Catholic Outrage

[Bouncelot]

Interesting point of view. I guess you consider the collapse of Communism in the Eastern Bloc to be a backwards move for society - after all, it led to a massive resurgence in religion.

Politics and religon.

Ah yes, when the two get combined, the politics tends to take over from the religion. Doesn't invalidate my point, though.

You got any actual evidence for that claim? Because the only societies that are becoming less religious are western ones, and the only other examples of countries that have had any significant trends towards non-religious beliefs are communist dictatorships.

Which is pretty muc what I said. western education leads ppl away from Religon as education allows ppl to think for themselves.
You even agree with that.

Um, no. Western societies are secular, but I don't think that the reason is that we're thinking for ourselves when nobody else is. History is full of swings and roundabouts when it comes to belief and nonbelief. There have been plenty of times in Western history where the practice of Christianity across a society has been pretty much nominal, and then society has become more Christianised, and then it swings away from those values, and so on. There's no real reason to assume that the current "godless" phase will last forever.

Not relevant to your claim that religion exists only to control the masses. I can quote hundreds of examples of people whose faith has motivated them to help others. Sure, there are other motivations for doing that, but to deny that Religion motivates people to good works is just plain lying.

And it motivates thousands towards death.
Where as I can just do good regardless.
Pointless.

Hm, the existence of a flipside to religion invalidates everything that's good about it, then? Politics causes many more deaths than religion, yet I don't see you condemning politics as pointless.

Which wasn't what we were discussing in this thread so far, was it? I wasn't saying that Christianity was the only religion that motivated people to do good, only using a specifically Christian example from something I happened to be reading when the issue came up.

Point is, motivation via religon is control by cult, if you cant be good without religon, your not thinking for yourself.
Personaly I think if there was a god he probaly despairs of all religons.
They motivate and controll in a way thats counter productive.

Sorry, but motivation via religion does NOT mean you just do what you're told by a religious leader. I can think of numerous examples that are well-known amongst Christians of people whose religion motivated them to do the opposite of what their religious leaders were telling them. The Protestant missionary movement of the 19th Century was started by people who were told "if God wants to save the pagans, He'll do it Himself", yet they still went to the other side of the world to preach the gospel. Of course there are religious groups who do control in a nasty way, but I don't think that they are representative.

Stop press. Impy proclaims himself morally superior to two billion people, almost all of whom he has never met and knows nothing about.

yes because they are religous.

OK, that tells us exactly where you're coming from on the issue.

More seriously, do you really think that your life has had more of a positive impact on the worlld than the actions of people like Mother Theresa (I'm only using her as an example because she's a well known example of someone whose religious faith has motivated them to devote their whole life to caring for others)

Your idea is flawed.
Mother T saved ppl not religon.

Are you trying to suggest, and this is funnier, that she wouldnt have saved anyone without religon?

Her whole motivation was religious. If she hadn't been motivated by her Christian faith then she wouldn't have ever gone to Calcutta to help the poor. Or are you saying that her motivation was completely different to the one she consistently preached and talked about for her entire life?

Make that "some guy writes a book which draws heavily on his own experience of what it's writing about, therefore it's as true as any first-hand account can be".

That makes you gullable beyond belife.

Sorry, but believing that someone is writing a book from his own experiences is gullible?! In case you've misinterpreted what I said, the book in question is not a fictional work, it's a book about grace, and the author illustrates his point with examples from his own life. He's very clearly writing from his own experiences. Why does believing this make me somehow gullible?

Ill write a book "I am god" - do u belive me to?

Does your book draw on personal stories with a definite ring of truth about them? Does it nicely fit with the dozen other books you've written that explore various issues based on experiences from your own life and which paint exactly the same picture about your life as this one does (even though your life isn't the focus of the book)? Do you get ringing endorsements of your book from plenty of people who should know the subject you're writing about?

Hey, its most notable proponents all seem to have been deeply religious people, so maybe there's a correlation there? I'm not claiming that it's only a religious idea, but that many people who use nonviolent methods of protest are motivated to do so by their religious beliefs.

ppl can do good without religon, they can be motivated without religon.

So instead of trying to answer my point, you're ignoring it. Religious beliefs have motivated many people to nonviolent methods of protest as opposed to violent ones. Why, then, do you persist in thinking of the impact of religion as being 200% negative?

do me a lil experiment, drop religon for 2 mins, can u not do any good without it? are you incapable, is there somthing wrong with your brain that u cant think of right and wrong yourself?

Well, I could, but then my morality would just become whatever I said it was. If I thought murder was OK, there'd be no way you could convince me that my morality was misplaced because it's all subjective. I could twist right and wrong to whatever I wanted it to be, make all the exceptions I wanted for my own conscience, and think of others as immoral for not living up to whatever moral standards I set.

Do you become evil and start killing, can u not help someone in pain, is all of this impposible without religon?

Try at least to argue against what I've been saying. Of course you can do that without religion, but that doesn't mean that religion is bad, or that it doesn't help a lot of people to do that both better and more often than they would have done without their religious fatih.

