics of homosexuality. I missed out definitely, and therefore cannot write about it, sorry I let you down noble readers. But that’s that, moving on to the credo. Demosthenes took it one point at a time, I will split up this post and do another over the weekend. I have revised the credo a little, so there may be some differences in order and phrasing. Here goes:
I have no use for a religion that does not practice equality.
Haha, I purposely made this vague. It was a catch-all, not directly towards the LDS church, but women’s rights came to mind when I typed it out. Also the one thing I clarified very quickly a few posts later. The LDS church does not treat women equally, but should we all be treated equally? Depends on what that means, I guess. I think we deserve the same level of happiness from life, to be paid the wages we deserve depending on our actual work, to receive similar opportunities, but I say similar on purpose. Should fire stations lower the physical requirements to be a fire fighter so that more women can be on the force? I don’t think so. But a women who just meets the requirements and is as good as the lowest male on the force obviously should be allowed in. Note, due to genetics I probably wouldn’t even meet the requirements and that’s fine by me. In the LDS church plenty of women do feel equal and are fine, possibly because LDS theology says women generally are better than men. I hope this is enough on the topic. Go back to my old reply on this if you feel I haven’t.
I have no use for a religion that purposely hides information regarding its own history from its members.
Uh, who does have a use for a religion like this? But then, what religion does this? The LDS church certainly doesn’t teach about the Kinderhook plates in Sunday school, but are the apostles purposely going on trying to hide the history? Especially when members print books like Rough Stone Rolling or The Mountain Meadows Massacre. I’ve talked on this before as well and I agree with Demosthenes, you have to be careful where you put the blame in the LDS church. Historians may tweak things, the hierarchy may hide some things, while members may just be ignorant of things, it’s all a mix, and generally done for ‘benevolent’ reasons rather than outright lying.
I have no use for a religion that looks down on women in the work-field and men who stay at home.
To which Demosthenes says, what about women who stay in the home? And he’s right. Please refer back to my first posts on the 9-page rebuke links to cover my ‘feminist’ views. This is also a rather shallow statement since even the LDS church doesn’t teach anything against this and plenty of members are okay with people doing this, though they may find it odd. Atheists shouldn’t just take the extreme that now that you left the church you shouldn’t be a stay at home mom, some men and women want to be stay at home parents and who are we to tell them how to enjoy life?
I have no use for a religion that says homosexuality is a perversion.
This one is literal. But Demosthenes brings up, what if it’s seen as deviant, and then that gets into cultures and norms, which definitely are transient. But I think if a religion says homosexuals are perverts, horny bastards, and that they don’t know what love is, which sounds like some things said with Prop 8, then that religion needs to change.
I have no use for a religion that has leaders in the present who are in complete contradiction to leaders of the past, and yet says that they always speak for God.
Actually, I do have a use for this religion. For a religion like this I automatically get doubtful, I mean, look at Brigham Young and the Adam-God theory. But a religion like this has a chance of progressing and contributing to the world. It is a little immature for me to say that Mormonism was revolutionary in its founding but is stuck back in the 1800s. In some ways it is, but mostly the church evolves, almost as well as the Catholic church has. They both need to change more, but they do try to stick with the growing trends in ethics and morals. I’d have to say I don’t even agree with this statement, lol, just because I think a religion that evolves could help the world become a better place.
This, of course, is a long post already, but I will do a couple more.
I have no use for a religion that says you must pay tithing to avoid being burned when Jesus comes back.
I think you should be suspicious of a religion that says paying them money not only means you won’t burn when Jesus comes back, but that this commandment is the only one with a blessing that promises more rewards than you can receive. However, Demosthenes says it all – “There’s a discussion to be had on this one, but no space to do it justice here. Suffice it to say that tithing allows you to be free of guilt for enjoying 90% of your possessions in the face of abject poverty in Africa.” Well said, lol.
I have no use for a religion that requires you to believe specific things that there is no proof for.
Mormonism is a little unique cause I’ve been finding that a lot of churches don’t really care that much on the specifics of your beliefs, just like how many Catholics don’t really believe in a trinity.
I have no use for a religion that says being ‘intelligent’ and ‘learned’ is a bad thing.
Yes, this is very LDSian, and it isn’t so much that being smart is bad, but being too smart for God, in the sense of pride. Pride probably is not a good thing to nourish in your life. But, also, if you have a cultish religion the best way to keep it going is to avoid secular education and learning, so ….
I have no use for a religion that only has men in the power seats.
Demosthenes agrees, nuff said. I think Marco would probably agree too, but he or she is too busy demonizing me.
That’s probably good enough for now, this actually will take longer than I thought. Maybe I’ll plan on spacing them out more. Still, I like the debate. Night.