This is it entirely, they're bleeding members over stuff like this and their stupid shunning policy. Who knew doctrine designed to piss people off and make them leave your niche religion forever wasn't a good way to retain people in the long-term after your predictions of imminent apocalypse don't come to pass.
Couple that with all the sexual abuse lawsuits and you've got a serious financial squeeze on your hands. They've been selling assets left and right.
Religion has to constantly amend its own rules to walk a delicate balance between control and acceptance. The rules change as society evolves. The JWs decided they can no longer allow sick children to die from treatable problems. At this point in history, allowing that outcome undermines the stabilty of the control structure. It’s the same reason catholic mass isnt given in Latin anymore as it was for your great grandparents. It’s why youre not getting vilified for eating meat on Friday anymore. It’s why most of the bible’s literal content is now ignored. Religious dogma has to be just strict enough to enforce control, but just loose enough not to be rejected outright. It’s a delicate balance. But when the tithes stop flowing in, and the adherents drift away, you can bet your ass the foundational rules will be changed in a hurry.
This is the kind of thing that creates such a rift between current and former members, even though overall it is a good change.
Somewhere there is an ex-Jehova's Witness whose family member died because their religion told them not to accept blood transfusions, only for that rule to change a short time later. How long before the change date did that person die? It must be agonizing for them to see.
A similar type of thing happened in Mormonism recently, with a change to their religious undergarments that now allow women to show more of their shoulders than before. For decades women were accused of looking "slutty" because they were showing too much of their shoulders, only for the religious leaders to now say, "Nevermind, it's fine." But the accusations and righteous lecturing and shouting matches that girls had with their parents don't just go away when the religious leaders say "actually it's OK now." All of that still happened.
And it only further highlights how arbitrary so many of these rules are, which people are then supposed to strictly follow and feel ashamed for not following.
And it only further highlights how arbitrary so many of these rules are, which people are then supposed to strictly follow and feel ashamed for not following.
They made an arbitrary decision not based on science that they preferred deaths over blood transfusions. They've now adjusted their stance, again not based on science, that they allow blood transfusions. Either stance doesn't affect anyone that isn't part of their group (except that they'll increase demand on a scarce blood supply), and if we're going to start pushing changes on them from outside the group I'd start with something other than blood transfusions.
Okay? Do they deserve to die because the religion they were indoctrinated into made an arbitrary decision?
No, but after they hit 18 they're legally adults who have agency. They choose to stay, even if that process involves ignoring outside input or choosing to stay in the group they've been indoctrinated to. Before 18 is a different story and I see the debate on that as being the same debate about trans kids.
You can be upset at their leadership, and think they should leave their cult, but wishing them ill simply because of their religion is a step too far.
They are welcome to repent of their stupidity and join the human race, and I wish that they would!
wishing them ill simply because of their religion is a step too far.
It's not ill will to allow them to face the consequences of actions they took.
So your question is "Why is it good that a religion that a number of people follow have loosened their beliefs to allow at least some of their members to receive better medical care?"
Would you prefer they disallow medical intervention at all?
Sure, but moreso along the lines of this: When mormonism was made up blood transfusions had already been around nearly 200 years. That whole time mormons have been going along happily killing their cult members by denying them access to modern medical care apart from all the other atrocities they visit on their cultists who don't buy the flavor-aid. Given that blood supplies are a scarce resource and the historical contribution rate of mormons is zero, why is it a good thing for a group to arbitrarily decide it's time to start drawing out of the supply without contributing to it? It's not like vaccines where their backwards beliefs affect other people around them; they're only hurting themselves, and every one of them could walk off from their cult any time they wanted.
Would you prefer they disallow medical intervention at all?
OK, but that would effect the bottom line of their massive cash and property holdings, so they won't do that. They'll instead try to negotiate with science up to whatever keeps their coffers full to further their causes of tracking down escaped SA victims and baptising jews who were murdered in the Holocaust.
I think it's a lot more plausible (99%) that some higher up muckety muck in the mormon church or some large donor got caught receiving blood transfusions and the rule change is about that, with a wink and a nudge that no real mormon would actually partake. There's nothing on the scientific front that changed and I doubt there's some mormon council that sits around debating that kind of thing.
Remember that no matter how much you stump for the mormon church they still think of you the worst punishment that they have: you're going to hell.