I dont need god, I help ppl everyday, and i dont confuse it with religion, I just know whats right and wrong.

How do you know what's right and what's wrong? What if I disagree with your definitions of right and wrong? What if the rest of society disagrees with them?

Religion only controlls you, and you dont need it, your so confused you cant see that you can live your life, pure and free, helping others without the need of a book. you are living your life by a book, I can do it without.
I feel sorry that you cant think for yourself.
I bet god does too.

Right. You're passing judgement on me now. My faith is not just a book. It's a relationship with God. It enables me to do an awful lot of good things that I know I wouldn't have the ability to do without it because I know what I'm like when I let that relationship slide.

he didnt write the bible, he has never spoken to anyone but a few ppl, and he never once told them to live life by a ******* book - thats a human invention, and its a method of controll.

Rubbish. Though if God has never spoken to anyone but a few people, I guess I'm incredibly fortunate to be one of them and to know an awful lot of the rest.

And that is how History will always record it. it was greater then any King, beyond reason and brought masses together - religons have always been like this. from small tribal types, to christianity to Islam to bizzare blood cults. eather way its a human trait.
get over it.
think for yourself.

History will never record things in just one way, it changes according to who is telling the story. Religion can set people free (it was the Christians who started and led the campaign to abolish first the slave trade then slavery itself in the 18th and 19th Centuries), or it can be used in the way both you and I object to - as a method of social control. To portray just one side is to fall into the trap of believing your own propaganda.

[Bouncelot]

Stop press. Impy proclaims himself morally superior to two billion people, almost all of whom he has never met and knows nothing about.

seeing as you regularly state or imply that Christaisn are better people i think you should probably shy clear of being sarcastic on that front...

Christians who genuinely follow their professed religion are better people than they would otherwise have been. Those who are Christians in name only are no better or worse than they would otherwise have been. I wouldn't say that I'm morally superior to any particular person or group, that would be misplaced pride and arrogance.

Also loving the notion of some guy wrote a book ergo it is true. beat that suckas.

Make that "some guy writes a book which draws heavily on his own experience of what it's writing about, therefore it's as true as any first-hand account can be".

if you could type something with actual intellectual content that would be great. If i write all my perceptions down it doesn't make them any more or less true - ergo, refer to original comment.

Hey, I refer to a book where a guy writes about grace and provides copious illustrations of the result of a lack of grace amongst the fundamentalists he grew up amongst and the impact grace has had on his own life and the lives of several others he has met or whose stories he has read. The author clearly knows what he is talking about when describing both sides because he has lived it.

as for civil rights - Rosa Parks didn't take that seat because of religion, she took it because it was mudder fugging obvious that what she was being subjected to was bullsh**. And its all very well touting the non violence approach but, oops, Black Panthers.

Sorry, are you saying that MLK's nonviolence stand (which was motivated by his religious faith) was irrelevant to the course the civil rights movement took (which is what I was actually saying),or are you trying to refute a point I didn't make?

i'm saying that the non violence strategy that you are desperatly trying to attribute soley to religion wasn't actually pioneered by him and that the circumstances in which it originally arose were an application of someone standing up for themselves becasue of theri situation ot because of their faith.[/quote]

The point I was making about MLK's stance was that it was hugely influential - without his leadership the Civil Rights movement could very very easily have become a violent protest group, which would have completely changed the nature of its impact.

And how about Ghandi's nonviolent strategy? Equally inspired by religious beliefs, equally influential, without it the events leading up to Indian independance would have been totally different.

there is no such thing as a 'religous idea' on this front - there are only concepts that are adpted and then you get the later claims of excklusivity in a scrabbling atempt to suggest that values that people are perfectly capable of adopting anyway are derived from faith. Not clubbing someone overthe head becuase you know how being clubbed over the head feels predates religion.

You care to put any evidence for that theory forwards? According to Wikipedia, the earliest examples of nonviolent resistance we have come from around the time of Christ.

Of course i've always had more time for people who do what's right because they come to that conclusion themselves rather than being told it by an invisible entity. Ironically its a thought process you can put more faith in.

Question: how do you know they've got it right about what's right? If I start from a different place to you, I can come up with an entirely different morality than you. I can thing of people who I respect, can see are intelligent, and who have clearly thought through their moral beliefs who I believe to be deeply mistaken, and others who are also intelligent and have thought through ŧheir beliefs on the same issues, and who I more-or-less agree with on the issue. If morality is simply what we individually think to be right, then it is an arbitrary personal preference, rather than a clear case of right and wrong.

[Best First]

Christians who genuinely follow their professed religion are better people than they would otherwise have been.

I wouldn't say that I'm morally superior to any particular person or group, that would be misplaced pride and arrogance.

brilliant.

also - how do you genuniely follow something that Christians themselves can't agree on? oops.

