There are no faiths which require denying people health care. Cruel individuals interpret their faith that way, but it’s not the faith responsible for it, it’s the individual.
But my point is that even if you find a truly evil faithful person and show them a long list of data proving that their actions are immoral, you can’t make them stop believing. You don’t have control over it. You’re trying to have vengeance on a belief by checkmating one of its believers and that can’t work; you’re just hurting someone in vengeance.
Does that prevent any of the members from giving the care anyway? You’re blaming the religion, which is a nonintelligent entity. It doesn’t have hands. It doesn’t speak. It can’t actually do anything.
There are people who let their aging grandparent die and cite Johova’s Witness/Christian Science as the reason they did it, but they don’t actually believe. It was just an excuse. It’s always an excuse. The individual does not in any way have to follow what their religion tells them to do. It always comes down to the individual, and is never the religions fault.
This is a good thing. It means the individuals are the ones responsible for the suffering. And they DO have hands that can chained, voices that can be silenced.
The organization has power you are unwilling to admit. Shunning and disfellowship for not blindly following the rules are incredibly powerful tools used against people who have no other community or in some case even exposure to said.
In the end, it is the responsibility of the individual to take actions to save themselves and others, even when there are negative ramifications from their chose group, but that does not absolve the group nor their specific religious affiliation(s).
Cool, and, to return to my original point, hurting innocent believers because you don’t agree with their religion doesn’t make them believe less, and sure as hell doesn’t make you morally superior to them. If I find an innocent Christian and shove an inflammatory Epicurus meme in her face, it doesn’t make me right it makes me an asshole.
That’s the fundamental tenet of faith: belief without, or in contradiction of, proof.
Faith, by definition, cannot be reasoned into, therefore canot be reasoned out of.
The problem is that there a various faiths that require evangelism which harms others or require harm, e.g. denying health care.
There are no faiths which require denying people health care. Cruel individuals interpret their faith that way, but it’s not the faith responsible for it, it’s the individual.
But my point is that even if you find a truly evil faithful person and show them a long list of data proving that their actions are immoral, you can’t make them stop believing. You don’t have control over it. You’re trying to have vengeance on a belief by checkmating one of its believers and that can’t work; you’re just hurting someone in vengeance.
Christian Science and Jehovah’s Witness both absolutely refuse some health care, even for the dying.
This is absolutely not a No True Scotsman scenario, but institutional mandates such as the JW stance on blood transfusions.
Does that prevent any of the members from giving the care anyway? You’re blaming the religion, which is a nonintelligent entity. It doesn’t have hands. It doesn’t speak. It can’t actually do anything.
There are people who let their aging grandparent die and cite Johova’s Witness/Christian Science as the reason they did it, but they don’t actually believe. It was just an excuse. It’s always an excuse. The individual does not in any way have to follow what their religion tells them to do. It always comes down to the individual, and is never the religions fault.
This is a good thing. It means the individuals are the ones responsible for the suffering. And they DO have hands that can chained, voices that can be silenced.
The organization has power you are unwilling to admit. Shunning and disfellowship for not blindly following the rules are incredibly powerful tools used against people who have no other community or in some case even exposure to said.
In the end, it is the responsibility of the individual to take actions to save themselves and others, even when there are negative ramifications from their chose group, but that does not absolve the group nor their specific religious affiliation(s).
Cool, and, to return to my original point, hurting innocent believers because you don’t agree with their religion doesn’t make them believe less, and sure as hell doesn’t make you morally superior to them. If I find an innocent Christian and shove an inflammatory Epicurus meme in her face, it doesn’t make me right it makes me an asshole.
Isn’t that impossible by definition? Original sin ‘n’ all?
I think we’re actually aggressively agreeing with eachother.
i’m dtf
DTF?
searches interwebs
Roger.
I’m also Roger, good to meet you, top or bottom?