Should false versions of Christianity or other religions be banned

[Pyrite]

I don't think "I" should decide it.

But people who've read the entire Bible and other Christian texts should decide it.

From what I've seen, many sects based their beliefs on small parts of the Bible which are prone to many interpretations, while conveniently ignoring other parts.

In my opinion, love is central to Christ teachings. Therefore any interpretation of the Bible which ignores this is false.

Which people? Be specific re the qualifications you would require. For instance: what educational degrees in which fields? What professional experiences? In which Christian denominations? And these are simply a few of the many questions attendant upon deciding WHO gets to say, "You're okay" / "You're false, so you're out!"

Saying, "I've read the entire Bible and other Christian texts" shouldn't be sufficient.

Who decides which "beliefs on small parts of the Bible....are prone to many interpretations"?

Who decides whether "love" is being "ignored" in a particular "interpretation of the Bible"?

Who sets the standards for all these criteria you've outlined?

 

[Daisy]

From what I've seen, many sects based their beliefs on small parts of the Bible which are prone to many interpretations, while conveniently ignoring other parts.

Oh, you mean like this?

“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." Matthew 25:31,32

 

[Logician Man]

I don't think "I" should decide it.

But people who've read the entire Bible and other Christian texts should decide it.

From what I've seen, many sects based their beliefs on small parts of the Bible which are prone to many interpretations, while conveniently ignoring other parts.

In my opinion, love is central to Christ teachings. Therefore any interpretation of the Bible which ignores this is false.

I'm an atheist who has "read the entire Bible and other Christian texts."

Does that qualify me to "make those decisions" you speak of regarding various Christian sects/beliefs?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

And I'd be fine with removing their Constitutional protections, and allowing the state to ban them.

I'm not talking about banning books.

 

[pinqy]

What is the basis for opposition to gay marriage if it’s not religion?

It is a bourgeoisie perversion, a sign of Western degeneracy, and contradicts the ideal of the Soviet man. At least those were Stalin’s reasons for criminalizing homosexuality.

Same sex marriage is also illegal in China.

People don’t need religion to be bigots and assholes.

 

[NJBob]

It is a bourgeoisie perversion, a sign of Western degeneracy, and contradicts the ideal of the Soviet man. At least those were Stalin’s reasons for criminalizing homosexuality.

Same sex marriage is also illegal in China.

People don’t need religion to be bigots and assholes.

Or a preconceived notion rooted in a religion based morality.

Agreed, people don’t religion to be assholes, but it helps.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Should false versions of Christianity or other religions be banned?​

Banned, no. Treated as fiction, yes.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Should false versions of Christianity or other religions be banned?​

Banned, no. Treated as fiction, yes.

All versions of religion should be treated as fiction.

 

[noonereal]

Nope. Religions contain teachings which are central to the human condition.

Materialism, on the other hand, is false. And has been demonstrated to be so as far back as the days of Epicurus.

Why Consciousness Shows That Materialism Is False

The key feature that makes mind different from matter is that the mind is “about” something other than itself.

mindmatters.ai

Critical thinking would definitely strike a blow to scientism and materialism.

You'd no longer have some ninny saying that something is true because "science says so", or because that's what they were taught (indoctrinated) to believe in school or whatnot.

If they want to "believe in science", they'll have to discover theories like gravity completely on their own now.

I genuinely feel bad for you.

 

[Rumpelstil]

1 John 4:7-8​

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

As an example, it's clear from the Bible, that one has to be a loving person in order to know God.

Therefore, any sect which claims to be "Christian" but does not practice love is heretical. And I'd be fine with removing their Constitutional protections, and allowing the state to ban them.

If we made it a legal requirement that Christian sects have to preach and practice love, this would allow us to give state protection to those sects, but to ban heretical "Christian" sects which don't practice love.

banning certain religions?
strange idea
not even Afghanistan does that officially

 

[Rambozo]

I genuinely feel bad for you.

Let me know when you're ready to think for yourself, instead of just regurgitating "science says yada yada" as cop-out.

It's not like if "science said" that you have to rape children, you'd do it anyway (or maybe you would), so let's quit with the bullshit here.

 

[Noodlegawd]

1 John 4:7-8​

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

As an example, it's clear from the Bible, that one has to be a loving person in order to know God.

Therefore, any sect which claims to be "Christian" but does not practice love is heretical. And I'd be fine with removing their Constitutional protections, and allowing the state to ban them.

If we made it a legal requirement that Christian sects have to preach and practice love, this would allow us to give state protection to those sects, but to ban heretical "Christian" sects which don't practice love.

Sounds like something Putin would do. Is he a "loving person"?

 

[redbeer]

1 John 4:7-8​

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

As an example, it's clear from the Bible, that one has to be a loving person in order to know God.

Therefore, any sect which claims to be "Christian" but does not practice love is heretical. And I'd be fine with removing their Constitutional protections, and allowing the state to ban them.

If we made it a legal requirement that Christian sects have to preach and practice love, this would allow us to give state protection to those sects, but to ban heretical "Christian" sects which don't practice love.

Let me get this straight......you decide who is practicing love or not, then in your mind non-loving Christians are labeled as heretics and you remove their Constitutional protections and allow states to ban them.

According to your own rules, you are now labeled a heretic, your Constitutional rights will be removed and the state you live will now ban you. Nobody with this kind of power should ever rule over people for it's the antithesis of Jesus the Christ, the height of hypocrisy, and plain ole ridiculous to the rule of 'common sense'.