Hey, I refer to a book where a guy writes about grace and provides copious illustrations of the result of a lack of grace amongst the fundamentalists he grew up amongst and the impact grace has had on his own life and the lives of several others he has met or whose stories he has read. The author clearly knows what he is talking about when describing both sides because he has lived it.

there's no way you are going to avoid the point that this is just one man's perception and the fact he has written a book about or used religous concepts does not lend it any greater credence to them because it is just a point of view.

i look forwrad to you using differnt words to restate the same failed point.

The point I was making about MLK's stance was that it was hugely influential - without his leadership the Civil Rights movement could very very easily have become a violent protest group, which would have completely changed the nature of its impact.

so something 'could have' been differnt. well argued.

More to the point, like most of the more useful aspects of religion, there is no actual need to relate the concept of non violence with divinity, it stands up on its own. MLK 'could very very easily' have arrived at that conclusion by himself.

You care to put any evidence for that theory forwards? According to Wikipedia, the earliest examples of nonviolent resistance we have come from around the time of Christ.

actually, according to Wikipedia "the arsenal of violent strategies we take for granted - is a phenomenon of the last five to ten thousand years, and was not present in pre-domestication and early post-domestication human societies." touche.

Question: how do you know they've got it right about what's right? If I start from a different place to you, I can come up with an entirely different morality than you.

i think he maybe getting there folks...

I can thing of people who I respect, can see are intelligent, and who have clearly thought through their moral beliefs who I believe to be deeply mistaken,

and who are you to say that you are right and they are wrong? Would that be misplaced pride and arrogance? Or could it be that they feel equally the same way about you and there is in fact nothing that lends your beliefs any more credence than theirs?

and others who are also intelligent and have thought through ŧheir beliefs on the same issues, and who I more-or-less agree with on the issue.

i love this intelligence judging.

If morality is simply what we individually think to be right, then it is an arbitrary personal preference, rather than a clear case of right and wrong.

i'm sorry, but where does the word arbitrary come from? That would suggest that as a race we have no common experience or sense of others. People don't just make up what's right and wrong off te top of their head, its a decision guided by experience and empathy.

However, ultimatly, yes, morality is a personal decision and, no, there is no clear right and wrong, just consensus. History and present society readily illustrate this with some societies pouring scorn on things that others readily embraced.

there is no objective morality, although there are common points of experience in almost all lives and it would probabluy be constructive if we as a race worked harder to rationally try and come to a more global consensus on things like killing each other etc etc.

But that would be all it was, a consensus, not an objective fact.

scary eh? Probably time to hide behind a certain book for some people i suspect.

[BB Shockwave]

I read through your debate, just my two cents on it:

-I'll be the first to admit religion has downsides as well. People can do horrible things in the name of God - just read the Old Testament. Few know that the 10 commandements. like "Respect your fellow man" were only meant for the jewish socitey. So, "thou shall not kill" - your fellow jew. Other folks? Feel free to go on a rampage.

-Jesus brought us a quite different message. Think about it - he could have easily rallied the jews and have the roman opression overthrown, if he wanted. I personally believe him to be the son of God, but even if you think of him as a simple man, you cannot think he had evil intentions.

-It's quite another thing, what some of his followers did in his name (inquisition, crusades). That's generally what happens with every noble idea - just remember what people did and are doing now in the name of Muhhamad, democracy, enviromentalism, communism. There's propably no idea that hasn't been perverted and used for some people's gain at some time in the past.

Does that mean we should throw them away and forget them? I've known what communism is, even if I only lived in it's ending days. Yet, I still believe it had some truly great ideas that could've been used for the betterment of mankind.

Do you want to throw religion away because it was used for such things in the past, or is used now?

I'm not gonna start a debate whether God exists or not - it's quite an old one, and I doubt we could finish what Voltaire or Nietzsche couldn't and prove his existence/non-existence. Let's just accept, that some of us feel, belive that he does exists and see his work in the world.

I know, that there are sects and religions that try to enforce their believes on non-believers. Catholics or muslims did that in the past too, and despite buddhims's peacefullness, just read a book about the countries' bloody history where it's most practiced.

But, I ask the atheists here - what's the harm if we believe in God and just want others to respect that fact? People tried and are trying to actively destroy religion, to humiliate us, to make fun of our most sacred ideals, all in the name of "freedom of speech".

Yet, these very same people use a double standard and cry havoc when other things are being shown in the same view, like the USA's ideals, Holocaust, or generally things the journalist elite holds dear.

Impy, whatever your think, the majority of the religious people are not "out there to get you". We just want to live our lives according to our believes, we don't knock on your door to convert you, and we can get along well with non-believers without adressing them in a holier-then-thou tone.

We are the majority, and we're just getting friggin tired of all the sh*t the media throws at us. From harmless/funny like picturing the general christian like Ned Flanders, to utterly insulting like a radio announcer in Hungary asking the viewers to go and exterminate all christians.

We're friggin tired of it all. And be glad there are no major religions that responds to such treatment with agression. Ooops. There is. Now the media did it what they could get away with christians and jews, they won't with the muslims.

