4 ms·

What if a person sincerely believes Jesus was gay, and that Muhamad was a pedophile? Were do you draw the line at sincerely held religious beliefs and what you

What if a person sincerely believes Jesus was gay, and that Muhamad was a pedophile? Were do you draw the line at sincerely held religious beliefs and what you think is not a sincere religious belief?

boomboomsubban 6y ago
Why do you care so much about what other people believe? It's like you are trying to justify religious persecution.
- Layke1123 6y ago
  Why do I care if delusional people get help? For the same reason I'm in support of universal healthcare as a human right. Again, if you want to claim something like religious persecution, can you define what it means. I would love a clear and concise definition of what is and isn't a religion. As a side note that many readers might find interesting, delusion as defined in the DSM-5, the book that defines what is and isn't a "mental illness", EXPLICTLY makes an exception for "religious beliefs" when it comes to delusions. I.E., if you believe in Zeus and Thor and claim you pray and worship them, you can can be admitted for delusion because those "religions" aren't considered socio-normal, I.E. no big groups of people actively practice them. It's kind of the idea why cults are considered delusions. Now, you take that same exact logic, but apply it to someone who claims they talk to Jesus or Allah, bam, exemption and it's perfectly normal delusions.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    My simple definition is "harmful actions are bad, not beliefs." What is or isn't religion isn't very important. I wish people didn't hold beliefs I find nonsensical, but they likely feel the same way and any action I try to force on them will not improve anything. It's unfortunate that many are fine forcing things on me, but that doesn't mean I should adopt the practice. >DSM-5 DSM-IV, it was changed in DSM-V.
    - Layke1123 6y ago
      Beliefs can lead to harmful actions though, that is why people can be locked up for "delusions" or "beliefs that can lead to harmful actions" in the first place. Your definition doesn't really address the idea that ideas can be harmful and that we do actually disallow certain beliefs in society. As for your definition of religion, I think it is entirely relevant, as you suggest my ideas on redefining Christianity to include a gay Jesus is offensive to religion. Well, if you are going to claim that, I would challenge why this religious belief is less sacred than the traditional view of Jesus according to Christianity. How do you define religion is definitely relevant. As for the last comment of it being DSM-V, what does that matter when referring to it as DSM-5? As far as I can tell, it is not a meaningful distinction. Do you disagree with the idea that religion has a specific exception in the current DSM when concerning religion?
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        I don't think certain beliefs should be disallowed. I've never heard of a person being arrested just for having a delusion, it may be possible. >gay Jesus is offensive to religion No, its intentionally trying to be offensive to the person you are talking to. Any example of a theological difference works for your argument, yet you kept returning to ones I said we're offensive. The definition you provided was in the DSM-4, the one in 5 is different. I have no opinion on diagnosing delusions.
        Layke1123 6y ago
        Arrested or committed are a very thing line apart. More so when you realize that what is defined to be a delusion versus a religious belief is arbitrary in nature. I think you realize this since you dodge the issue of defining exactly what religion is in the first place as "not relevant". As for the DSM 4 versus DSM 5, please, if the distinction of which document we are using to define delusion has changed, do you mind explain your rational for why the DSM 4 has an explicit exception for religion concerning delusion when compared to how the DSM redefines it?
        6y ago

boomboomsubban 6y ago

Why do you care so much about what other people believe? It's like you are trying to justify religious persecution.

Layke1123 6y ago
Why do I care if delusional people get help? For the same reason I'm in support of universal healthcare as a human right. Again, if you want to claim something like religious persecution, can you define what it means. I would love a clear and concise definition of what is and isn't a religion. As a side note that many readers might find interesting, delusion as defined in the DSM-5, the book that defines what is and isn't a "mental illness", EXPLICTLY makes an exception for "religious beliefs" when it comes to delusions. I.E., if you believe in Zeus and Thor and claim you pray and worship them, you can can be admitted for delusion because those "religions" aren't considered socio-normal, I.E. no big groups of people actively practice them. It's kind of the idea why cults are considered delusions. Now, you take that same exact logic, but apply it to someone who claims they talk to Jesus or Allah, bam, exemption and it's perfectly normal delusions.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  My simple definition is "harmful actions are bad, not beliefs." What is or isn't religion isn't very important. I wish people didn't hold beliefs I find nonsensical, but they likely feel the same way and any action I try to force on them will not improve anything. It's unfortunate that many are fine forcing things on me, but that doesn't mean I should adopt the practice. >DSM-5 DSM-IV, it was changed in DSM-V.
  - Layke1123 6y ago
    Beliefs can lead to harmful actions though, that is why people can be locked up for "delusions" or "beliefs that can lead to harmful actions" in the first place. Your definition doesn't really address the idea that ideas can be harmful and that we do actually disallow certain beliefs in society. As for your definition of religion, I think it is entirely relevant, as you suggest my ideas on redefining Christianity to include a gay Jesus is offensive to religion. Well, if you are going to claim that, I would challenge why this religious belief is less sacred than the traditional view of Jesus according to Christianity. How do you define religion is definitely relevant. As for the last comment of it being DSM-V, what does that matter when referring to it as DSM-5? As far as I can tell, it is not a meaningful distinction. Do you disagree with the idea that religion has a specific exception in the current DSM when concerning religion?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      I don't think certain beliefs should be disallowed. I've never heard of a person being arrested just for having a delusion, it may be possible. >gay Jesus is offensive to religion No, its intentionally trying to be offensive to the person you are talking to. Any example of a theological difference works for your argument, yet you kept returning to ones I said we're offensive. The definition you provided was in the DSM-4, the one in 5 is different. I have no opinion on diagnosing delusions.
      - Layke1123 6y ago
        Arrested or committed are a very thing line apart. More so when you realize that what is defined to be a delusion versus a religious belief is arbitrary in nature. I think you realize this since you dodge the issue of defining exactly what religion is in the first place as "not relevant". As for the DSM 4 versus DSM 5, please, if the distinction of which document we are using to define delusion has changed, do you mind explain your rational for why the DSM 4 has an explicit exception for religion concerning delusion when compared to how the DSM redefines it?
        6y ago