All variations on christianity are equally worthless. You're free to apologize for them all you want, but they like it better if you put your name on the line to join up officially and start giving them money.
Whoops, better cross out that "other", you're probably not ready to revisit your belief that atheism isn't a religion.
It's literally not. Atheism is lack of belief in any god. There is no code, no scripture, no rituals, no prescribed beliefs. It describes one belief state and nothing else.
A group of people that have shared beliefs that form a group (like this community) so they can feel good about practicing their beliefs together. Your beliefs center around religion being evil, and you ritualistically post memes and articles to your group to reinforce and celebrate that belief.
You also believe that you aren't in a religion, which is kinda funny. All religions have their paradoxical beliefs I suppose.
A group of people that have shared beliefs that form a group (like this community) so they can feel good about practicing their beliefs together.
Most definitions of "religion" include worship of a god or other supernatural beliefs, especially "spiritual" or "divine" ones.
Atheism is lack of belief in any gods. For some people, this feels good. For others, it is scary or existentially uncomfortable. The fact remains "atheism" is not a religion, it is only lack of belief in any god.
Your beliefs center around religion being evil
Not all atheists think religion is evil. I do, for many reasons, including the abuse my christian parents inflicted on me.
and you ritualistically post memes and articles to your group to reinforce and celebrate that belief.
Is every community a religion, then?
You also believe that you aren't in a religion, which is kinda funny. All religions have their paradoxical beliefs I suppose.
I hope I have explained my perspective more thoroughly. I don't believe I am in a religion for the reasons listed above, and your claim that I am paradoxical does not hold up under scrutiny.
We're not a hive mind. We do not have authority. People disbelieve in gods for all kinds of reasons. That disbelief itself does not prescribe any other beliefs or behaviors.
People who pretend god is real are selfishly lying at everyone's expense. That's pretty evil by itself, but the abrahamic faiths in particular depict an abusive, hateful, misogynistic, genocidal, rapey god who condones slavery and gruesome sacrifice.
Did you actually expect to accomplish anything with your comment? Are we supposed to be impressed when the broken clock is right twice a day, but every other hour it is killing people?
Pretending atheism isn't a religion is also lying at everyone's expense. You do this because if you every for a second considered atheism to be a religion, you'd realize it's a religion pretty much entirely devoted towards being bigoted towards other religions.
What are you trying to accomplish with your comment about religion being evil. Oh yeah, it's your core belief isn't it?
Pretending atheism isn't a religion is also lying at everyone's expense.
No, it's an attempt to educate people like you, whose false equivalences are potentially deadly.
You do this because if you every for a second considered atheism to be a religion, you'd realize it's a religion pretty much entirely devoted towards being bigoted towards other religions.
No, it's a lack of belief in any gods. That's all.
I personally take it further. I am antitheist because I have seen the damage that false beliefs can cause. I'm not bigoted towards religions. Religions are bigoted towards reality, the one we actually live in. Religion kills.
What are you trying to accomplish with your comment about religion being evil. Oh yeah, it's your core belief isn't it?
If I had to pick a core belief, it would be "truth is most important". It's wrong to pretend a god exists if there is no evidence for it, whether or not I want it to be true.
43 Comments
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 2d
"In 1978, God changed his mind about black people!" —Elder Price
daychilde@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
Does it mean no worries for the rest of our days?
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
... Kind of.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
You may or may not understand how much I wanted to include that in my comment, but I wanted to give someone else the chance to reply with it :D
darvocet@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 2d
Valthorn@feddit.nu · 22 pts · 2d
So which of the jhw leaders needed a blood transfusion? At least they didn't choose the "rules for thee not for me" path, so that's something.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2d
Could be bottom up. Enough angry parents of sick kids and angry kids of sick parents demanding the church change or they're leaving.
Wouldn't be the first time reform came on the back of departing parishioners
Supervisor194@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
This is it entirely, they're bleeding members over stuff like this and their stupid shunning policy. Who knew doctrine designed to piss people off and make them leave your niche religion forever wasn't a good way to retain people in the long-term after your predictions of imminent apocalypse don't come to pass.
Couple that with all the sexual abuse lawsuits and you've got a serious financial squeeze on your hands. They've been selling assets left and right.
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 2d
When it comes to organized religion, the bar is so incredibly low that this counts as uplifting news
WappleFF27@feddit.online · 18 pts · 2d
I've never stopped being amused that every infallible religion always comes with patch notes.