[Yaya]

There's propably no idea that hasn't been perverted and used for some people's gain at some time in the past.

Exactly. The noble idea itself is not to blame, but the way it is used must be called into question. Those who have such a burning hatred for religion forget this.

We are the majority, and we're just getting friggin tired of all the sh*t the media throws at us.

We're friggin tired of it all. And be glad there are no major religions that responds to such treatment with agression. Ooops. There is. Now the media did it what they could get away with christians and jews, they won't with the muslims.

Couldn't agree more. The media has grown way, way too powerful over the years. CNN is broadcast worldwide and you will believe what they want you to believe.

The fact of the matter is that those groups who seek to control the world fear religion because most teach equality and justice. How can a group bent on power succeed under such principles? It can't. So the media, which is controlled by those in power, want to see religion toppled. They want to depict those Muslims and Christians who raise their voices in opposition as fundamentalist, extremist and the like.

I'm not Christian, but I was damn pleased when I saw that a show mocking Jesus Christ here in the states got axed because Christians actually stood up for once and denounced it openly.

This fear of being called anti-free speech or intolerant is what holds many Christians back in defending their beliefs. They feel that if they speak up against such media undertakings, they will in turn be labelled unAmerican or unpatriotic. Muslims are not so restrained by this, and so, they tend to let others know what they think. Generalizations, of course, but a legitimate trend you will see.

[Professor Smooth]

Let me preface this by saying that I do not hate religion. I don't even hate religious people. My obvious harshness towards religion stems almost entirely from one undeniable fact: The people who try to tell me what I shouldn't be allowed to do have always justified their beliefs based on their religion.

I don't care if people feel the need to pray five times a day. It doesn't effect me. It doesn't effect people I care about. It doesn't effect the world in any meaningful way. I don't care if the vast majority of humanity believes that the almighty God sent his only begotten son to die and thus redeam the faithful. It doesn't effect me. I don't care. I don't care if you don't eat meat on fridays, if you give up something you like for Lent, or if you have your children baptized to help cleanse original sin. It doesn't effect me. It doesn't effect the people I care about. It's just something that some people do.

Now, onto your argument.

The noble idea itself is not to blame, but the way it is used must be called into question. Those who have such a burning hatred for religion forget this.

We do not forget this. However, assigning blame to a concept and not the people who follow, teach, and practice that concept makes no sense. If you were to kill somebody, you would be put on trial. The concept of murder would not.

The media has grown way, way too powerful over the years. CNN is broadcast worldwide and you will believe what they want you to believe.

The fact of the matter is that those groups who seek to control the world fear religion because most teach equality and justice. How can a group bent on power succeed under such principles? It can't. So the media, which is controlled by those in power, want to see religion toppled. They want to depict those Muslims and Christians who raise their voices in opposition as fundamentalist, extremist and the like.

Do you honestly believe this? Do you think that the brain trust behind CNN has ever said anything close to "Religious people believe in tolderance and justice, if they're not made to look like fundamentalist extremists we might wind up losing some of our hold on the world!" I find it difficult to believe that you do. More than likely the thoughts behind CNN was "How can we structure our coverage to bring in the most viewers so that we can charge the most money for advertising and thus make the biggest profit possible. What are people interested in? Religion? Do they want to tune in to see people going to church on Sunday? No? That's boring? Huh, maybe they'll be interested in seeing those guys who blow up people and say God told them to do it." It's about money, not about slandering your relgion.

I'm not Christian, but I was damn pleased when I saw that a show mocking Jesus Christ here in the states got axed because Christians actually stood up for once and denounced it openly.

This is where my dislike of people like you comes from. A program that goes against what you believe comes on one of over one thousand television channels and rather than simply not watch it, a crusade is waged. It's not enough to simply not watch this program. Nobody should be able to watch the program. It offends you, so I can't watch it? Do you see the problem here? If a television program offends you, it should be pulled from the air. If you do something that offends me, then I should shut up and be tolerant of it. You had the option of not watching the program. You chose, instead, to take away my option to watch it.

This fear of being called anti-free speech or intolerant is what holds many Christians back in defending their beliefs. They feel that if they speak up against such media undertakings, they will in turn be labelled unAmerican or unpatriotic. Muslims are not so restrained by this, and so, they tend to let others know what they think. Generalizations, of course, but a legitimate trend you will see.

Christians have never been a silent majority. There have always been those who speak out against that which offends them.

Do you see where I'm coming from? I don't care what you believe. I don't even care much when religiously inclined people tell me what to do. I just have a very large problem when people tell me what I can't do.

[Yaya]

The noble idea itself is not to blame, but the way it is used must be called into question. Those who have such a burning hatred for religion forget this.

assigning blame to a concept and not the people who follow and teach that concept makes no sense. If you were to kill somebody, you would be put on trial.

Isn't that what I just said? I'm in agreement with you on this. The concept of religion is not evil, but the people who use it to further evil ends are.

