AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
view the rest of the comments
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?