"Aww, boo boo, you didn't get it right the first time? Aww, are you stupid? Aww...."
skeezix@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
Religion has to constantly amend its own rules to walk a delicate balance between control and acceptance. The rules change as society evolves. The JWs decided they can no longer allow sick children to die from treatable problems. At this point in history, allowing that outcome undermines the stabilty of the control structure. It’s the same reason catholic mass isnt given in Latin anymore as it was for your great grandparents. It’s why youre not getting vilified for eating meat on Friday anymore. It’s why most of the bible’s literal content is now ignored. Religious dogma has to be just strict enough to enforce control, but just loose enough not to be rejected outright. It’s a delicate balance. But when the tithes stop flowing in, and the adherents drift away, you can bet your ass the foundational rules will be changed in a hurry.
tuckerm@feddit.online · 16 pts · 2d
This is the kind of thing that creates such a rift between current and former members, even though overall it is a good change.
Somewhere there is an ex-Jehova's Witness whose family member died because their religion told them not to accept blood transfusions, only for that rule to change a short time later. How long before the change date did that person die? It must be agonizing for them to see.
A similar type of thing happened in Mormonism recently, with a change to their religious undergarments that now allow women to show more of their shoulders than before. For decades women were accused of looking "slutty" because they were showing too much of their shoulders, only for the religious leaders to now say, "Nevermind, it's fine." But the accusations and righteous lecturing and shouting matches that girls had with their parents don't just go away when the religious leaders say "actually it's OK now." All of that still happened.
And it only further highlights how arbitrary so many of these rules are, which people are then supposed to strictly follow and feel ashamed for not following.
historicaldocuments@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Why?
Yes. That's how cults work.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 2d
Because less people will die? What kind of question is this? >.>
historicaldocuments@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 2d
They made an arbitrary decision not based on science that they preferred deaths over blood transfusions. They've now adjusted their stance, again not based on science, that they allow blood transfusions. Either stance doesn't affect anyone that isn't part of their group (except that they'll increase demand on a scarce blood supply), and if we're going to start pushing changes on them from outside the group I'd start with something other than blood transfusions.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 2d
Okay? Do they deserve to die because the religion they were indoctrinated into made an arbitrary decision?
You can be upset at their leadership, and think they should leave their cult, but wishing them ill simply because of their religion is a step too far.
historicaldocuments@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 2d
No, but after they hit 18 they're legally adults who have agency. They choose to stay, even if that process involves ignoring outside input or choosing to stay in the group they've been indoctrinated to. Before 18 is a different story and I see the debate on that as being the same debate about trans kids.
They are welcome to repent of their stupidity and join the human race, and I wish that they would!
It's not ill will to allow them to face the consequences of actions they took.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 2d
Tell me you don’t understand cults without telling me you don’t understand cults.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
So your question is "Why is it good that a religion that a number of people follow have loosened their beliefs to allow at least some of their members to receive better medical care?"
Would you prefer they disallow medical intervention at all?
historicaldocuments@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 2d
Sure, but moreso along the lines of this: When mormonism was made up blood transfusions had already been around nearly 200 years. That whole time mormons have been going along happily killing their cult members by denying them access to modern medical care apart from all the other atrocities they visit on their cultists who don't buy the flavor-aid. Given that blood supplies are a scarce resource and the historical contribution rate of mormons is zero, why is it a good thing for a group to arbitrarily decide it's time to start drawing out of the supply without contributing to it? It's not like vaccines where their backwards beliefs affect other people around them; they're only hurting themselves, and every one of them could walk off from their cult any time they wanted.
OK, but that would effect the bottom line of their massive cash and property holdings, so they won't do that. They'll instead try to negotiate with science up to whatever keeps their coffers full to further their causes of tracking down escaped SA victims and baptising jews who were murdered in the Holocaust.
I think it's a lot more plausible (99%) that some higher up muckety muck in the mormon church or some large donor got caught receiving blood transfusions and the rule change is about that, with a wink and a nudge that no real mormon would actually partake. There's nothing on the scientific front that changed and I doubt there's some mormon council that sits around debating that kind of thing.