Do you honestly believe this? Do you think that the brain trust behind CNN has ever said anything close to "Religious people believe in tolderance and justice, if they're not made to look like fundamentalist extremists we might wind up losing some of our hold on the world!" I find it difficult to believe that you do

It's not so simple as that. The media is a tool used to further the ends of whoever controls it. If you don't realize this by now, I doubt you would ever be convinced of this and probably don't believe in the concept of "propoganda". To understand this, you have to accept the idea that it is money and power that makes the world go round. Nothing more. Money and power. Those who have these are the movers and shakers. Those who taste a little of it desire more of it. So it's not so much that those who control the media are "anti-justice" or "anti-religious conviction" for the sake of being antireligious. It is more the fear that those in power might be someday caught wrongfully amassing wealth and then be held accountable for it. This is a major reason why religions such as Islam are constantly maligned in media worldwide. Because every penny under a just and honest system would be accounted for. How many leaders of the world today are portrayed as almost saintly because of the propoganda they have churned out for the masses to soak up, only to later (when it is too late) be discovered as corrupt and unjust to their very core?

There is no bigger threat to the unjust than justice itself. The media is all too often the tool, the shield, used to conceal underhanded, dishonest dealings within the political group in power. Its not for the sake of being antireligious. Its for the sake of money and power preservation.

You say you don't care what religious people do. Good for you. It likely means you are an honest and just person, one who does not hold a position of great political power and is not currently drunk on it, and minds his own business.

But for the ones in power? Religion, the Ten Commandments, etc. is a great, great threat because from its implementation they stand to lose a great deal. You and me? We stand to lose little if anything at all, if we hold to honesty and justice.

It offends you, so I can't watch it?

So if I created a fake video with your mother copulating with a cow and broadcast it worldwide, that would be okay with you? I mean, why should you protest and limit what i want to watch? Don't try and tell me that would be okay with you. That's ********. It would really, really hurt you, and others would think less of you as well. So when Muhammad (PBUH) or Jesus is portrayed in such demeaning ways, that's okay. But if its your mother, I'm sure as hell you wouldn't sit there saying "It's all good brothaaaaaaa"

And what kind of an evil ass would I have to be to actually broadcast such a thing? I can honestly say that if you came up to me and did a Rambo on my ass, dude, I would so deserve that.

As social beings, we have to be sensitive to the feelings of others. You say no one should tell you what to do, but unfortunately, you don't live in a vacuum. You live on earth, with people, with many, many people. Your actions don't just impact you. They impact others.

Hey, I would love to do whatever I liked, see whatever I wanted, say whatever I wanted. But I don't. Why? Because I realize, and perhaps you don't, that what I say and do might hurt someone else. When I don't know that something might hurt someone, that's a different story. My intentions were at least pure. But to create something, like a TV show or cartoon I know will hurt millions of people, knowingly? There's where you and I differ.

[Professor Smooth]

So if I created a fake video with your mother copulating with a cow and broadcast it worldwide, that would be okay with you? I mean, why should you protest and limit what i want to watch? Don't try and tell me that would be okay with you. That's ********. It would really, really hurt you, and others would think less of you as well. So when Muhammad (PBUH) or Jesus is portrayed in such demeaning ways, that's okay. But if its your mother, I'm sure as hell you wouldn't sit there saying "It's all good brothaaaaaaa"

And what kind of an evil ass would I have to be to actually broadcast such a thing? I can honestly say that if you came up to me and did a Rambo on my ass, dude, I would so deserve that.

As social beings, we have to be sensitive to the feelings of others. You say no one should tell you what to do, but unfortunately, you don't live in a vacuum. You live on earth, with people, with many, many people. Your actions don't just impact you. They impact others.

Hey, I would love to do whatever I liked, see whatever I wanted, say whatever I wanted. But I don't. Why? Because I realize, and perhaps you don't, that what I say and do might hurt someone else. When I don't know that something might hurt someone, that's a different story. My intentions were at least pure. But to create something, like a TV show or cartoon I know will hurt millions of people, knowingly? There's where you and I differ.

If you were to go to the effort of making a video of my mother ******* a cow, I would probabaly laugh right along with you. Hell, my MOTHER would probably laugh right along with you. Why? Because it would be FUNNY.

Broadcasting images of my mother would not make you an evil ass. I would argue that it would make you somebody with a sense of humor.

If you live your life avoiding doing anything that might possibly hurt somebody else then you are completely out of luck, my friend. No matter what you do or don't do, you will ALWAYS hurt somebody.

Let's say I put up a picture of Jesus Christ being bent over a fence made from the corpses of Christian babies cloned from stem cells taken from aborted fetuses being gang raped by all of the horses in the Kentucky Derby (and their jockies), while The Lord has a speech bubble saying that not only did the Holocaust never happen, if it HAD happened, he'd be glad that all those ******* kikes bit it. Let's say that I take time out of my day to do that. Who does it hurt? Christians? Jews? Muslims? You? The fans of professional horse racing?

Why? Why does this hurt you? What harm is it doing? If you feel it's in bad taste, then by all means, don't laugh.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I do believe that I have some sketching to do.

[Yaya]

If you were to go to the effort of making a video of my mother ******* a cow, I would probabaly laugh right along with you. Hell, my MOTHER would probably laugh right along with you. Why? Because it would be FUNNY.

Funny? Do you realize this likely puts you in the 0.000000004% of the entire population of the planet earth that would find this humorous? Your holding to this concept puts you at the other end of the spectrum of extremism. For ****s sake, man, its okay to human! Be angry!

I am saddened to hear this would be your reaction, as it likely represents not tolerance, but possibly some deep rooted underlying personality and/or psychiatric issues.

If you live your life avoiding doing anything that might possibly hurt somebody else then you are completely out of luck, my friend. No matter what you do or don't do, you will ALWAYS hurt somebody.

So you think there is something wrong with living a life trying to avoid hurting others? Hmm. Interesting. You live your life your way then. I'll live it mine, with the feelings of others taken into consideration at all times. Nobody said it was easy. But I guess that's why some choose to take the easy way out.

You are quite right in saying it is impossible to not hurt others. Happens all the time. But the key word is intention. Because if one's intentions are pure, then it makes it more likely that the one who is hurt will forgive and forget. Its all about the intention of a person, not the final act.

Why? Why does this hurt you?

Because we're human, that's why. Don't ask others to give up what makes them human. We are not a planet of robots, unfeeling and uncaring. Words can be a very powerful weapon. It is even recognized in courts of law in most democratic states; ever hear of "verbal abuse"? Its a proven entity. I mean, if words cannot hurt, why have such a ruling? By your argument, those who are verbally assaulted should just shut the [composite word including 'f*ck'] up then, right?


I understand now what your concept is. Personally, I think you need to revisit your thought process, as it is not tolerance that you are espousing. You are espousing that we give up our humanity and become robots.

That will never happen.

[Professor Smooth]

Yaya, I don't think you completely understand what I'm saying.

My problem with people of religious inclination begins and ends when they tell me what I can't do.

I am a fairly easy going guy. I do not like to be told what I can not do, however. I want to be allowed to live my life without having to worry about what other people may think about it.

There are plenty of things that people do that I do not like. That does not mean that they should not be allowed to do them.

[Best First]

liar! you want everyone to be robots! With flashing eyes and beeping mouths and everything.

i can tell you now:

THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

[Professor Smooth]

liar! you want everyone to be robots! With flashing eyes and beeping mouths and everything.

i can tell you now:

THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Robotoscism is the ONLY true religion! Termination to the non-believers!

[Best First]

Got Milk?

Then you are human and must die.

[Yaya]

liar! you want everyone to be robots! With flashing eyes and beeping mouths and everything.

i can tell you now:

THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Are you.....are you.....mocking me?

My problem with people of religious inclination begins and ends when they tell me what I can't do.

I would have the same problem as you.

Hey, if Muslims were forcing you to pray five times a day or Christians were forcing you to go to church on Sunday and Jews were forcing you to keep kosher, I can understand where you are coming from. There should be no compulsion in religion. You should have the right to believe as you wish, to believe that religion is a bunch of bullocks.

I'm referring to the idea that intentionally doing or saying something to hurt others whether physically or emotionally, though you might stand to benefit in some way, is not a right you should have. If you are hurting someone purposefully, you should be told what to do in this instance.

I am a fairly easy going guy. I do not like to be told what I can not do, however. I want to be allowed to live my life without having to worry about what other people may think about it.

What would you say to others of the world who don't like to be told what to do either, who break every law, who rape, murder, pillage, etc? Such people don't like to be told what to do either.

Look, as long as your actions do not result in the hurt of others, knock yourself out. I merely point out that we should recognize that words can hurt too. Because we are social beings, we have a responsibility not just for how we feel, but we must take into consideration how others are impacted by our actions.

It isn't easy sometimes to put others above ourselves.

And for the record, if they ever did broadcast such a video of your mom, whether you chose to sit there or not, I would be up front and center shooting it down, protesting in the streets, arguing back in forth with those who feel it falls under "freedom of speech".

I don't buy the concept of rights without responsibility, of power without checks and balances. Too much of a good thing can be a very bad thing, and that goes for freedom of speech and press.

[Professor Smooth]

liar! you want everyone to be robots! With flashing eyes and beeping mouths and everything.

i can tell you now:

THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Are you.....are you.....mocking me?

My problem with people of religious inclination begins and ends when they tell me what I can't do.

I would have the same problem as you.

Hey, if Muslims were forcing you to pray five times a day or Christians were forcing you to go to church on Sunday and Jews were forcing you to keep kosher, I can understand where you are coming from. There should be no compulsion in religion. You should have the right to believe as you wish, to believe that religion is a bunch of bullocks.