Remember that no matter how much you stump for the mormon church they still think of you the worst punishment that they have: you're going to hell.
chunes@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
wtf are you talking about? Mormons have never prohibited blood transfusions or donating blood.
historicaldocuments@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
There's no distinction between lds and mormons to the protestants.
chunes@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
please, have less strong opinions about things you know nothing about. lds and mormon are literally synonyms.
historicaldocuments@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
All variations on christianity are equally worthless. You're free to apologize for them all you want, but they like it better if you put your name on the line to join up officially and start giving them money.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 2 pts · 2d
um who got all wrapped up in the mormon underwear. it has jehovas witnesses for the blood thing. unless mormons did it to. honestly I don't know.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
Youtube version:
Mormon elder decodes Golden Tablets - what he found was TERRIFYING!!!
daychilde@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
The real Youtube version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVJgmp2Tc2s :)
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · -23 pts · 2d
See atheists? People of other beliefs can change.
So how about you reconsidering your belief that
otherreligions are evil?Whoops, better cross out that "other", you're probably not ready to revisit your belief that atheism isn't a religion. Baby steps.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2d
You say some pretty dumb shit, man.
python@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
what
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 8 pts · 2d
Atheism lacks holy texts, rules and rituals, and blind belief, so no.
albbi@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 2d
Atheists don't have no songs.
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
You dropped this /s here I believe. Without it you look intellectually challenged. Quality trolling tho.
KernelTale@programming.dev · 1 pts · 2d
real
historicaldocuments@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
Athiests aren't wrong, though.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
I thought you were being sarcastic, but a quick glance at your posting history shows you're a GREAT person............to block.
Maybe one day you will take an intellectual baby step. I doubt it, but I hope so. but I won't see it because you can bugger off to my block list.
andyburke@fedia.io · 3 pts · 2d
đź‘€
SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 2d
Who said they can't?
It's literally not. Atheism is lack of belief in any god. There is no code, no scripture, no rituals, no prescribed beliefs. It describes one belief state and nothing else.
How do you define "religion"?
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
A group of people that have shared beliefs that form a group (like this community) so they can feel good about practicing their beliefs together. Your beliefs center around religion being evil, and you ritualistically post memes and articles to your group to reinforce and celebrate that belief.
You also believe that you aren't in a religion, which is kinda funny. All religions have their paradoxical beliefs I suppose.
SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 1d
Most definitions of "religion" include worship of a god or other supernatural beliefs, especially "spiritual" or "divine" ones.
Atheism is lack of belief in any gods. For some people, this feels good. For others, it is scary or existentially uncomfortable. The fact remains "atheism" is not a religion, it is only lack of belief in any god.
Not all atheists think religion is evil. I do, for many reasons, including the abuse my christian parents inflicted on me.
Is every community a religion, then?
I hope I have explained my perspective more thoroughly. I don't believe I am in a religion for the reasons listed above, and your claim that I am paradoxical does not hold up under scrutiny.
We're not a hive mind. We do not have authority. People disbelieve in gods for all kinds of reasons. That disbelief itself does not prescribe any other beliefs or behaviors.
SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 2d
People who pretend god is real are selfishly lying at everyone's expense. That's pretty evil by itself, but the abrahamic faiths in particular depict an abusive, hateful, misogynistic, genocidal, rapey god who condones slavery and gruesome sacrifice.
Did you actually expect to accomplish anything with your comment? Are we supposed to be impressed when the broken clock is right twice a day, but every other hour it is killing people?
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 1d
Pretending atheism isn't a religion is also lying at everyone's expense. You do this because if you every for a second considered atheism to be a religion, you'd realize it's a religion pretty much entirely devoted towards being bigoted towards other religions.
What are you trying to accomplish with your comment about religion being evil. Oh yeah, it's your core belief isn't it?
SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 1d
No, it's an attempt to educate people like you, whose false equivalences are potentially deadly.
No, it's a lack of belief in any gods. That's all.
I personally take it further. I am antitheist because I have seen the damage that false beliefs can cause. I'm not bigoted towards religions. Religions are bigoted towards reality, the one we actually live in. Religion kills.
If I had to pick a core belief, it would be "truth is most important". It's wrong to pretend a god exists if there is no evidence for it, whether or not I want it to be true.
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 2d
Congratulations!
You've been tagged with a poop emoji!
Now whenever I see your posts/comments I'll know not to engage because your opinion is shit. Much better than blocking people, IMO.