I'm referring to the idea that intentionally doing or saying something to hurt others whether physically or emotionally, though you might stand to benefit in some way, is not a right you should have. If you are hurting someone purposefully, you should be told what to do in this instance.

I am a fairly easy going guy. I do not like to be told what I can not do, however. I want to be allowed to live my life without having to worry about what other people may think about it.

What would you say to others of the world who don't like to be told what to do either, who break every law, who rape, murder, pillage, etc? Such people don't like to be told what to do either.

Look, as long as your actions do not result in the hurt of others, knock yourself out. I merely point out that we should recognize that words can hurt too. Because we are social beings, we have a responsibility not just for how we feel, but we must take into consideration how others are impacted by our actions.

It isn't easy sometimes to put others above ourselves.

And for the record, if they ever did broadcast such a video of your mom, whether you chose to sit there or not, I would be up front and center shooting it down, protesting in the streets, arguing back in forth with those who feel it falls under "freedom of speech".

I don't buy the concept of rights without responsibility, of power without checks and balances. Too much of a good thing can be a very bad thing, and that goes for freedom of speech and press.

The point of freedom of speech is that you or I can say those things that offend other people without having to worry about being punished for it.

If you believe show airing a program that defames your beliefs is equal to raping or killing somebody, then I don't think we're going to get past this gap in our beliefs.

I would rather be forced to pray 5 times a day that be told that I am unable to pray 5 times a day.

[Best First]

liar! you want everyone to be robots! With flashing eyes and beeping mouths and everything.

i can tell you now:

THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Are you.....are you.....mocking me?

sorry, the evil puppet masters made me do it through the media.

booga booga booga.

[BB Shockwave]

Let me preface this by saying that I do not hate religion. I don't even hate religious people. My obvious harshness towards religion stems almost entirely from one undeniable fact: The people who try to tell me what I shouldn't be allowed to do have always justified their beliefs based on their religion.

Do you see where I'm coming from? I don't care what you believe. I don't even care much when religiously inclined people tell me what to do. I just have a very large problem when people tell me what I can't do.

Just a question: judging by your credo here, I take you also have problems with the police, the law, teachers, politicians and pretty much anyone else who tries to tell you the way they want you to live?

We humans live in a society and we must accept the laws set down as guidelines.

In a religion, that's a bit different - a member of a religion would like to have the world behave according the way his/her religion wants, but only expects the members of said religion to go by the rules. Certainly, if a religious leader/spokesperson says his/her opinion on how the people should behave, don't think that means you, a non-believer have to do that.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Rules of law are created with by logical actions. each action can be reasonably worked out.
Religous based laws are built upon a foundation of faith, and faith isnt enough when it comes to peoples lifes. mainly because you cannot prove what your belive in.

[Bouncelot]

Rules of law are created with by logical actions. each action can be reasonably worked out.

In some cases yes. In others no. Politicians don't always make the law on the basis of well-thought-out and logical ideas. There are plenty of politicians throughout history who have been influenced by political ideologies that make as little sense to those who don't follow them as religious beliefs make to you.

Religous based laws are built upon a foundation of faith, and faith isnt enough when it comes to peoples lifes. mainly because you cannot prove what your belive in.

And those pushing political ideologies can prove what they believe in?

[Best First]

they can go a bit better than 'because my big invisible friend says so' yes.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

And those pushing political ideologies can prove what they believe in?

As BF says.

[Metal Vendetta]

Exactly. At least there is the possibility of questioning their law because it doesn't come from a mysterious "Higher Authority". It's one person's judgement against another's, not a holy writ.

[Yaya]

Most religious law does follow logical thought, though the basis of them is purely faith.

I think the Ten Commandments, for example, are quite logical. In fact, though on the surface they are simple, in reality, if one gets down to it and studies the social and personal ramifications of their meaning, they all have practical, not just spiritual, benefits. However, I follow the Ten Commandments because I believe this is what God has ordained for me, not because they appeal to my practical sense. If I went merely by what made sense to me, I would certainly be lost because I would find myself in error much of the time, regardless of how right something seemed to me at first glance.

In the end, for the faithful, the answer to the question of "Why should I follow this?" is because "God has deemed it so", regardless of the practicality that may appeal to us. Why should I not kill another? For me, it is because God has deemed it the better way. Same with stealing, lying, coveting, fornicating, etc.

[Professor Smooth]

Just a question: judging by your credo here, I take you also have problems with the police, the law, teachers, politicians and pretty much anyone else who tries to tell you the way they want you to live?

We humans live in a society and we must accept the laws set down as guidelines.

I do, in many cases, have problems with laws set down by teachers, politicians, and pretty much everyone else who tells me how to live. There are some things I can accept as benefitial to most everyone. Killing being illegal in most cases, for example, seems to work for pretty much everyone involved. Not stealing or raping, same deal. These things protect the well-being of people.

As for accepting them, that's simply not true. We much abide by them, but there is nothing preventing people like me from protesting the law and trying to get it changed.

In a religion, that's a bit different - a member of a religion would like to have the world behave according the way his/her religion wants, but only expects the members of said religion to go by the rules. Certainly, if a religious leader/spokesperson says his/her opinion on how the people should behave, don't think that means you, a non-believer have to do that.

Yaya has mentioned that he supported the censorship of a program that had something negative to say about Jesus. Now, while I would support the church coming out saying that it would ask its members to abstain from watching it, the censorship effected all non-believers as well. Among those non-believers is myself.

Aside from being a violation of freedom of speech, it is also a case of the beliefs of the religious taking away the freedom of choice from people who do not share their beliefs.

In the end, for the faithful, the answer to the question of "Why should I follow this?" is because "God has deemed it so", regardless of the practicality that may appeal to us. Why should I not kill another? For me, it is because God has deemed it the better way. Same with stealing, lying, coveting, fornicating, etc.

Why should I not kill another? Because I don't want to take away someone's life. Because I am not a violent person. Because I would expect the same consideration from other people?

I would not steal because it would negatively effect the person whose property was taken. I have nothing against lying, coveting (both of which make the economy what it is) and fornicating. Would you, as a person of religious inclination, take away my ability to do all of those based on your personal beliefs?

[Yaya]

Why should I not kill another? Because I don't want to take away someone's life. Because I am not a violent person. Because I would expect the same consideration from other people?

I would not steal because it would negatively effect the person whose property was taken.

All true, and just more examples of how religious teachings have not only spiritual but practical significance as well.

I have nothing against lying, coveting (both of which make the economy what it is)

So as long as the ends justify the means, everythings okay, huh? As long as one can acquire wealth, the means by which it is attained are fair game?

At the risk of sounding amazingly trite here, money isn't everything and not a reason for dishonesty or greed.

But I think with these very words I have come to understand where you are coming from. You and I, we are quite different. Let's leave it at that.

and fornicating. Would you, as a person of religious inclination, take away my ability to do all of those based on your personal beliefs

That would depend entirely on the context of the situation.

Some actions are between people, others are between man and his Maker. If you are putting me in a position with some kind of legal authority, I would hold you accountable for only those crimes committed against another person. Whatever else you do, is between you and God, and I would have no authority to intervene in that.

However, if you were say, a Muslim or Christian, and Islam or Christianity upheld a certain punishment for an action against God, then it would be appropriate that you face a punishment fitting for the crime based on Christian or Muslim law.

As it is, because you do not live in a country based on Christian or Muslim law, nor are you Muslim or Christian, and because you feel that fornication is okay, then nobody should have the authority to hold you accountable for this. Again, this is an issue left between you and God, particularly in a land where religious law is not the foundation for the legal system.

The context of the situation must be taken into account. I know of no country whose legal system is based on Christian doctrine, and very few, if any Muslim countries who have Islamic law as the foundation of their legal system.

[Professor Smooth]

You keep repeating the same thing:

I should not be allowed to do things that your religion forbids.

Do you understand how incredibly dangerous that line of thinking can and has been over the years?

[Metal Vendetta]

I know of no country whose legal system is based on Christian doctrine, and very few, if any Muslim countries who have Islamic law as the foundation of their legal system.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria... and let's not forget the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. These regimes all operate under Islamic laws.

Is gay marriage legal in the States yet? Or is it that laws there are based on religious ideals about marriage?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

In the end, for the faithful, the answer to the question of "Why should I follow this?" is because "God has deemed it so", regardless of the practicality that may appeal to us. Why should I not kill another? For me, it is because God has deemed it the better way. Same with stealing, lying, coveting, fornicating, etc.

Thats so scary.

I follow a set of laws like ' I wont kill ppl' because I know its wrong, not because it was written on some stone tablets by 'god'

I cannot belive for 1 second that if there was a god, and think about this, he would want you to live like this. surely he wants you, like Jesus Christ did, to work stuff out foryourself, to be a human being, not a human doing.

Thats not to say you cannot worsip a 'god' if you like, and lick his bum, (even tho I find the notion a god requires brown noseing to be the daftest thing ever, "god has an ego" kind of impossible really) but surely he would like you to think for yourself.

And thus, full circle to my point, religon is to controll the masses.
because you will do what ever your religon asks you to do without thoughts.

If it said kill all jews, would you? - because some religons arnt to far off it at the moment.

[Brendocon]

I'd read through this thread, but I've got a feeling it's a repeat. I may just wait for the DVD.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

thinking some more on this.

Following gods rules etc...

When a religous person is growing up, before they are religous, and lets be honest, you need to be of a slightly mature age to actually know what your supporting.

Are you a thief,murderer etc... untill you work out the 10 commandments? or somthing equal?

Were you mindlessly stealing and killing? - no, I doubt you were because right aand wrong are natural things you adopt, socialogy has proven this for along time.

So, why do you need to follow gods rules when I dont?

Also, alot of gods rules are crap. no to homosexuality is stupid.